Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PCI Express 2.0 backwards compatible, but...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 5, 2009 6:34:28 AM

So I just bought a package HP from Costco. Here are the specs.
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01...

I want to get this card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I have PCI Express x16 and x1 slots, and I know that the card is backwards compatible at the cost of a drop in performance.

How much performance loss will I have? Is it worth it?
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 6:59:39 AM

Firstly there is no loss of performance by using a PCIE 1.0 or 1.1 slot with a 2.0 card. None that you or me would notice anyway. If you did a test rig and tested it would show a difference but not worth worrying about.
Secondly and much more important is the fact that the card you linked to wont be able to run on your system because your power supply isnt big enough to feed it.
If you look under the Specs tab it says you need a minimum of 500 watt power supply. some power supplies are better than others and while the card would almost definatly run on a decent 450 watt PSU your 300 watt PSU dosent have a hope im afraid.
So your options are either get a bigger PSU or a smaller card.

Mactronix
October 5, 2009 7:55:09 AM

mactronix said:
Firstly there is no loss of performance by using a PCIE 1.0 or 1.1 slot with a 2.0 card. None that you or me would notice anyway. If you did a test rig and tested it would show a difference but not worth worrying about.
Secondly and much more important is the fact that the card you linked to wont be able to run on your system because your power supply isnt big enough to feed it.
If you look under the Specs tab it says you need a minimum of 500 watt power supply. some power supplies are better than others and while the card would almost definatly run on a decent 450 watt PSU your 300 watt PSU dosent have a hope im afraid.
So your options are either get a bigger PSU or a smaller card.

Mactronix



Thanks for the fast reply. I'm very relieved to hear that it won't take much of a performance hit. I was actually planning on getting a larger PSU as well, but forgot to mention it. Newegg estimates I will need at least 530w. I'm hoping this one will suffice.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 8:40:33 AM

I think PCIe 1.x 16x slots have about the same bandwidth as PCIe 2.0 8x slots, which is more than enough.
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 1:58:45 PM

Cori said:
So I just bought a package HP from Costco. Here are the specs.
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01...

I want to get this card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I have PCI Express x16 and x1 slots, and I know that the card is backwards compatible at the cost of a drop in performance.

How much performance loss will I have? Is it worth it?



Welcome! I am going to rain on your parade a little, sorry. But I tell it like I see it.

:pfff:  You should worry more about the processor you have running at 2.3ghz.
That is going to cause a much bigger performance bottleneck than the PCI bus version.
See what HP did here? 8 gig of memory and a quad core!!
Sure, it has a whopping 8 gig of memory, it will be great for multitasking several programs at once that do not require a fast processor to run. It may be a quad core, but it is a very slow quad core. It will handle Microsoft Office, email, MP3's, movies, etc., all the normal everyday stuff without missing a beat. But a gaming system, it is not, and I am afraid it is going to disappoint you even after your planned upgrades.
It will not run the video card anywhere close to it's performance potential.
I know the deal is already done, but why did you buy a cheap HP rig, which clearly was not built to suit your needs, (if you intended on gaming on it) and then start dumping more money into it by upgrading everything? Why didn't you do your own build?
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 2:37:54 PM

jitpublisher said:
Welcome! I am going to rain on your parade a little, sorry. But I tell it like I see it.

:pfff:  You should worry more about the processor you have running at 2.3ghz.
That is going to cause a much bigger performance bottleneck than the PCI bus version.
See what HP did here? 8 gig of memory and a quad core!!
Sure, it has a whopping 8 gig of memory, it will be great for multitasking several programs at once that do not require a fast processor to run. It may be a quad core, but it is a very slow quad core. It will handle Microsoft Office, email, MP3's, movies, etc., all the normal everyday stuff without missing a beat. But a gaming system, it is not, and I am afraid it is going to disappoint you even after your planned upgrades.
It will not run the video card anywhere close to it's performance potential.
I know the deal is already done, but why did you buy a cheap HP rig, which clearly was not built to suit your needs, (if you intended on gaming on it) and then start dumping more money into it by upgrading everything? Why didn't you do your own build?


