Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Cards Tested
By

PCI Express 2.0 provides several advantages to hardware manufacturers, which are difficult to depict in a technical analysis like this one. Power requirements can be software controlled by adding or reducing the number of PCI Express lanes and the link speed used. In addition, higher graphics card power requirements can now be satisfied. At the same time, PCIe 2.0 is complete compatible with prior hardware revisions, and it does not increase cost for consumers, as the transition happens smoothly between one graphics chip generation and the next. From this standpoint, we clearly recommend PCIe 2.0 to anyone, because it has no disadvantages.

But is PCIe 2.0 really necessary yet? As long as a graphics solution can operate with data that is stored within its local video frame buffer memory, both the reasonably mainstream Radeon HD 3850 and the hardcore GeForce 9900 GX2 will operate close to their maximum performance, even if the PCI Express link width is limited to x8 or x4. Once larger textures need to be accessed, as is the case in Crysis or Microsoft’s Flight Simulator X, interface bandwidth becomes a crucial element. Any link width below x16 will noticeably limit these games’ playability.

The answer, thus, has to be "yes": you want maximum bandwidth, and PCI Express 2.0, for all sorts of sophisticated 3D applications. Benchmarks such as Futuremark’s 3DMark06, PCMark Vantage, Prey or Quake provide proof from the other end of the spectrum, though: they can fit all the graphics data into the 512 MB (Radeon HD 3850) or 2x 512 MB (GeForce 9800 GX2) frame buffers.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 46 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    romulus47plus1 , April 22, 2008 6:48 AM
    Cool review.
  • 0 Hide
    gailim , April 22, 2008 6:56 AM
    "only the latest GeForce 9 graphics cards are PCIe 2.0 compliant."

    thats incorrect. the G92 based 8 series cards are also PCIe 2.0
  • 0 Hide
    leo2kp , April 22, 2008 7:31 AM
    *sigh* looks like it's a new mobo for me. it was a good run GA-965P-DQ6!
  • 0 Hide
    hughyhunter , April 22, 2008 7:43 AM
    What's up TOM's? PCIe 2.0 compliant? Only 9 series. Like mentioned... G92 is PCIe 2.0!
  • 2 Hide
    LuxZg , April 22, 2008 7:59 AM
    Just prooves two things - first that even PCIe 1.1 x8 is good for most cards & applications (same bandwith as x4 PCIe 2.0) as you lose 0-4% in all but heaviest apps like Flight Simulator and Crysis with AA/AF enabled; and second, that lower end graphics card can be used on PCIe 2.0 x4 slots without any problems, and for entry level you can make PCIe x1 cards just like the PCI ones that are sometimes used for smaller servers and such..

    So I just wonder, will they ever start making x1 and x4 cards.. And I mean with _physical_ x4 or x1 slots, as you really can't plug x16 card in x1 slot unless you use a saw :D 
    It would also make multi-monitor setups much cheaper than using MBOs with 4x PCIe x16 slots and I bet x1 PCIe graphics cards would be much cheaper as they'd have less complicated and smaller PCB as well.
  • 0 Hide
    oushi , April 22, 2008 8:12 AM
    Nothing ground-breaking, but interesting read nonetheless...
  • -1 Hide
    LuxZg , April 22, 2008 8:14 AM
    Oops, my bad, they already exist :S Though I've never seen any in pricelists in my country :( 
    And these x1 cards that I've found (X1550 & 8400GS) aren't really cheap for 100+$, as x16 cards are less than half the price. Kinda kills the main reason of NOT SPENDING too much money.. as for extra 50-60-70$ you can get a better MBO in the first place :rolleye: :p 
  • -1 Hide
    hayder_master , April 22, 2008 8:23 AM
    i think compare also be with hd 3870 x2
  • 0 Hide
    hayder_master , April 22, 2008 8:34 AM
    i think if thay use ati 3870 x2 it will be give more results than geforce 9800 x2
  • 0 Hide
    Gazz , April 22, 2008 10:13 AM
    I have an MSI k9a2 platinum now I can either have 2 cards running at 16x each or 4 cards running at 8x
    So what would be better 2 x ati 3870x2 or 4 x 3870
    and would the 2x ati 3870x2 run at 8x or 16x
    because if they run at 8x then i might be better off with 4 x 3870 runing at 8xor would the two 2 x 3870x2 run faster then 4x3870
    at the moment i have 2 1900xtx
  • 0 Hide
    homerdog , April 22, 2008 12:26 PM
    Quote:
    While ATI has been quick with deploying PCIe 2.0 to its Radeon HD 3000 family, only the latest GeForce 9 graphics cards are PCIe 2.0 compliant.

