Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphic & Displays > Graphics Cards > PCI-E 1.x bandwidth saturation

PCI-E 1.x bandwidth saturation

Forum Graphic & Displays : Graphics Cards - PCI-E 1.x bandwidth saturation

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
lawsudz   10-23-2009 at 04:08:07 PM

Where can I get some reliable information on data transfer rates of graphics cards (i.e. bandwidth)?

I have pci-e 1.x (x16) slot and would like to buy a 2.x card, but don't want to buy more card than I have bandwidth, because I'm planning a major upgrade in 12-16 months.

I don't want to hear any questions on whether i've updated drivers and do i have an adequate power supply, etc., etc.. I simply want to know if the most recent cards are capable of saturating a pci-e 1.x (x16) slot (which for some reason I can't find any info on).

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
lawsudz   10-23-2009 at 05:30:02 PM

@tomasz

that doesn't fully answer my question, but it is interesting to see that even today's biggest cards aren't hampered at half the speed. thanks.

anyone else?

Reply to lawsudz
tomasz   10-23-2009 at 06:18:26 PM

just to clarify, quote from articles introduction:

It should also be noted that PCI-Express 2.0 doubles the bandwidth available per lane. So if you read about PCI-E x8 2.0 in this review, these results are representative of a PCI-E x16 link in 1.1 mode - like on many old motherboard.

Reply to tomasz
lawsudz   10-23-2009 at 06:47:08 PM

Quote :

So if you read about PCI-E x8 2.0 in this review, these results are representative of a PCI-E x16 link in 1.1 mode - like on many old motherboard.



Yes, I saw that. Still I'm hoping someone can point me in the direction of how much bandwidth newer cards need (i.e. how much raw data these cards are pulling through the interface). All I can find are articles from early 2008 saying that 2.x cards should be fine on 1.x slots, but yet nobody seems to have any numbers. It seems to me that newer cards (those since early 2008) may be starting to approach the capacity of 1.x, otherwise what's the point of 2.x and the upcoming 3.x and their greater transfer speeds?

I'm a numbers person because I like to do my own research. "It should be fine" doesn't do it for me.

Again, thank you tomasz for your efforts.

Reply to lawsudz
Bronze Graphics badge shadow187   10-23-2009 at 06:49:11 PM

The point isn't transfer speeds. It's how much power the lanes output.

1.0 - 75W
2.0 - 150W
3.0 - 300W?

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to shadow187
lawsudz   10-23-2009 at 07:48:48 PM

shadow187 wrote :

The point isn't transfer speeds. It's how much power the lanes output.

 

1.0 - 75W
2.0 - 150W
3.0 - 300W?

 

Wrong. A pci-e 1.x and 2.x slot only supply 75w. Additional power can be supplied with connectors up to 300w for 2.x.

 

Short of posting SIGs regs themselves, this article is pretty clear on the issue: http://www.10stripe.com/featured/q [...] 2-0.php#bw

 

, and a simple google search on the subject will lead to other support. Yes, quicker transfer speeds allow for lower wattage = greater efficiency, but that is not the point.

 

The point is most definitely transfer speeds.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by lawsudz on 10-23-2009 at 08:15:05 PM
Reply to lawsudz
Bronze Graphics badge shadow187   10-23-2009 at 09:54:06 PM

Why should transfer speeds matter when we haven't even hit the ceiling of them? TSH showed 24 SSD drives, which had a capacity of 4GB/s transfer speeds. Yet the PCI-E 1.0x16 lane limited it to 2GB/s. If they'd used a PCI-E 2.0 x16 lane, then the ceiling wouldn't exist. But think about it; it takes 24 SSD drives to hit the ceiling of the PCI-E2.0 slot.

WHAT USER HAS 24 SSD DRIVES.

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to shadow187
lawsudz   10-23-2009 at 10:36:47 PM

shadow187 wrote :

Why should transfer speeds matter when we haven't even hit the ceiling of them? TSH showed 24 SSD drives, which had a capacity of 4GB/s transfer speeds. Yet the PCI-E 1.0x16 lane limited it to 2GB/s. If they'd used a PCI-E 2.0 x16 lane, then the ceiling wouldn't exist. But think about it; it takes 24 SSD drives to hit the ceiling of the PCI-E2.0 slot.

WHAT USER HAS 24 SSD DRIVES.



The article sounds interesting, what's the cite? Even still though, data transfer rates clearly have an effect - read the article tomasz cited above.

Also this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1915.html

Reply to lawsudz
Bronze Graphics badge shadow187   10-23-2009 at 10:54:47 PM

Luv, the Pci-E2.0x8 and PCI-E1.0x16 have a difference of 1 FPS in the benchmarks. In CoD4, the difference was 13, but they were both above 120FPS, so it mattered not.

Reply to shadow187
Strangestranger   10-24-2009 at 12:42:54 AM

lawsudz wrote :

Wrong. A pci-e 1.x and 2.x slot only supply 75w. Additional power can be supplied with connectors up to 300w for 2.x.

Short of posting SIGs regs themselves, this article is pretty clear on the issue: http://www.10stripe.com/featured/q [...] 2-0.php#bw

, and a simple google search on the subject will lead to other support. Yes, quicker transfer speeds allow for lower wattage = greater efficiency, but that is not the point.

The point is most definitely transfer speeds.



Extremely interesting. I have always heard it as being 150W but it would appear not.

------------------------------ I'm a git, deal with it.

Antec 1200,PC Power & Cooling 750,Gigabyte DS4-x48,Intel Q9550@3.4 W/Xigmatek S1283,8GB OCZ DDR2 800,ATI 4870X2,X-FI>CA 640C amp>Tannoy R300/Senn 595's
 Reply to Strangestranger
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphic & Displays > Graphics Cards > PCI-E 1.x bandwidth saturation
Go to:

There are 655 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.264 seconds
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them