GeForce GTX 460

[Freezer]

Installed my old GTX 460 in my X99X to add a few more displays from 2 to 5.

The 460 is displaying as PCIe-x4. I assume x4 is accurate since I think this GPU is gen 2.0 ... though shouldn't it be capable of running at x8 on a version 3.0?

 

[rtwjunkie]

The x8, x16 is dependant on the motherboard. The GTX 460 being a PCIe 2.0 card still runs at x16 if in. X16 slot...as long as something else isn't stealing the bandwitdth.

Are you getting this from GPU-z while the card is idle?

 

[Freezer]

Primary card is GTX 970 in PCIE1 @x16, a soundcard in PCIE3, and the GTX 460 @x4 in PCIE5.

I should be able to get away with the soundcard in the x16 slot and the 460 shouldn't degrade that much... ?

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty X99X Killer/?cat=Specifications


I'm too lazy to swap out the cards right now. lol. Though I could install the soundcard just below PCIE1 but the back solder-joints are going to be rubbing on the 970, airflow wouldn't be a problem since it's a blower, but the 460 will be nearly suffocating it in PCIE3. That defeats the point of why I installed the cards the way I had... airflow. But if the soundcard in PCIE3 is causing the issues then I could find something that's non-conductive to protect the 970 plastic shielding.

 

[Toothless]

You're not gaming on it. x4 is fine.

 

[Freezer]

You're not gaming on it. x4 is fine.

Move along... that's not an answer to the question.

 

[Toothless]

Move along... that's not an answer to the question.

K, thanks for clarifying.

The card should run in the 4x slot. The soundcard should run in the 16x slot. If the GPU doesn't run then put it in the 16x. I question why you think the card will "degrade" in an 4x slot since

1. It'll be showing 2D objects unless you slap a game onto that monitor.
2. If you mean loss of performance on 3D then sure, 15-20% performance loss from 16x to 4x. You have a 970 so why worry about a GPU that sits there showing monitors?

 

[flmatter]

" *If you install CPU with 28 lanes, PCIE1/PCIE3/PCIE5 will run at x16/x8/x4. " says it in the yellow box below slots/expansion from intel http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz your cpu only has 28 lanes and confirmed by our own TPU review https://www.techpowerup.com/204387/...atures-fewer-pci-express-lanes-after-all.html

It is dependent on the cpu

take time to read owners manual and what it has to say about your motherboard and what cpu you are installing.

 

[Freezer]

Well, I figured the bus would be smarter than that and determine what type of device is in what PCIE slot and allocate the bandwidth appropriately. 16/8/4 , 8/4/16 , 4/16/8 , 16/4/8 , etc... obviously dependent the devices performance and the amount of lanes the Processor allows.

I hadn't assumed anything, besides thinking that computer engineers actually think.

 

[flmatter]

the bus is only as smart as the cpu allows it. I edited it the assumed out, did not pertain to discussion, sorry.

 

[Freezer]

It's a bit silly that it's designed in a "linear" fashion... I'm a structural engineer and if we neglected small things like this we'd be out of a job, besides cannot is not in our vocabulary despite how difficult a task may be.

 

[xorbe]

The x4 and x8, that's not about speed (directly) -- that's about the # of lanes dedicated to the slot, right? It's the 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0 / 3.0 that indicate signaling speed, iirc. So your question is a little twisted. It should be able to do x16 lanes, whether running gen 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0 speed (probably not a 3.0 card). Someone correct me if I'm all out of whack, not my expertise.

To be clear, when you plug in multiple video cards, the motherboard has to possibly share lanes among the cards. x16 for one card may become x8 lanes for each of two cards, as an example. Or x16 lanes for the first, and x4 for the second.

 

[Freezer]

The x4 and x8, that's not about speed (directly) -- that's about the # of lanes dedicated to the slot, right? It's the 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0 / 3.0 that indicate signaling speed, iirc. So your question is a little twisted. It should be able to do x16 lanes, whether running gen 1.0 / 1.1 / 2.0 speed (probably not a 3.0 card). Someone correct me if I'm all out of whack, not my expertise.

Almost right... it's the amount of lanes per PCIE slot to allow the amount of bandwidth. It's TOTALLY capable of how I suggested it, but CE's are overpaid and don't think - I mean really they've been binding themselves to Moore's Law as the Holy Grail for generations. lol. It matters between versions a PCIE v1.0 , 2.0 , 3.0 will seem to "degrade" in performance when going up to a newer generation say PCIE 1.0 to PCIE3.0 , a PCIE 1.0 x16 will run at PCIE3.0 x4 ... etc.. in this case my PCIE 2.0 460 should have been running at x8 which it wasn't and installed in PCIE5 which has some stupid linear math and board circuitry to force it to PCIE 3.0 x4. LOL, CE tards.

 

[xorbe]

to force it to PCIE 3.0 x4.

The GTX 460 is spec'd for PCI-E 2.0 x16 max. It can't do 3.0 rev. It should be able to use more than x8 lanes. But yeah it is at the mercy of the motherboard's resource allocation.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-460/specifications

 

[Freezer]

The GTX 460 is spec'd for PCI-E 2.0 x16 max. It can't do 3.0 rev. It should be able to use more than x8 lanes. But yeah it is at the mercy of the motherboard's resource allocation.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-460/specifications

Right, but the most it can do while using dual gpu is x8, unless it were installed in PCIE1 @ x16 , which is completely useless since the 970 would be @ x8 in PCIE3.

Finally switched it out... PC is in the most inconvenient of places.

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue people.


edit: "incontinent of places" lol wtf.