PDA

View Full Version : Is Getting a PCI-E Ready Board Worthwhile?



Quicksilver62160
08-09-2004, 03:22 PM
Is the new PCI Express really worth having when you're building a new computer? I'm looking into several things before I start to build myself a new computer and I've been debating the PCI-E vs AGP 8X. Granted the PCI-E does have the 12X speeds, in recent tests the PCI-E cards have underperformed their AGP counterparts.

This is a little disheartening, though I know PCI-E is going to try to emerge as the dominant style in the new computers, is it really something worth getting?

Or, would it be better to wait for a dual PCI-E and AGP board to appear on the market, and then jump on that one (if it ever happens).

wayout44
08-09-2004, 07:27 PM
Later this year the dual PCI-E capable nForce4 chipset will be released (about the same time as the FX-55) but paying for 2 high end cards is a bit extreme for my liking (Intel atm only have their workstation chipsets that support Xeon CPU's which support dual PCI-E video). But from the benchmarks that I've seen 8x AGP is still just ahead and is likely to stay so for at least another year until software can take full advantage of the bandwidth (8x AGP still doesn't use its full bandwidth which is why its not far in front of 4x AGP but until software comes to grips with the added bandwidth then PCI-E will not come to the forte until 8x AGP capabilities have finally been passed). I'm going to wait the next year out before thinking about PCI-E.

Dreadstar
08-12-2004, 05:34 AM
Today's computers and their video cards are a long way from utilising the full bandwidth of AGP 8x as of yet. You are better off getting a nice case (if you are on the market for a case) that supports conversion from ATX to BTX form factor, and an AGP 8X-based system unless you are planning on using this for a very long time. Motherboards are cheap, and you can be sure you will be able to use the fastest video cards out for quite some time into the future. PCI-E is and will be just another marketing tool for hardware until at least one more generation of GPUs comes to replace the latest and greatest of today (X800 and 6800 type boards).

Yawgm0th
08-12-2004, 05:47 AM
PCI-E for graphics will be useless until either Intel begins making processors that perform as they should for the cost or until nForce 4 and other PCI-E supporting chipsets come out for sockets 754, 939, and 940. Even if PCI-E currently provided any advantage in graphics, it wouldn't make up for the fact that Penitum 4s are much worse for gaming (along wth numerous other applications) than Athlon 64s. There are advantages to PCI-E in other areas, but at the moment they aren't relavent for your average user nor are they relevant for a gamer.

To answer the question of the title more briefly: No, and it won't be for quite a while.

danJG
08-17-2004, 03:40 AM
amd64 better than intel? show me a "real" life game (not a synthetic benchmark) that can take advantage of 64bit chip.... no games can as of yet. mind you no games take advantage of hyperthreading yet either!

interestingly enough i have recently read that intel prescott has dormant 64bit capabilities. I read it at tech-report.com (i think thats the correct url).......

Yawgm0th
08-17-2004, 07:58 AM
amd64 better than intel? show me a "real" life game (not a synthetic benchmark) that can take advantage of 64bit chip.... no games can as of yet. mind you no games take advantage of hyperthreading yet either!
Go look at any benchmarks of actual game performance... Games don't take advantage of 64-bit unless using 64-bit software (suchs as Windows XP 64-bit). They do, however take advantage of hyperthreading (it's pretty much proven by the performance).


interestingly enough i have recently read that intel prescott has dormant 64bit capabilities. I read it at tech-report.com (i think thats the correct url).......It doesn't matter if that's true anyway...

danJG
08-17-2004, 11:49 PM
ok i was trying to be non-biased towards intel. my point stays the same. intel is basically head to head with the amd64 (P4C). P4 extream edition is faster. floating point calculations amd64 is better but not beacuse of the 64bit tech....
prescott is slower at the moment because games are not (yet) optimised for branching predictability. as soon as game developers optimise their games (for branching) prescott will be faster than amd.
it will matter if precott has 64bit tech in the future. what will amd do to compete against a 3.6/3.8Ghz prescott with 64 bit + hyperthreading when OS, like windows 64, are widely available?

so wait till september when intel prices drop, get the PCI express compatible motherboard and you have got a relativly future proof (at least for 2-3 years) PC.

wayout44
08-18-2004, 01:38 AM
ok i was trying to be non-biased towards intel. It ain't working then. :D

danJG
08-18-2004, 02:39 AM
cheers way out, make me look bad.... :0)

I didnt think hyperthreading was used (properly) by any games yet... all the ones I have only make use of one logical processor.

Morgan_Lander
08-18-2004, 05:07 AM
True, but it's like having some extra grunt to do some other work. It's been tried, but for the most part, it really wasn't worth the extra coding for a 2nd processor.