PCI-E is a utter Con..

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Geronimo!, Oct 8, 2004.

  1. Geronimo!

    Geronimo! Guest

    http://www.overclockers.co.nz/ocnz/review.php?id=04vga00pcie5900gigabytepcie59000105



    "Conclusion

    When both platforms running at default clock speeds, AMD64-754/FX5900 AGP is
    around 14% faster than P4/PCX5900 mainly due to higher VGA operating frequency
    (despite being on a more "bottlenecked" AGP). When both cards are operating at
    the same core and memory clocks, the difference shrinks a bit but we are still
    looking at circa 8% gap.

    The conclusion is clear now, with AMD64/AGP being a faster and more economical
    gaming platform than Intel P4/PCI-E/DDR2. However, the current situation is
    bound to change in the near future as both Nvidia and ATi are launching new
    GPU/VPU, namely X700 and 6600 series, respectively. Until then, we do not see
    the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon. "
    Geronimo!, Oct 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Geronimo!

    richard Guest

    Geronimo! wrote:

    > The conclusion is clear now, with AMD64/AGP being a faster and more economical
    > gaming platform than Intel P4/PCI-E/DDR2. However, the current situation is
    > bound to change in the near future as both Nvidia and ATi are launching new
    > GPU/VPU, namely X700 and 6600 series, respectively. Until then, we do not see
    > the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon. "


    Wow, so they can conclude that PCI-E is a waste of time, or a "con" when
    comparing 2 totally different architectures? - I think you read too much into
    there review there...
    richard, Oct 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Geronimo!

    Hmmm Guest

    richard wrote:
    > Geronimo! wrote:
    >
    >> The conclusion is clear now, with AMD64/AGP being a faster and more
    >> economical
    >> gaming platform than Intel P4/PCI-E/DDR2. However, the current
    >> situation is
    >> bound to change in the near future as both Nvidia and ATi are
    >> launching new
    >> GPU/VPU, namely X700 and 6600 series, respectively. Until then, we do
    >> not see
    >> the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon. "

    >
    >
    > Wow, so they can conclude that PCI-E is a waste of time, or a "con" when
    > comparing 2 totally different architectures? - I think you read too much
    > into there review there...


    maybe I missed the part where it said it was a waste of time, could you
    point that out to me? I think it said at this time there is no reason
    to jump at pci express as currently there is no great advantage, they do
    point out that that is likely to change.

    Maybe you didn't read it properly?

    hmmmmm
    Hmmm, Oct 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Geronimo!

    richard Guest

    Hmmm wrote:

    >> Wow, so they can conclude that PCI-E is a waste of time, or a "con"
    >> when comparing 2 totally different architectures? - I think you read
    >> too much into there review there...

    >
    >
    > maybe I missed the part where it said it was a waste of time, could you
    > point that out to me? I think it said at this time there is no reason
    > to jump at pci express as currently there is no great advantage, they do
    > point out that that is likely to change.
    >
    > Maybe you didn't read it properly?


    Until then, we do not see the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon.

    Thats where I got the waste of time from. The didnt say it word for word, but
    they didnt call it a con.

    What I was saying, was declaring the PCI-E the con out of that whole review is
    jumping to a mammoth conclusion.

    Its like trying to review a V6 against an inline-6 and putting one in a front
    wheel drive and one in a rear wheel drive car, and putting one on a dragstrip
    and one on a race circuit and trying to compare them.

    And to top it off, its not even a true PCI-E card, its got a damn bridge chip on
    it. I dont know what the performance penelty of that will be, but it has to be
    signifigant.

    Also, the first page has an error on it where they refer to PCI-E as a bus, it
    isnt a bus like PCI at all, it has lanes/channels that can be spread across
    various combinations of sockets.

    All in all, a mediocre review that comes to no conclusion as to which video card
    is better, it does point to that an AMD+AGP solution is much better value for
    money at the moment, but we all have known that AMD is superior in that arena
    for quite some time now.
    richard, Oct 8, 2004
    #4
  5. The good mid-range cards, such as the 6600GT and X700 will be much easier to
    get in PCI-E format

    Steve

    > Until then, we do not see the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon.
    >
    > Thats where I got the waste of time from. The didnt say it word for word,

    but
    > they didnt call it a con.
    >
    > What I was saying, was declaring the PCI-E the con out of that whole

    review is
    > jumping to a mammoth conclusion.
    >
    > Its like trying to review a V6 against an inline-6 and putting one in a

    front
    > wheel drive and one in a rear wheel drive car, and putting one on a

    dragstrip
    > and one on a race circuit and trying to compare them.
    >
    > And to top it off, its not even a true PCI-E card, its got a damn bridge

    chip on
    > it. I dont know what the performance penelty of that will be, but it has

    to be
    > signifigant.
    >
    > Also, the first page has an error on it where they refer to PCI-E as a

    bus, it
    > isnt a bus like PCI at all, it has lanes/channels that can be spread

    across
    > various combinations of sockets.
    >
    > All in all, a mediocre review that comes to no conclusion as to which

    video card
    > is better, it does point to that an AMD+AGP solution is much better value

    for
    > money at the moment, but we all have known that AMD is superior in that

    arena
    > for quite some time now.
    Stephen Williams, Oct 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Geronimo!

