Closed Solved

PCI e 2.1 cards in pci e 2.0 motherboards?

Hi all,

I ave been scoping out and putting together and new build consisting of Asus' Crosshair V 990 FX or Another similar, (possibly ASUS Sabertooth 990FX AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS and have half my components in my wish list, however when it came to graphics cards i spent nearly a WEEK poring over them, and decided 2GB minimum, gddr5 and 5gbs minimum, all to support the new AMD 8 Core processor (my first AMD board) as i wasn't thrilled with the Intel 6 (980x) core so i am hoping this new 8 core processor has more balls.
However when it came down to it i realized NONE of the am3+ motherboards have 2.1 pci express slots and there were TWO 2.0 graphics cards with 2 gb ram and not eve gddr5 at that.

Will i be able to use an AMD based Radeon graphics card shown below, with this mother board???

here's what i have so far in my choices...
I am sure to begin with 16 GB ddrd3 ram, i am also struggling with Asus QVL vs newegg's availability and pricing, which seems to be limited to 8gb chips only of which there are VERY few in this list...but that is another struggle for another day lol!

Antec Three Hundred Illusion Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard with 3-Way SLI/CrossFireX Support and UEFI BIOS

HIS IceQ X Turbo H695QNT2G2M Radeon HD 6950 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card with Eyefinity

Rosewill BRONZE Series RBR1000-M 1000W Continuous@40°C, 80Plus Bronze Certified,Modular Cable Design,Active PFC"Compatible with Core i7, i5" Power Supply

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8150FRGUBOX

Thanks for any of the great feedback i often find here!

21 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about cards motherboards
  1. Best answer
    Yup, shouldn't have any problem at all. PCI-E 2.1 is EXACTLY same with 2.0. Its just for marketing gimmick. And that PSU is overpower. 700W Antec, SeaSonic, Corsair should do it. Unless, you want to X-Fire than 850W is enough.
  2. surely they will work with 2.0,

    i think amd fx8 will not provide you any performance benifit over extreme cpu of i7 1st gen (i7 980x)
  3. @OP
    you had a 980X and you wanna try the FX ? the 980X is more powerful than the FX 8150, actually the Bulldozer is worse than the current Phenom II CPUs.

    No problem at all with PCIE 2.1 cards, it's the same as PCIE 2.0 but with different instructions that should be implemented in PCIE 3.0 standards.

    If you're going a single GPU, a 500W PSU is sufficient, if you're going CF a max of 750W PSU is sufficient but pick up a Quality branded one like the guy above suggested.
  4. I am always astounded by the expedience in replies that ultimately reflects a wealth of reliable information, and turns dazzle in to real terms and dissipates or validates fears of taking such risks.... and from what I've browsed here over the years (not being experienced enough to really contribute) always offer views of peoples successes and failures, both teaching no less than the other!

    Excellent and greatly appreciated....Just felt that a lurker like myself, should speak out now and then in appreciation of what you all have already done to help others, that so may other draws from for years in some cases.

    Thanks so much... people like you make this place what it is!!
    Thanks again... I really was in horror of finding that discrepancy, thinking they were fooling others in to confusing the direction of backwards compatible since those trying succeed, but that's because of what you IS compatible, and i was thinking i knew better for it being incompatible from higher to i was the one being fooled... you rock!!!

  5. I forgot to mention..LOL!!!

    Thanks for the heads up on overpowering...i am all for saving the bucks and getting a better grade one... agreed, but i was also willing to ensure i had more than enough for the eventual additional GPU's , but as you mention, even then it is still too much.... i highly doubt i would go for three of anything.....not with what these pack these days! I am more graphics art manipulation and audio video, with a little gaming recently...but i can't STAND waiting seconds after seconds for the edit updates to process LoL!!!

    I am curious if there is increased risk for going TOO high above the expected with cushion, load...that would kcause other components to deteriorate more rapidly too?

    You had such good answers it spawned additional questions LOL!

    Thanks! Night...

