Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AGP/PCI Radeoon 9000

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 4, 2003 5:09:27 PM

If there's let's say the Radeon, the pci and the agp.

Both have a same amount of MB, both have exactly the same specifications on everyting else, but one is PCI and one is AGP.

I've asked someone and he said there was a noticable difference, about 45%.

45% is alot, is it true?

And if you're wondering if I have an AGP slot...

Nope, I don't, I know it's sad but I don't.

I'm really despirate and I want to order fast, I don't know where to look and even though I hate asking for help I really need to this time.

All I want is to get to play Counter-Strike with decent fps, as in 60 fps or more at 1024*768 and about 30 fps in Unreal Tournament 2003.

Hoping for a quick reply, and thanks in advance, even if you don't manage to help me.
-Tsachi

More about : agp pci radeoon 9000

March 4, 2003 8:28:10 PM

Please!

I'm sure someone might be able to help!
March 4, 2003 9:53:48 PM

I am in the same boat as you, I have no agp slot and it might be longer than I expected before I am able to build my new compter(having car repainted). PPL here seem to get upset at the thought of mentioning a PCI graphic card,oh well we have to make do with what we have, right? Anyways, I am not sure about the speed difference, but id you dont have an agp slot then you are stuck with a PCI card, and the Radeon 9100 would be the fastest, having to look into that y self, cant find one for sale though Visiontek has one though...or are going to have. Goodluck.
March 4, 2003 10:03:52 PM

Thanks for the reply.

Have you got any idea about the price it will be?
March 4, 2003 10:31:46 PM

This quote is taken directly from a release by Visiontek a few days ago:

"The XTASY 9100 will be available in both AGP and PCI bus types. There will be models with 64MB, retail $79.99 after a $20 mail in rebate, and 128MB, retail $129.99."

I placed a call to Visiontek's sales department (toll-free number) today and was told that the 9100 PCI should be in stores by the last week of March or the 1st week in April.
March 5, 2003 1:36:02 AM

thanks for the info, I was wandering about price and release! I had a MX420 PCI but it died it was a visiontek card. I hope they have good support calling them tommorow.
March 5, 2003 2:27:18 AM

Yes, AGP is considerably faster than a PCI.

<font color=red>DCB</font color=red><font color=white>_</font color=white><font color=blue>AU</font color=blue>
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2003 4:45:42 AM

The fact is that some onboard graphics are better than the fastest PCI cards, because of the limit of PCI bandwidth. It's truely sad, but unless you have VIA S3 graphics or SiS graphics, you're probably better off with what you already have.

Save up a little money and buy a board please. Even a cheap one. A cheap $40 board and $40 AGP card will outperform a cheap integrated board and $80 PCI card.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2003 4:47:10 AM

No, you don't have to "make do with what you have" unless you live in a communist country.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2003 7:35:24 AM

Ok, I got here a little late, I hope there's still some cake. :tongue:

WHY BOTHER WITH PCI?

Sounds like a stupid question, yes I did read your perdicament, however; quick question, What mobo, CPU, periph. combo are you running that it wouldn't make more sense simply to get another MOBO with onboard graphics PLUS and AGP slot. You will likely be able to play counterstrike with the onboard chip, and when the next games come out you want to play you can slap in a Radeon 10791 or whatever.
I love PCI graphics cards,but only as dual/triple monitor solutions.
Unless you are running a COMPLETELY obsolete system, then I would go with a mobo with on-board graphics (yes I know that's sacrilege [Sacre Bleu!] in here) as you will likely see little in the way of diff. between the PCI version and a GOOD on board card (IMHO) and it will give you the option to upgrade later when the 9000 PCI craps out.
I haveone last suggestion, you may not have the CPU for it though, ever think of a shuttle mobo pc box. Rather cheap all in one upgrade, and if you are using a duron, athlon, or athlon XP you should be able to pop it in along with all your other goodies into the one with the AGP and onboard grfx chip.
Anywoo , once again that my two loonies worth from the original looney!

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2003 7:40:32 AM

Sorry Crash didn't know you already beat me to the answer, but as I said, I got here late.

