AGP, PCI-E, PCI? Differences?

[KainXS]

If you were buying a new pc, I would say you should've got an AMD Athlon system

The celeron d's aren't bad, well the later ones weren't, especially the cedar mill ones which most times destroy their pentium counterparts because of the massive overclocks they reach

but that system has a prescott

and yes, they're are celeron d systems with pentium 4 logo's on them, and its only because, the celeron d's themselves are nothing but low binned pentium 4's and the early ones had threads disabled but later models didn't, they only had the cache's cut

 

[Yukikaze]

I seen video of people playing games just fine with a Celeron D, i have 2.8ghz, that should be just fine. Even tho i heard 533mhz is slightly slower then 800mhz, but still good enough. I am pumped right now, you guys know the first game i plan to install , is Crysis Demo. The only slighly bad part , i have to use my Visiontek 2400HD PCI card until i buy my 8600GT in a few weeks. Using a 2400HD in a more powerful rig is always a small boost , so i will run crysis at 1280x1024 medium to high and see how it goes.

It won't run on med-high, EVER. Just forget it. At 1440X900 (Which is about 2% less pixels on screen than 1280X1024, actually) my 3Ghz P4 (Overclocked to 4.2Ghz) with the HD3850 512Mb GDDR3 AGP (Overclocked as well) can barely run the game on high settings under DX9. You can forget about running the game even on medium at the said resolution with the PCI HD2400Pro. I'll be surprised if you'll get a playable framerate (That is, over 24fps on average, at the very least) at even 1024x768 on all settings low.

 

[EnglishLion]

I agree - no chance with running Crysis on a 2400pro on medium-high no matter what the interface. I'd be surprised if an 8600GT will do it either.

On the topic of PCI cards, I bought one on ebay the other day for an upgrade to a Very Bottom of the range Dell for my sister which had no AGP or PCIe slot. Dimension 3000, just 3 x PCI slots. I got an old FX5500, with the aim to run 'KOTOR sith lords'. So I compared it to my own PCI FX5200, my onboard X1250 and my onboard 6150. Link in my sig if you want to read about it...

 

[CDdude55]

PCI-E: Meant really only for Video cards and is the current standard.

PCI: Used for Expansion cards and for low end video sometimes.

AGP: A fairly outdated video card expansion slot. Some people still use it tho.

 

[KBD]

PCI-E: Meant really only for Video cards and is the current standard.

Thats not entirely correct. PCI-e is meant for many things and is the replacement for PCI (since AGP was only for GPUs) because the PCI bus has become a bottleneck for devices attached to it. So PCI-e is used for a variety of cards: controller cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, network cards, you name it. Though the primary use for the PCI-e x16 slot is the video card.

 

[EnglishLion]

Thats not entirely correct. PCI-e is meant for many things and is the replacement for PCI (since AGP was only for GPUs) because the PCI bus has become a bottleneck for devices attached to it. So PCI-e is used for a variety of cards: controller cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, network cards, you name it. Though the primary use for the PCI-e x16 slot is the video card.

Very true and well pointed out. Commonly the 16x slot is used for graphics and the 1x (much shorter) slot is used for other cards - network cards etc. However some high end RAID controller cards require greater than 1x and so are supplied as 4x cards. These will not fit in a 1x slot but are usually compatible with a 16x slot. All in all the PCIe slot is very versatile.

 

[Yukikaze]

I agree - no chance with running Crysis on a 2400pro on medium-high no matter what the interface. I'd be surprised if an 8600GT will do it either.

On the topic of PCI cards, I bought one on ebay the other day for an upgrade to a Very Bottom of the range Dell for my sister which had no AGP or PCIe slot. Dimension 3000, just 3 x PCI slots. I got an old FX5500, with the aim to run 'KOTOR sith lords'. So I compared it to my own PCI FX5200, my onboard X1250 and my onboard 6150. Link in my sig if you want to read about it...

Here's a link to my own findings into PCI video cards and the like. There's a benchmarks of a Via C7-D running a PCI8500GT there, as well as the same PCI8500GT benchmarked on my main rig (The 3.9Ghz E5200 in my sig). Pretty much no modern game is playable on a PCI card, period.