  6. truegenius said:
    surely they will work with 2.0,

    i think amd fx8 will not provide you any performance benifit over extreme cpu of i7 1st gen (i7 980x)

    If I may ask.... what is it you base this statement on? I ask not as a challenge but instead a means by which to understand!

    It's in an Asus p6x58 premium with 24 GB ram, and
    6gbs 1TB Black WD X2
    3gbs 1TB Black WD X3
    XFX 5870 2GBgddr5 GPU
    and above power supply :)

    I'm interested in your logic, or anyone's views... maybe i am missing something!

    Thanks again... i occurs to me... they should add thank you buttons or reputation for this beyond just "best answer" there are ALWAYS more than one great answer!!!
  7. No, it's not a problem if you go higher juice on PSU. But, efficiencies play a big role in this. You don't want your PSU to take more than required juice from the wall.
  8. i have a 2.1v card (6770) which is working on a v1.0 pcie slot and it is the base of that statement
  9. truegenius said:
    i have a 2.1v card (6770) which is working on a v1.0 pcie slot and it is the base of that statement

    My bad for not specifying... i wasn't challenging your reply to the graphics card, but instead the reference to the 8150 not quite standing up to the Intel X980, is the configuration i added in my post... the reason why i am looking for trying this first time AMD build, is because of my disappointment with the Intel build listed, in as much as any OC attempts result in instability, granted I am not bios wizard, but even with stock settings, i sincerely expected to find this think BLAZE compared to my quad core build,
    (Asus P5QProTurbo
    Intel core quad Q9400 2.67Ghz,
    8GB ram,
    2.8 TB across three WD black 3gbs hdd's,
    1 x XFX HD-575X-ZNFC Radeon HD 5750 1GB 128-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Video Card with Eyefinity
    Shared between both...three 24" Samsung led lcd monitors.
    HEC 700 watt PSU
    and although it does do the video editing processes MUCH faster, it has a degree of skittishness, in as much as when say loading 80 to 100 tabs in a new browser session, my mouse pointer skips and jitters and jumps around, and does so with any light processor demands...I have since traded out my MS 5000 blue laser mouse to a new logitech mouse, and the same thing still occurs whenever the processor is already working on something, for instance, when loading a "light" game like Bejeweled, which is somewhat GPU demanding, for all the animations, and playing within a window, not full screen, movement within the game, or outside of it, becomes scattered and the pointer will jump five times further than i moved, skipping everything between, so i am selecting a long list, it drops the earlier portion and resumes from the point it reappeared, or doesn't move at all, and them will catch up and jump too far and often seems to taunt me by disallowing selection of a single button, for which it will jump past that specific point i want to be on and this is extremely frustrating... it seems like the input buffers are not handling the data flow smoothly if that is at all an accurate term for what moving the mouse is based in, i do not have any keyboard input lags so the keyboard buffers are chaining input well, not sure if they use the same set of buffers or not...but in lieu of these problems, i ran about 7 hours of torture testing (prime 95) and 5 hours of intense GPU stress tests (forget the source of this... will post when i recall it) with no errors, and nothing going higher than 107° F throughout.
    I feel these "everyday" use tasks of the usual, when not doing high end graphics work, this thing should fly with stock settings, but since the CPU alone was $999, I wasn't risking OC ing it if i can't even get it to run smoothly and with stability with factory settings.

    So now you have a much broader picture of the circumstances maybe I can discern either, something I missed doing, or did incorrectly, impeding the system's potential, or failed TO DO, or if I have unrealistic expectations, but truth be told, no matter WHAT I throw at my quad core, these issues never arise, does it bog down... yes, but I do not lose pointer stability, or tracking, and i do not "lock up" for minutes at a time after any random command, or program launch. and cannot deal with things as they are.... i also am going AMD this time for the experience and to become more familiar in how this architecture and supporting factors/functions are achieved to better understand everything really, including getting a better handle with bios overclocking instead of using the stock software "turbo boost" for which I barely if at all notice any difference except for the fans spinning up higher.

