PCI vs. AGP Video Cards

Which is likely to show better overall performance:

466MHZ Celeron with 128MB RAM and AGP Voodoo 4500 with 32MB RAM playing Unreal Tournament (for example)

or

2.8GHZ Pentium 4 with 256MB RAM and PCI XFX GeForce 4 MX440se with 64MB DDR RAM playing Unreal Tournament


darkrats

 

I will answer this as though it were a serious question.

The Pentium.

 

Are you saying that the increase in CPU speed will counter the drop from AGP to PCI in the video card department?

 

darkrats, Alex Ethridge

AGP is a high speed connection and runs at a base frequency of 66Mhz which is double that of standard PCI. AGP is based on PCI but it contains several additions and enhancements and is physically, electrically and logically independent of PCI.
Currently there are 4 Modes to AGP, 1X (Bandwidth 266MB/sec), 2X (Bandwidth 533MB/sec), 4X (Bandwidth 1066MB/sec), 8X (Bandwidth 2133MB/sec).

So the conclusion seems to be AGP has it all over PCI. The only major difference between the original release & the current one is the lower 1.3v operating capability as opposed to the originals 3.3v. Which means use caution when buying a New AGP card.

 

irdreed,

The original post compares a 466-MHz Celeron system to a 2800-MHz P4 system. Your post ignores this fact and I will point out that no video card, no matter how advanced or how fast, can outrun the speed at which the processor delivers the data to it. Also, you must consider that the Celeron is inferior to the P4 even at the same speed; but, in this case, even the difference between the MHz alone is vast.

My guess is that the system bus is also faster on the 2800 system, adding yet another advantage to the 2800-MHz system; but, even if the FSB speeds are the same, the processor in the 2800-MHz system is still almost five times as fast as the 466-MHz, and that is leaving the Celeron's inferior technology out of the mix.

I challenge you to show me even one video card--of any brand, manufacture or type--that runs independent of other components in the system. Note that the original post asks us to make a judgment of overall performance of two systems and did not ask which video card was the better performer when compared indepent of the systems they were installed in.

Yes, if the video cards were compared in the same systems, the AGP wins, hands down. But, darkrats wanted a comparison in the system.

I don't know where you get your information; but, I back my statement with experience working on thousands of systems in on-site service since 1995.

 

Alex Ethridge

First of all, darkrats first line in his original post (in BOLD letters) states "PCI vs. AGP Video Cards ", & it seems to me this is what he's asking....ie. in which system would the video show better overall performance.

Secondly, his response to you states: "Are you saying that the increase in CPU speed will counter the drop from AGP to PCI in the video card department?"

Again it seems to me he's asking about video card performance, so doesn't that appear to you to be the what he's inquiring??

Thirdly, my information comes directly from the Engineers who design these systems, and I've personally worked with video systems since 1952, so I'm more than sure the info I gave was correct.

If you need the source Data I'd be more than happy to provide same.

Hope this helps.

 

Source data, technical information and benchmarks are nice to know; however, I base my opinion on real-world experience.

Your response ignores the difference in processors and your response ignores the term "overall performance" in darkrat's original post. "Overall performance" is what I focused the meaning of his inquiry on and my response.

Again, your post focused on the video cards alone and disregarded darkrat's use of the term, "overall performance ".

Maybe what darkrat wanted and what he stated were different things; I don't know. But, his use of the term "overall performance" makes the meaning of what he wrote clear.

I helped build a car that tested at 186 MPH. Sure, it is fast; but, it will not get across town twice as fast as one that has a limit of 90 MPH because there are obstacles in the way--other cars, stop lights, curves in the roads, corners, turns, etc. And, because of these obstacles and hinderances to the maximum speed the car is capable of, the car will never be able to reach its tested speed in any drive across town. Even in the Winston 500, the car is restricted somewhat by curves and other cars on the track that prevent it from getting the same speed it could on a straight, smooth mile-long stretch. It is similar with computers. Everything in that machine is dependent on other things it must communicate with, and wait on--even the hallowed AGP video card does not stand alone "overall ".

 

An example:

My old mb used a 550 MHz. K6-3 and a 64-meg ATI Radeon 7000. The video was choppy when the machine was under load. Was considering a new vid card.

New mb Athlon XP with same vid card shows outstanding performance with all games and has it all over my other computer with the 32-meg AGP card. The new mb allows 66 MHz. PCI speeds, but works remarkably better even at 33 MHz.

MMX and 3D-Now on the processors also affects overall video performance.

As Alex Ethridge says, it is important to look at the system as a whole. Any bottleneck makes extreme speed useless.

 

Abraxas,

I thank you , my wife thanks you , my children thank you , and my motherboard thanks you.

 

Makes sense to me. But, it seems I have a similar discussion every day.

"But if I get a faster CPU, won't it make my computer faster? "

"Depends on a few things. Probably faster, but doubling the CPU doesn't always mean doubling speed. "

"But that doesn't make any sense! "

"Well, think of a large river trying to flow through a small pipe... "

Then they get a glazed look and realize that I am making it all up and clearly don't know anything about computers. The guy at the store was very clear......

 

Yup, been there.