 

[KBD]

Pretty much no modern game is playable on a PCI card, period.

i remember u2k posting some screenies of COD4 running on his P3 and a PCI card @1280x1024. I think he had it on low settings and was getting low fps but i believe it was playble which i found very surprising.

 

[Yukikaze]

i remember u2k posting some screenies of COD4 running on his P3 and a PCI card @1280x1024. I think he had it on low settings and was getting low fps but i believe it was playble which i found very surprising.

"2008-12-19 21:40:45 - iw3sp
Frames: 7757 - Time: 344496ms - Avg: 22.516 - Min: 6 - Max: 98"

That's from my benchmark run of CoD4 on the lowest settings at 1024x768 (Entire benchmarks in the link in my previous post, if you are interested), running on an E5200 at 3.9Ghz and with a PCI8500GT I pulled out from my Via C7-D system. This is on the lowest settings, and it is not playable.

His P3 would never get close to the same result (Weaker video card, 12 times less RAM and a CPU something like....eh...20 times less processing power than the E5200 I tested with ?). I know he's claiming Crysis to be playable as well on medium-high on that P3, but they are B.S and have never happened. The only time he posted a screenshot of a crysis timedemo run result he averaged at 7 fps or so and his claimed results are an embellishment of what he is getting on that P3, with any playable framerates being achieved only when he is staring at the wall or at the ground.

 

[KBD]

it wasnt Crysis that he posted it was COD4, i actually found that thread, see post 25:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=86149

I'm not defending his use of old hardware just saying saying those results are quite decent for that syustem.

 

[CDdude55]

Thats not entirely correct. PCI-e is meant for many things and is the replacement for PCI (since AGP was only for GPUs) because the PCI bus has become a bottleneck for devices attached to it. So PCI-e is used for a variety of cards: controller cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, network cards, you name it. Though the primary use for the PCI-e x16 slot is the video card.

Its meant for many things, but video cards has been one of is main purposes for sometime now.(as you even stated), As i used to word meant loosely, not to refer to it as a ''video card only bus that nothing else can connect to''.

 

[Yukikaze]

it wasnt Crysis that he posted it was COD4, i actually found that thread, see post 25:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=86149

I'm not defending his use of old hardware just saying saying those results are quite decent for that syustem.

The quote I put states "iw3sp" as the application, that's CoD4. His results are borked and the game is a slideshow on his system. Nothing is playable on that P3 of his (Unless by playable he means a somewhat speedy slideshow, if we go by the very least of 24 fps avg as being barely playable, nothing is playable on his "rig"), no matter how well he tries to tell us otherwise. Proof is in my blog, unless somehow that magical P3 can outperform a modern system equipped with a PCI 8500GT for testing.

The fact that you originally posted that you believe that it was playable on his system is what is irking me here, it means that his nonsense on several forums is actually taking hold and someone might take his reports as true and follow a PCI route with the expectations of actually gaming.

I am sorry if the post is harsh (and you, KBD, are surely not the target of any ire, the beef is with u2k here), I just don't like when people claim something they are obviously making up, especially when it might mislead people.

 

[DrPepper]

Calm down who cares if he is fooling us or not.

 

[eidairaman1]

that P3 would have to be over 2 GHz to get anywhere, my CPU has to be at 2.2GHz from 1.8 to Drive my Videocard otherwise it lags, I noticed my CPU running at 2296.8 that the games are smoother, so its proving my CPU was the Bottleneck.

 

[KBD]

The quote I put states "iw3sp" as the application, that's CoD4. His results are borked and the game is a slideshow on his system. Nothing is playable on that P3 of his (Unless by playable he means a somewhat speedy slideshow, if we go by the very least of 24 fps avg as being barely playable, nothing is playable on his "rig"), no matter how well he tries to tell us otherwise. Proof is in my blog, unless somehow that magical P3 can outperform a modern system equipped with a PCI 8500GT for testing.