    Thanks for all the feedback info etc.. it is greatly appreciated... I am thinking that to b e fair maybe I should request these last two post be put in to a new starter post and create a new thread, so that "best answer can apply to both my initial question, and then the replies to the subsequent any advice as to how that is viewed by admins.mods here would also be appreciated....have to run out for now... will check back later when i return... I have an on site new setup to do about 65 miles away, so it will be a WHILE before I can return.

    Thanks again,
    Edits were the horrendous typos i missed!
  10. @ TSG
    what's your problem? and what do you wish to get answer for?
  11. you should try to reinstall the windows (do a full format of that hdd), or if you don't want to reinstall window then try to swap the hdd of your quad and i7 setup to see the result.

    this lagging in daily tasks is a error in software or a work of a virus, (or in worst case, hardware incompatability or defective component)
  12. ilysaml said:
    @ TSG
    what's your problem? and what do you wish to get answer for?

    No problem... you made the statement that my existing i7 X980 was superior to the AMD FX 8150 Zambezi that i mentioned I was pulling together components for a new build, being disappointed with the performance thus far... even prior to the issue arising.... so I simply am asking what you based this on so I can better understand what is behind these different architectures or why you feel the 6 core (albeit 12 logical) is going to perform better than the new 8 Core AMD processor with all else considered level, and I also indicated i was NOT challenging your statement but asked you support it so i can better understand WHAT about them brings you to the conclusion you apparently felt was worth stating.

    If this in fact is the case, then please elaborate as to WHAT about the i7 makes it superior to the AMD 8150 and why you feel it will outperform the 8150, as I also stated, much of this is new to me.

    Although I got my first computer, a 8086 4.7 MHz 720 KB 3.5 diskette based computer in 1986 or 1987 and have been computing all along, and previously was a DOS WHIZ, when windows 3.01 came out and began taking more and more control from end users in their alleged efforts to make it easier for the common Joe to become productive faster, I am not so acclimated to WYSIWYG environments, and found navigating through the GUI's cumbersome and felt it was intentionally masking or hiding those aspects of a machine I was most acclimated towards using and supporting most others, and by the time windows 95 had made it to the shelves I felt all but antiquated and was no longer on the cutting edge, this lasted for over a decade, although I always had a computer on and running, I often became to frustrated by Microshit's nonsensical implementations meant only to further remove manipulative control from those who were more comfortable at a command prompt than wading through window after window in search of accomplishing even the most basic functions.

    We had no such options as "Overclocking" for one thing. let alone multiple cores, for us, having a an 8087 or 80287 math coprocessor was the extent of performance enhancement... hell... hard disks had just came out at 10 megabytes External only, which was HUGE.

    A few years later they jumped up to and passed the the long time barrier of 640k ram and 64 MB hard disks (of the first internal without an aboveboard controller, or rather it was a combined controller with the drive mounted on a PCI card, and also was the birth of IDE and then EIDE controllers through the use of hardware compression was soon able to exceed those limitations... and himem.sys was also released about that time, allowing for USAGE of more than 640k of RAM.

    Then about five years ago I began clawing my way back in to the mainstream computing scene and have since become a self taught web developer, and do extensive photo and video editing, (hence the need for BLAZE) however the manipulations I read about that seem almost second nature to most of you guys, was a REALLY tough trek to grasp, and wrap my brain around, and I am STILL learning with being comprehensive of about 70 % of the technologies in use today, but they are advancing at such a fast rate I have a difficult time keeping on top of it all while still coming up from behind, so you see, my questions about your statement are for nothing more than to learn, and better understand what makes what click and how, so i can make more informed decisions when contemplating a new build for the purposes in mind.

    I apologize if my queries seemed other than my actual intention, but if it is too much to expect, then no worries, SOMEONE will eventually provide the insight I seek!

    I only singled you out because you were the first to mention the performance preference, so i am asking what you base this statement on... again... to LEARN and not challenge or otherwise contest.

    Thank you!