    I think not.
  • 0 Hide
    San Pedro , April 22, 2008 1:32 PM
    It sounded like the article was recommending people move from their pci-e 1 motherboards to pci-e 2. The 1 speeds were 99% as fast most times. Flight simulator was the only game that saw a significant improvement going to new interface. I don't think that small difference in performance warrants the time and effort if you already have pci-e 1.0 or 1.1 motherboard.
  • 0 Hide
    homerdog , April 22, 2008 3:29 PM
    Quote:
    It sounded like the article was recommending people move from their pci-e 1 motherboards to pci-e 2. The 1 speeds were 99% as fast most times. Flight simulator was the only game that saw a significant improvement going to new interface. I don't think that small difference in performance warrants the time and effort if you already have pci-e 1.0 or 1.1 motherboard.

    The gains from PCIe 2.0 are minimal right now, but they will likely be more pronounced as newer cards are released, especially for multi-GPU configurations which seem to be all the rage. At this point I am finding it more and more difficult to recommend PCIe 1.x boards with the P4X chipsets on the horizon and the 750i already out.
  • 0 Hide
    MrCommunistGen , April 22, 2008 4:01 PM
    Epic fail... not so much the article itself but some of the things in it. Actually I liked the overall article for the insight it provided because it reinforced what I've been telling people for months. I guess the most glaring of the problems is that I get a 404 error when I try to view the conclusion page. (err... I just went back to try to read something and am getting a 404 for the whole article). Not that I can't draw my own conclusions from what I read, I just like to see someone else say it... and of course I like being able to read the whole article.
    That aside, someone goofed the batchwork on the graphs. The AMD graphs have Nvidia in the key but the Nvidia graphs are separate, and about half the graphs are "normal" .png files and the others are poorly compressed .jpg. Not that this is a big deal, but it only takes a minute to fix any of these quibbles and it takes away from the polish of the article... otherwise it seems to fit with the "Tom's is on an upswing" comment I think I read about yesterday's article about the VelociRaptor.

    -mcg
  • 0 Hide
    MrCommunistGen , April 22, 2008 4:08 PM
    OK... the 404 error disappeared. I read the conclusion page, and I don't like how they ignored the fact that lowered speeds sometimes outperformed higher speeds. In a few cases 8x and 4x slightly outperformed 16x. I wish they had explained that this was most likely due to "margin of error and signified no change" or something like that because I can completely see a noob quoting the article and asking if Crysis will perform better at 8x than 16x because several of the article benches showed this.

    -mcg

    Edit: HA!! I didn't realize that the "talkback" under the articles was actually posting on the forum or I would have just edited my first message.
  • 0 Hide
    DXRick , April 22, 2008 5:50 PM
    I was hoping to see PCIe x16 2.0 (X38 chipset) versus PCIe x16 (P35).
  • 0 Hide
    bgd73 , April 22, 2008 6:30 PM
    excellent info. To go back even farther to a pci-e convertor sitting on top of an agp fitted card....What we see as written is just that in this article. Written.Just like CPU's and labels of "core duo". There are many items out there, and have been out there for years, with no name- doing what is now written. This is all for the sake of knowing it has a name. No panics for upgrades, if you do...there is not all that much surprise.
  • 0 Hide
    xTalent , April 22, 2008 8:08 PM
    The last page says "9900 GX2" :D 
  • 0 Hide
    sceen311 , April 22, 2008 9:55 PM
    So SLI PCIE 2.0 vs PCIE 1.1 that's something I would have like to have seen.
  • 1 Hide
    tipoo , April 22, 2008 10:18 PM
    last page, it should say 9800GX2, not 9900 :) 
Display more comments