The fact that you originally posted that you believe that it was playable on his system is what is irking me here, it means that his nonsense on several forums is actually taking hold and someone might take his reports as true and follow a PCI route with the expectations of actually gaming.

I am sorry if the post is harsh (and you, KBD, are surely not the target of any ire, the beef is with u2k here), I just don't like when people claim something they are obviously making up, especially when it might mislead people.

i dont think he's fooling anyone. no one here is buying into the concept of PCI-based GPUs for gaming as folks here know better. Amazing thing is that the game actually runs on that rig (i didnt think it would, lol). and i dont even think he has the intention of misleading people: to him it looks like the game is playble because he doesnt know any better and has nothing else to compare it to, remember, he had the same rig for 8 years. I wouldnt even know how that kind of low FPS would look like in that game so playble for him and playble for me are too different things. If he is happy with it then god bless him.

 

[KainXS]

i dont think he's fooling anyone. no one here is buying into the concept of PCI-based GPUs for gaming as folks here know better. Amazing thing is that the game actually runs on that rig (i didnt think it would, lol). and i dont even think he has the intention of misleading people: to him it looks like the game is playble because he doesnt know any better and has nothing else to compare it to, remember, he had the same rig for 8 years. I wouldnt even know how that kind of low FPS would look like in that game so playble for him and playble for me are too different things. If he is happy with it then god bless him.

I'm gonna agree with Yukikaze,

but does it matter, No, its actually kind of funny

So after testing Crysis Warhead on my P3, This is what i found out:

1280X1024 resolution, Gamer, to Mainstream settings, Gamma Correction in Anti-Aliasing, transparency anti aliasing multisampling, full screen anti aliasing AAX4( note, sound and water and Shadows on low) I put this game on AAX4 and i lose no performance whatsoever, i average around 9-13fps at these settings, not bad for my rig. NO OC, all stock gpu settings.

The most demanding visual options for warhead is Water. I put water on mainstream and it just kills performance. Sound i always keep on low, seems to be a waste of time. And another option that kills performance is Shadows, MY GOODNESS.

So i keep textures, objects on mainstream along with Volumetric effects.
Game effects, Shaders, Physics, Particles and post processing on all gamer settings.

kinda like that

with a P3 and a 8400GS that is what I would call impossible

its off topic but funny none the less

 

[RadeonProVega]

I am going to post this image one last time lol, because i am not fooling anyone.



Thats all i have.

 

[crazy pyro]

You're using photoshop there, PCI-E appeared in 2004 and PIIIs stopped being made in 2003, however you said that you'd had your machine for 8 years, this combined with your obviously basic knowledge of computer hardware (like buying a system the size of a "large book") suggests that you've not changed your mobo in those 8 years.
Your mobo in your system specs isn't a mobo, it's just the graphics component of the chipset which is the intel 810, this was magically created in 1999 so there's no way you could be running a PCI-E card on your mobo unless you put the slot there yourself and fitted a new chipset (if you did I congratulate you but you'd need a mobo factory to do it).
Also the boards with an 810 chipset rarely have an AGP slot let alone a PCI-E one.

 

[Yukikaze]

u2konline, I don't have a problem with you saying what rig specs you have, I just have a problem with you claiming performance you never get. Back at TechSpot people were already inquiring, based on your results, what a PCI video card would do for them. That's misleading.

KBD, I am not stating he is doing it out of malice, but the end result is the same. I came across plenty of people on the internet (Some locally here) who have heard about "the guy with a P3 running games", when he isn't really running games, but rather slideshows.

crazy pyro, a modern PCI video card reads as if it is PCI-E x1 in GPU-Z because of the bridge chip. It does the same on my Via box with a PCI 8500GT.

In the end, I don't mind him using the same rig for a millenia if it suits him. I have a Celeron Tualatin in my parents' house basement for some internet surfing or checking e-mail, but I don't go claiming it can run Crysis (It can't, and it actually has an AGP slot). I just mind him going around telling people he is getting "12-30 average fps" (eh.....what ?) or when he's getting 13 average fps and says it is "playable", despite people pointing out to him that the generally acceptable barely playable mark would be avg fps of above 24, at the very least.