  13. Uhm Tom's has an article where a Sandy Bridge Pentium beats a Bulldozer chip in gaming. A PENTIUM beating a FLAGSHIP.,3120-10.html

    The Bulldozer chips are horrible marketing on AMD's part. The 8150 is NOT an 8 core chip, its a quad with an advanced version of Hyper-threading.
  14. truegenius said:
    i have a 2.1v card (6770) which is working on a v1.0 pcie slot and it is the base of that statement

    Since I see that you too made a similar statement as ilysaml, please also consider my replies applying to your statement too, but not about the pcie question, which you already resolved, but the step further in comparison of the performance between both processors....

    Also I am inclined to agree with your deductions, however THIS IS the NEW reformatted drive with new OS installed again, and it has gotten worse once switching mice, now I found another thread with a solution but it was short lived.... multiple HID drivers for both mice loaded and enabled simultaneously.

    However after running the torture tests and GPU stresses and never rising above 107° F for anything, last night my GP and 2 of the 6 cores were climbing up while nothing much was going on, and rose up to 127° and topped out at 132° for the GPU and 128° for the cores.

    Well it is a year old and i live in a less than sterile environment, and figured it was time for a major clean out inside, so i removed the over the graphics card supplemental Antec fan and the card itself to vacuum, and did find a big old clump of dust accumulate between the fan card and the back side of the GPU, i went on the suck out any other dust deposits which were present but nowhere near what i could consider "insulating" as most were on fan blades and the heat sinks had light once everything was back to almost out of the box clean i reassembled it all, and now it won't even post let alone do much else. I rechecked all connections and plugs and cannot find anything unplugged or mis-installed and am about to go to tears over the three grand paper weight i now have, I DO get the mem ok light to flash but not sure of the significance of this, I do not have a spare card to install instead of the 5870 in order to rule out the graphics card, which to me is the most likely culprit but am unsure of the significance of this in as much as i never had a machine with a bun graphics card prevent posting, but as i said in my long post, i haven't quite wrapped my brain around it all yet!

    I ran memory tests with the others for about 7 hours and not one error (prime 95 i believe it was) and all that time FanSpeed reflected nothng ever once going in the red, nor reported any errors at all.

    Prior to the re-installation of the OS i had removed a root kit infection (TDSS KILLER) in my boot sector which was successfully removed, and then reformatted the drive and ran it again to be sure as well as updated the bootsect and fix MBR(if i am stating this correctly) and it had been running alright ever since as i continued to reload all my programs, this is the THIRD hard disk i formatted and installed win 7 ultimate 64 on, and began to experience the pointer issues stated... I spent an entire month trouble shooting this...along with the inability to see and access files and folders over my network from my other computer even though it sees thi8s one, however it picks up the streams from the quad just won't recognize the shares on it at all! These have been plaguing me for months now and my level of frustrations are peaked. THIS is my motivation for contemplating the AMD build, and would much prefer to save those buck if i can resolve the issues with this machine.

    Any feedback to this end will always be greatly appreciated!!!

  15. 132F is only 55C. That's great for a GPU. They can be up to 80C safely. 128F is 52C or so, again, fine for a CPU. They can be 60C safely.
  16. Best answer selected by The_Smoking_Gun.
  17. Vettedude said:
    Uhm Tom's has an article where a Sandy Bridge Pentium beats a Bulldozer chip in gaming. A PENTIUM beating a FLAGSHIP.,3120-10.html

    The Bulldozer chips are horrible marketing on AMD's part. The 8150 is NOT an 8 core chip, its a quad with an advanced version of Hyper-threading.

    THANK YOU, This was the insight i had been trying to prompt...the REASONS WHY people stated what they did, to better understand things, and the fact this is also a marketing gimmick of sorts if this is accurate? I i have to be a little skeptical since we do have truth in advertising laws and AMD is touting it as the world's first TRUE eight core processor, and wondered how different is that from an unlocked or duplicated quad, since they do not indicate 16 thread capability, I wondered why this was since my 6 cores DO result in 12 logical processors.