Don't make it sound like he totally screwed himself, that is a just little over dramatic. Not everyone has the knowledge and experience to make perfect PC purchasing decisions every single time, and in this situation, a complete computer with an option to upgrade might be exactly what he was looking for. Get off your soapbox. You make it sound like he wasted his cash, which he certainly did not. From a hardcore, OCD benchmarking point of view, yes, that box will not suffice. For the average person who wants to do some gaming and get general use out of the computer, and is willing to ugprade it, it is a fine piece of kit.

Pretty much any video card you put in there will be an improvement over the onboard, and no, PCI-E 1.0 won't hold you back. The 260 (216) will work well, and you should enjoy gaming on it. :D 
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 3:52:04 PM

Well, you certainly have the right to say what you think, just like I said what I think. And it's all opinion, that is what is nice about these forums, you can get a whole scope of opinions.

a c 130 U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 4:47:08 PM

@ Cori,

I'm glad JofaMang posted because to be quite honest when i read what jitpublisher posted my jaw nearly hit the floor. While everyone is entitled to post there opinion, which is good in a discussion thread opinion has no place in a post asking a direct technical question. These posts should stick to the facts.
So lets go with some facts shall we.
As far as the CPU goes then yes you could Overclock it and get better performance out of your graphics card and yes you could have bought a much faster CPU to start with like say a E8600, or even an i7 but in real terms truth is until you have the fastest production CPU money can buy and you cant physically overclock it any further its almost always possable to get faster FPS results by getting a faster CPU or overclocking what you have.
Talking of which if you fancy overclocking your CPU a bit, there are plenty of people over on the Overclocking part of the forum that would be more than willing to help. Just a word of caution though it is possable that you wont be able to Overclock as some prebuilts are actually locked in the Bios, I know Dell does but i have never been in the guts of a HP so cant say for sure, its possable that there may be some software Overclocking options available though. Anyway if they can help you get it up to 3GHZ then with the 260 you plan to get you will have a faster better system than the one in jitpublishers configuration :D 
Back to the PSU. The one you linked is a very good one, bit over the top for your needs now but perfect if you plan to carry it forward to a new system should you decide to give building your own a try.

Either way Overclock or not, you in no way have a bad system and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Mactronix ;) 
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 6:09:35 PM

Well, I did not mean to insinuate the OP's PC is junk, and I do not believe that I said it either. In fact, I think I said for normal everyday use it will be quite a good machine.
Maybe I should not post before my second cup of coffee. And we have not heard back from the OP yet, but with the upgrades he is planning, I can only assume he wants to do more than a little casual gaming. And I am afraid that overclocking that HP is going to be a tall order as well, if it can be done at all.
But I was surprised to see him ask about the PCIe bus version, see that tells me that the OP knows a little about these things, and actually asked a very good question. But the truth is, there are other things in his build that are going to be much more of a problem than the PCI bus version. Sorry if went overboard and jumped up on my soapbox, which as you all know is where I belong anyway........

Oh and touche' Mactronix, and yes, he would have a better system than mine for sure, my god that would not be hard to do.
However, my system pretty much does what I need it to do, but if someone jumped and said HEY! you are messing up here, this would be a lot better, or you should do this. If I was asking for advice, I WOULD listen!
Heck guys, I am still playing Mechwarrior 2.....................:) 
October 5, 2009 7:09:08 PM

Thanks for your feedback everyone. Even you jit ;) . To answer your question, the reason I didn't build my PC is because my other one kicked the bucket and I needed a replacement quick.

I'm still going to upgrade the gpu and psu to see what this thing can do, and if need be, I can carry them on to my new system as I do have 90 days to figure out whether or not I am fully satisfied.

My only concern now is whether or not the card will fit in the case with all the other components.
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 7:50:31 PM

Hey, let us know how it goes Cori, this has gotten pretty interesting.
October 5, 2009 10:38:30 PM

Cori said:
Will do. Oh, and I'm usually an Nvidia guy, but someone just brought this card to my attention.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

What do you guys think?

I wouldn't be too worried about a processor bottleneck - depending on your resolution, you likely won't hit it. Same with bandwidth saturation on the PCIe slot, you should be fine.