Anyways, I am done here, I don't want this to degenerate into a P3 bashing thread, as that would be pointless (Been done before, with no results).

 

[crazy pyro]

Ah right, didn't know that Yukikaze, didn't say PIII mobos with AGP slots didn't exist, just said that ones with that chipset running an AGP slot were. 13 average is playable, I played through Half-Life 2 on an average of 12 a couple of years ago but I seriously wouldn't advise trying to run games at the framerate, an RTS should be fine but otherwise no way would I consider any other type of game.

 

[RadeonProVega]

You're using photoshop there, PCI-E appeared in 2004 and PIIIs stopped being made in 2003, however you said that you'd had your machine for 8 years, this combined with your obviously basic knowledge of computer hardware (like buying a system the size of a "large book") suggests that you've not changed your mobo in those 8 years.
Your mobo in your system specs isn't a mobo, it's just the graphics component of the chipset which is the intel 810, this was magically created in 1999 so there's no way you could be running a PCI-E card on your mobo unless you put the slot there yourself and fitted a new chipset (if you did I congratulate you but you'd need a mobo factory to do it).
Also the boards with an 810 chipset rarely have an AGP slot let alone a PCI-E one.

I don't use photoshop. Also, i never said i had my computer for 8 years. I said i had this same computer since 2000. The date on the side of the computer reads 5/14/2000.
And why are you talking about AGP? I don't have AGP slots. All i have is 4 PCI slots.

Yukikaze:

System requirements are always inaccurate for gaming and hardware. I am not misleading anyone. You can believe what you like tho, but i am not fooling anyone. You guys didn't believe me when i said i was running this rig with those games at 90watts, the same PSU from 2000. But yet i already showed you proof. So again, system requirements are always inaccurate.

 

[crazy pyro]

Yes, they are always inaccurate, but they're not going to remove a section of their target market saying an entire OS can't run it if it can, your processor's less than a quarter of what's needed to run it and an 8400 won't perform better than a 6800GT, probably a fair bit lower. I mentioned AGP as that was what came before PCI-E and if the chipset only supports them in rare cases then there's no way it'll run PCI-E.
Saying you had the same computer since 2000 is saying you had it somewhere between 8 and 9 years.
I suggest you go and play your slideshow while watching the crappy peice of TV that is Smallville.

 

[A Cheese Danish]

Saying you had the same computer since 2000 is saying you had it somewhere between 8 and 9 years.
I suggest you go and play your slideshow while watching the crappy peice of TV that is Smallville.

First, not necessarily, he could have gotten it a few years ago, but it's been running since 2000. Second, that last sentence truly is not necessary.
This was supposed to help him figure out what bus would be better for him with upgrading. Now it has turned into a bashing session.

u2konline: Do you have your new Dell in your possession? Cuz i think you said you had to a wait a few days to get it or something?

 

[DaveK]

I'm not even here this long and I find these threads annoying. By the way, playable generally means 30FPS. Hell, I can't even stand watching videos from camera phones at 15FPS. 30FPS or GTFO.

 

[RadeonProVega]

u2konline: Do you have your new Dell in your possession? Cuz i think you said you had to a wait a few days to get it or something?

Nope, picking it up Monday morning and will have it running fully Monday night.

I am planning to use my Visiontek 2400HD and BFG 8400gs(not at the same time of course, just switching back & forth) with it. I should get a very good performance boost with the 2400HD or 8400GS, using a rig with 2GB of DDR2 memory and 2.8ghz. With my Pentium III, i am going back to using my 3dfuzion FX5500 and BFG 6200 and keep my older cards for backup. So one rig for newer games and one rig for older games, should work out great!
Actually i am about go to back to using my FX5500 in a few hours.

Anyways, The first 6 games which i plan to install to play at better settings and with better performance are

Jericho
Crysis Demo
Lost Planet Demo( Finally , i have been waiting to play this game for ages now )
COD4 Demo
Crysis Warhead
Alarm Cobra Crash Time.

Cheers.