    I also did not think those were out of line temps as compared to some of the numbers i have seen in overclocking threads, and usually i would feel it can never hurt to reduce or eliminate dust build up.... it was the fact that rose without a load to prompt it that caused me concerns, especially after the torture tests never rising above 107°but now that it is clean it won't even post... go figure... my head will be buried in this case for the remainder of the night i guess!!

    Thanks for the clarification ...oh right they are really padding the reviewers of the bulldozer technology but haven't found anything to substantiate it either, hence my curiosity of the others statements!!

  18. Your 6 core CPU cannot run 12 threads at once though. It can SCHEDULE 12 things, but not execute. Hyperthreading is only good when there is a stall in the pipeline, because then it can bypass and use the hyperthread to go around it and keep the CPU active. As for the "8 core" AMD. It has 8 integer units, but only 4 floating point units. It's not a true 8 core. If it was, it would have 8 floating point units.
  19. Well after much trepidation, i managed to recover... but don't understand how it booted to BIG display and states no ATI drivers are currently installed.... this has been running with them for just over a year.... well nothing critical right? Just be glad i didn't end up with a $3k paper weight LOL!
  20. Vettedude said:
    Your 6 core CPU cannot run 12 threads at once though. It can SCHEDULE 12 things, but not execute. Hyperthreading is only good when there is a stall in the pipeline, because then it can bypass and use the hyperthread to go around it and keep the CPU active. As for the "8 core" AMD. It has 8 integer units, but only 4 floating point units. It's not a true 8 core. If it was, it would have 8 floating point units.

    I sincerely appreciate the clarifications... it burns me to no end how things are so grossly misrepresented in order to sucker people in to buying their products... Wish i had time to read everything there is TO read to learn and better understand such things. but with the way things are these days, EVEN ON SSD I do not have enough time to encompass all these things and still work on my sites!!

    Thanks so much!

    Truth be told though, even this aspect was distorted to a significant degree, but at least Intel, as far as i noticed, isn't laying claim to false capabilities however they kind of skip over such details as you explained.... because my impression was that 12 logical cores can run in unison or separately, and i have the utilities to actually do this, but until i know better WHAT i am doing, i wouldn't attempt to mess with it, don't really need a $3k paper weight.. well to be fair if the rest of the machine is still good then it would only be the $999 i paid for the processor as the new paper weight LOL!

    Again i appreciate the shared knowledge... if you are aware, i would appreciate being pointed to the resources to wrap my brain around these things.... differentiating the facts from the hype is invaluable!

    I am still stymied how after recovering from my crash just now, why i lost my ATI drivers... and no matter what i try to run any version of drivers for my 5870 is failing and i can't stand 800X600 when it should be 1920 X 1200 also when i initially booted it flashed a message stating "first time boot with new CPU ???? I changed nothing, only removed and replaced video card in order to clean out dust build ups.

    Device manager states the graphics card cannot be identified, which explains why the ATI drivers keep failing because they are trying to evaluate what is there but they are having trouble reading the chips in the card. Okay got it to 1600x1200 at least that is livable.

    I have been having nothing but problems with these drivers since this new install of windows... this comes after a previous reinstall due to boot hanging with a blank screen with blinking cursor i had removed a root kit infection in my boot sector but I repaired that successfully, or i thought, but it HAD been running now for a few months, and the driver failures were occurring on an update to the driver the initial drivers installed without obvious error. But now i can't get anything installed i tired five of the previous downloads but when using the factory disk i get a message it isn't the most recent driver, i wonder if i can force that to at least get ONE installed and worry about the updates by calling XFX with the errors in their "kits". Maybe i will try getting them directly from AMD!

    I am posting this now in the hopes someone can advise me further! If i were to try to document everything i had been through with this recently;y it would be a book!

    Thank you VetteDude! (1963 big block ? :)) Was a Chevy/GM man until the 80's!!!
  21. This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon AMD Motherboards PCI Express Graphics