The GTX 260 and HD 4870 cards seem to be on a pretty even plane performance-wise, with one outperforming the other (marginally) depending on the game. If you go the 4870 route, you're right to be looking at the 1gb over the 512mb cards.
October 6, 2009 2:39:38 AM

I would like to tell everyone that when it comes to Dual-Quad Cores if you have a 2Ghz Dual Core it would act like a 4GHz Single Core, just like if you have a 2Ghz Quad core it would run like a 8Ghz Single Core. There are ratings for every CPU and motherboard you might want to check what your really using and before you buy something and find out you need something else. Also the only way to get a bottleneck is if your going to be gaming at anything higher that 1280 by 1024.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 5:22:02 AM

Rahbot said:
I would like to tell everyone that when it comes to Dual-Quad Cores if you have a 2Ghz Dual Core it would act like a 4GHz Single Core, just like if you have a 2Ghz Quad core it would run like a 8Ghz Single Core. There are ratings for every CPU and motherboard you might want to check what your really using and before you buy something and find out you need something else. Also the only way to get a bottleneck is if your going to be gaming at anything higher that 1280 by 1024.


There is a lot wrong with what you have posted. Please do some research before you try to pass what you are saying off as fact. I find it offensive as a computer guy, and double as much as a forum advice guy.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 5:24:34 AM

Rahbot said:
I would like to tell everyone that when it comes to Dual-Quad Cores if you have a 2Ghz Dual Core it would act like a 4GHz Single Core, just like if you have a 2Ghz Quad core it would run like a 8Ghz Single Core. There are ratings for every CPU and motherboard you might want to check what your really using and before you buy something and find out you need something else. Also the only way to get a bottleneck is if your going to be gaming at anything higher that 1280 by 1024.


(NSFW - language) http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo100/dquirming_octo...
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 8:27:06 PM

JofaMang said:
There is a lot wrong with what you have posted. Please do some research before you try to pass what you are saying off as fact. I find it offensive as a computer guy, and double as much as a forum advice guy.


Big + 1 there.

@ Cori,
Either card would be a fine fit for your system but it could pay to wait just a little longer to see what the new AMD/ATI 5770 card is like for price/performance before you make a decision to buy. They are said to be released within a couple of weeks.
If you just cant wait, and i know how it is i have been there myself, then my personal preferance would be marginaly for the 4870 1GB card

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 12:59:45 PM

I would prefer the 4870 myself, but either is fine as your processor is going to the limiting factor with cards in this class....... :) 
(I am still standing my ground on this)


RahBoT, like I say everyone has their opinion, but yours is profoundly, insultingly, and just simply, incorrect.
October 14, 2009 11:56:33 PM

mactronix said:
Big + 1 there.

@ Cori,
Either card would be a fine fit for your system but it could pay to wait just a little longer to see what the new AMD/ATI 5770 card is like for price/performance before you make a decision to buy. They are said to be released within a couple of weeks.
If you just cant wait, and i know how it is i have been there myself, then my personal preferance would be marginaly for the 4870 1GB card

Mactronix



So my card and psu finally came in. I installed them, but for some reason, Vista is not recognizing my new graphics card (4870). The fan on the card is running, the monitor is connected to it and I can use the computer, but it doesn't show in device manager, so the drivers won't install.

I've changed the bios to the correct PCIE slot, disabled the integrated card, took the card out put it back in, and still no luck. ASUS customer support says the card is working, but the OS is the problem. Any ideas?
October 15, 2009 9:09:59 AM

Nevermind, a simple windows update fixed it.
October 15, 2009 10:53:22 AM

Rahbot said:
I would like to tell everyone that when it comes to Dual-Quad Cores if you have a 2Ghz Dual Core it would act like a 4GHz Single Core, just like if you have a 2Ghz Quad core it would run like a 8Ghz Single Core. There are ratings for every CPU and motherboard you might want to check what your really using and before you buy something and find out you need something else. Also the only way to get a bottleneck is if your going to be gaming at anything higher that 1280 by 1024.


sounds like the stuff they tell noobs in computer shops(just to sell quads)
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 15, 2009 4:27:27 PM

Cori said:
Nevermind, a simple windows update fixed it.



Glad you fixed it, i was going to post earlier that you should check your fully patched and up to date but my daughter fell down a couple of stairs so i had to rush out and take her to doc's to be on safe side. :sweat: 

Mactronix
!