Sage advice from the Crashman, I'd offer you a box of Y&S cigars but they're so rare and tasty! MMMmmmmm Licorice ! :wink:



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
March 5, 2003 7:58:42 AM

Crashman, you're missing something.

I have this [-peep-] Packard Bell computer and I can't just remove the mobo, I have to buy a new case for it, so I planned to move everything to a new computer, meaning moving my RAM, HD, DVD, CD-r and Monitor.

Thing is it takes time.

By the way, my current onboard is an "Intel 82810E Graphics Controller".

:/ 
March 5, 2003 8:49:06 AM

If you've got an 810, CT should be OK. I used to run CT on my 810 at work, and, although not the greatest, it did it OK.

I wouldn't hold much hope on UT2003 tho'.
Cost of a top spec PCI graphics would equate out to the same as a mobo, case etc..
March 5, 2003 3:40:38 PM

So, some people said there would be a big difference, and I want to hear as many coments about possible about it.

Can someone please give me a % of the difference between the Radeon PCI and Radeon AGP?

Even a "between a and b" would be good.

Thanks... And sorry for bothering
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2003 6:38:19 PM

Are you sure your board isn't standard Micro ATX? A lot of the modern Packard Hell's were!

As for the difference between AGP and PCI on the Radeon DDR, it's around 300%.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2003 8:34:39 PM

d00d, you have a standard Micro ATX case. You can use a standard Micro ATX board. That link took me to several models, so I don't know which board or CPU you have, that type of system was available with either Intel or AMD processor.

Yes, you can easily replace just the board with one which has an AGP slot.

What country are you from?

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 5, 2003 10:09:46 PM

I can't replace the board.

Someone came to fix my bro's computer and noticed the mobo's kinda glued on to the case, you can't take it out, I checked and he was right, it's not screwed on, it's just burned on.

I'm from Belgium.

Any other suggestions or comments or tips for the Radeon?
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2003 12:24:26 AM

Yes, it's possible they "staked" the board in place by melting little nobs on the end of plastic studs, you could knock the spots off, drill small holes in the studs, and use screws :smile:

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 6, 2003 3:45:41 PM

Holy [-peep-] I just re-read this thread and noticed 300%

THREE HUNDRED PERCENT? THATS INSANE!

Are you sure?
March 6, 2003 4:04:10 PM

Sorry Tsachi, but what CPU do you have?

I don't know if this can be applied here, but sometimes no matter how powerfull is a PCI Graphic Card IF the bottleneck is in your CPU, chipset, RAM or whatever else.

I have an old K6-2+ system. Currently running with a GF2 MX. But changing to ATI 9700 Pro would NEVER run at even half of its potential. Also check THG graphs as example.

In just telling you this because as some people said, maybe you will be better changing your mobo (yeah, extra work for you, but it's worth) than spending your money in PCI graphic card.

Hope this helps!



Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
March 6, 2003 4:19:22 PM

128MB RAM
P3 1000 MHZ

:) 

Now, again, 300%!?
March 6, 2003 4:39:03 PM

Well, 300% is IMO not realistic. I mean, maybe in a very specific case this can happen, but on average is absurd. When PCI/AGP buses comes to play? When you need to transfer data. That means that, IF you have enough RAM to storage all the data, THEN PCI & AGP shouldn't matter.

Bear in mind that RAM used increase when you run applications at high resolutions and/or aniso/FSAA. Also how much you have puts the limit at diferent distances (64Mb? 128Mb?). But games tend to increase data needs every generation.

Finally I see you "only" have 128Mb of RAM. That's not really too much, especially if you are running XP. Doesn't make too much sense to have 128 of RAM and a graphic card with 128Mb ...

Hope this makes my point clear. Questions?


Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
March 6, 2003 5:10:07 PM

I have WinME

If I upgrade to 256MB ram, the gfx will improve alot I assume?
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2003 9:24:23 PM

I owned both the Radeon DDR PCI and the Radeon DDR AGP. I saw over 200% difference on that using a PIII 933 with 256MB. In fact, many of my games weren't even playable at resolutions above 800x600 with the PCI card, and that was 2 years ago!

No, more memory won't help the PCI card as much as it would the AGP card I don't think, because AGP can use RAM to cache textures. So the gap should WIDEN with more memory.