    Murray Symon Guest

    On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:04:59 +1300, richard wrote:

    [snip]

    > Thats where I got the waste of time from. The didnt say it word for word,
    > but they didnt call it a con.
    >
    > What I was saying, was declaring the PCI-E the con out of that whole review
    > is jumping to a mammoth conclusion.
    >
    > Its like trying to review a V6 against an inline-6 and putting one in a front
    > wheel drive and one in a rear wheel drive car, and putting one on a dragstrip
    > and one on a race circuit and trying to compare them.
    >
    > And to top it off, its not even a true PCI-E card, its got a damn bridge chip
    > on it. I dont know what the performance penelty of that will be, but it has
    > to be signifigant.
    >
    > Also, the first page has an error on it where they refer to PCI-E as a bus,
    > it isnt a bus like PCI at all, it has lanes/channels that can be spread
    > across various combinations of sockets.


    Not an error - it _is_ a bus. Why does it have to be "like PCI"?

    > All in all, a mediocre review that comes to no conclusion as to which video
    > card is better, it does point to that an AMD+AGP solution is much better
    > value for money at the moment, but we all have known that AMD is superior in
    > that arena for quite some time now.


    The review is just a comparison of video cards - it should not be used as
    a serious basis for comparing the respective bus technologies.
    BTW "PCI-E is a utter con (sic)" is similar to opinions that I can
    remember being voiced about AGP when that was very new. Eventually it
    prevailed.
    Murray Symon, Oct 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Geronimo!

    David Preece Guest

    This is 80% bull.

    Geronimo! wrote:
    >
    > When both platforms running at default clock speeds, AMD64-754/FX5900 AGP is
    > around 14% faster than P4/PCX5900 mainly due to higher VGA operating frequency
    > (despite being on a more "bottlenecked" AGP).


    So, two completely different platforms run at different speeds. *AND*
    surprise, sur-fucking-prise, the AMD one goes faster.

    > The conclusion is clear now, with AMD64/AGP being a faster and more economical
    > gaming platform than Intel P4/PCI-E/DDR2.


    Yeah. Got **** all to do with the architectural superiority or otherwise
    of PCI-e though, doesn't it? Maybe it has lots to do with both P4's and
    DDR2 being a bit brown an furry.

    > Until then, we do not see
    > the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon. "


    No. Unless you want to be the first kid on the block with the newest
    shiny thing - for instance the wide variety of sound cards SeƱor Woger
    has subscribed to over the years. No, the big advantage of AGP cards it
    that you can put them in *other* computers, and the big advantage of
    PCI-e is SLI. Plus trendyness.

    Nothing to do with P4's being long in the tooth though, is it?

    Dave
    David Preece, Oct 8, 2004
    #7
  8. Geronimo!

    richard Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > didn't see the original post, and havent read that review, but I have
    > read enough to know that the bridge chips cost, for all intents and
    > purposes, nothing in the performance.
    > each one I have seen has been between 1-3% and it was never the same on
    > the next run.


    Yeah, but it cant perform better then an AGP card in any case, as it basically
    is an AGP chip with the bridge, where as a native pci-e card will be able to
    draw on the additional memory bandwitdth for..... ummmm.... something...
    richard, Oct 8, 2004
    #8
  9. Geronimo!

    colinco Guest

    In article Murray Symon says...
    > BTW "PCI-E is a utter con (sic)" is similar to opinions that I can
    > remember being voiced about AGP when that was very new. Eventually it
    > prevailed.
    >
    >

    AGP was pushed heavily by Intel because they made CPUs. Powerful GPUs
    and lots of memory on the video cards overtook the initial requirement.
    colinco, Oct 8, 2004
    #9
  10. Geronimo!

    richard Guest

    Murray Symon wrote:

    >>Also, the first page has an error on it where they refer to PCI-E as a bus,
    >>it isnt a bus like PCI at all, it has lanes/channels that can be spread
    >>across various combinations of sockets.

    >
    >
    > Not an error - it _is_ a bus. Why does it have to be "like PCI"?


    PCI is a true bus, I can whack a riser into any slot and baring a few niggles
    with IRQs run as many cards as I like in a system up to the point where the bus
    is too loaded. The address and data lines are shared, allowing only one card to
    have the bus at a time. Its a giant bottleneck :(

    PCI-e takes each slot back to the chipset in its own dedicated lane or lanes, so
    its like compareing ethernet on utp with a switch, to ethernet on coax, one is a
    bus, one is not.

    Infact, I just looked, the word bus is noticibly absent from all the pages
    around http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/ - click into pci
    conventional, and there it is in the title, and all over the page.

    The OP was likening PCI-E to PCI as it was a bus allowing multiple VGA cards -
    the reason that it can is not that its a bus, its that it allows the lanes to be
    divided as the board maker sees fit - quite a difference. I like that you will
    not be limited to at best 2 busses on board like you are with current PCI. I am
    quite looking foward to building "Son of file-whore" with PCI-E SATA and gigabit
    and hopefully getting somewhere near gigabit speeds off it, and thats going to
    happen simply because PCI-E is _not_ a bus. (File-whore is the machine I store
    all the music/movies on here)

    > The review is just a comparison of video cards - it should not be used as
    > a serious basis for comparing the respective bus technologies.
    > BTW "PCI-E is a utter con (sic)" is similar to opinions that I can
    > remember being voiced about AGP when that was very new. Eventually it
    > prevailed.


    No its not a comparison of video cards, its a comparison of 2 totally different
    architectures. About the most similar thing in the 2 reviews was the video cards
    since at least they had chips made by the same company, which is more then the
    rest of the systems.

    Also, as for AGP being called crap when it came out, is that the whole drive to
    AGP by intel was a way to make crap 3D cards like there i740 that could do
    without texture ram on them. Thankfully that died out with intels one (and
    thankfully only) attempt at a 3d card. I dont even know if pci-e supports the
    card accessing system memory in the way that AGP does, and thankfully that has
    gone the way of the moa.
    richard, Oct 8, 2004
    #10
  11. Geronimo!

    Geronimo! Guest

    On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:32:35 +1300, "Stephen Williams" <>
    wrote:

    >The good mid-range cards, such as the 6600GT and X700 will be much easier to
    >get in PCI-E format
    >
    >Steve




    They Only come in PCI-E Format..


    >> Until then, we do not see the reason to jump on the PCI-E wagon.
    >>
    >> Thats where I got the waste of time from. The didnt say it word for word,

    >but
    >> they didnt call it a con.
    >>
    >> What I was saying, was declaring the PCI-E the con out of that whole

    >review is
    >> jumping to a mammoth conclusion.
    >>
    >> Its like trying to review a V6 against an inline-6 and putting one in a

    >front
    >> wheel drive and one in a rear wheel drive car, and putting one on a

    >dragstrip
    >> and one on a race circuit and trying to compare them.
    >>
    >> And to top it off, its not even a true PCI-E card, its got a damn bridge

    >chip on
    >> it. I dont know what the performance penelty of that will be, but it has

    >to be
    >> signifigant.
    >>
    >> Also, the first page has an error on it where they refer to PCI-E as a

    >bus, it
    >> isnt a bus like PCI at all, it has lanes/channels that can be spread

    >across
    >> various combinations of sockets.
    >>
    >> All in all, a mediocre review that comes to no conclusion as to which

    >video card
    >> is better, it does point to that an AMD+AGP solution is much better value

    >for
    >> money at the moment, but we all have known that AMD is superior in that

    >arena
    >> for quite some time now.

    >
    Geronimo!, Oct 8, 2004
    #11
  12. Geronimo!

    Murray Symon Guest

    On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:23:24 +1300, richard wrote:

    > Murray Symon wrote:
    >
    >>>Also, the first page has an error on it where they refer to PCI-E as a bus,
    >>>it isnt a bus like PCI at all, it has lanes/channels that can be spread
    >>>across various combinations of sockets.

    >>
    >>
    >> Not an error - it _is_ a bus. Why does it have to be "like PCI"?

    >
    > PCI is a true bus, I can whack a riser into any slot and baring a few niggles
    > with IRQs run as many cards as I like in a system up to the point where the bus
    > is too loaded. The address and data lines are shared, allowing only one card to
    > have the bus at a time. Its a giant bottleneck :(
    >
    > PCI-e takes each slot back to the chipset in its own dedicated lane or lanes, so
    > its like compareing ethernet on utp with a switch, to ethernet on coax, one is a
    > bus, one is not.
    >
    > Infact, I just looked, the word bus is noticibly absent from all the pages
    > around http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/ - click into pci
    > conventional, and there it is in the title, and all over the page.


    You are obviously working with a different definition of bus (or buss)
    than I am. You probably won't consider USB or SCSI as buses, either.
    However, we will have to leave it at that as I don't want this to fork
    off into yet another semantic flame war as we have seen here before.

    [remainder snipped]


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
    Murray Symon, Oct 8, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SFF11
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    853
  2. Ciger
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,302
    The Modfather
    Dec 1, 2005
  3. Dan Irwin

    pci-x\64bit pci

    Dan Irwin, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    663
    Dan Irwin
    Dec 25, 2003
  4. SFF11
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,260
  5. boysr2003
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    684
    boysr2003
    Dec 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page