Also you have to consider that the PCI card is using a shared bus, the video, sound, CD, and hard drive all working off that puny little 133MB/s (33MHz x 4 bytes). The AGP bus on the other hand is NOT shared, so the graphics card can use the WHOLE AGP bus. AGP4x is 1066MB/s (4 x 66MHz x 4 bytes).

That 3 bytes comes from the 32-bit interface, I put it in bytes for the megabyte calculations. 1066MB/s is far better than 133MB/s, and considering your drives are probably taking away around 33MB/s, leaving a PCI card with at best 100MB/s, the AGP4x interface has 8x the performance in theory and more like 10x the performance in practice.

Most graphics processors can't make good use of the 800-1000% increase in bandwidth, and only give a "pathetic" 200%-300% advantage to AGP.

Those who defend PCI cards for any reason, or doubt the performance difference, have obviously never compared two otherwise identicle modern cards in the same system.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 6, 2003 10:47:38 PM

I don't understand why people keep dumping on PCI cards. You know the big OEM's (Gateway, and especially Dell - not sure about HP or Compaq) sell alot of their budget computers, which STILL do not come with an AGP port. I currently have an AGP-less Dell, and my add-on PCI video card is light years better than the Intel 845 integrated video. My advice is that if you are going to buy a PCI card, try to get one with as much memory as you can. Thing is, PCI cannot use system memory like AGP cards can, so the amount of video memory you have on your PCI card is more of a performance factor than it would be on an AGP card. I would advise you to get a PCI card with at least 64mb of RAM, or if you can, find one with 128mb. I did a few benchmarks with some of the better PCI cards against the Intel integrated video and the difference was fairly pronounced. If you are interested, you can read it here:

<A HREF="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&th..." target="_new">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&th...;/A>
a b U Graphics card
March 7, 2003 2:18:57 AM

I've owned both versions of the same card, so I can say without any doubt what soever that AGP has a very large performance lead. Even my TNT2 AGP could perform as well as my PCI Radeon DDR, in some games better. If anyone owns a Dell, Emach., etc, and can't upgrade without dropping an extra $40-$100 for a cheap board and case (if necessary), they can deduct that $40-$100 from the money they thought they saved by buying that garbage in the first place.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 7, 2003 10:04:32 AM

And what if I buy this?
http://www.visiontek.com/9100_128_agp.html

Visiontek is making a pci version of this baby as someone else already said, won't this baby get me excellent fps in CS?
Won't make me run UT2003 at 30 fps ?

If it won't... I'm waiting and buying a new mobo, but please, as this is my last question, please reply.
a b U Graphics card
March 7, 2003 2:13:40 PM

CS shoudl run OK, but expect UT 2003 to crap out really quickly considering the AGP version barely pushe 45 FPS, I wouldn't hold my hopes up on a PCI version with the same amount of mem. However you 'could' be lucky. No matter what you will really NEED as much system RAM as possibleto play UT2003. 128 won't cut it on a P3, I doubt that 256 will be much of an improvement. But YOU will find that out. MAX it out in my opinion PC133 is CHEAP!
The real question is do you want to spend all that money on a risk, when really you NEED a new board, now or later, and you will pay a premium for a PCI card, yet get very little advantage over an on board chip. Now the real problem is that you are running a p3, new mobo likely means new chip, which should go with new RAM (although you can buy a board that will pair your pc133 (i hope) along with other slots for DDR.

Now if you have VERY limited funds and can ONLY buy one small thing now, then buying another P3 board with integrated graphics is NOT the answer, upgrading MAY be too expensive, so if you are absolutely stuck, then go with the 9000 pci. But beleive me this isn't an ideal answer, the problem is that you are in a tight situation.
Think of what matters most to you. If you are really a gamer, then this is a POOR solution. If you want to get a better computer, this is a POOR solution, if you are simply STUCK with what you have, then it may be the ONLY solution, despite it being a rather poor one.
The only saving grace is that in a year or two when you eventually do get that better board, and better graphics card, you will have the perfect card for dual/triple monitor support.
Anywhoo, Spend 72 hours thinking about it, decide, do it, then don't look back, EVER! There is no RIGHT answer in this case IMHO.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 03/07/03 11:17 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
!