[simpits-tech] Monitor question
Alan D. Mazurka
simpits-tech@simpits.org
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:05:32 -0500
--=====================_3441374==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
HI, Ido.
well, you've got me spinning. if there is next-to-no difference between AGP
and regular PCI, then why do motherboard manufacturers bother to make the
slot? why do graphics card manufacturers bother to implement it? is there
more than just the memory bandwith considerations with the connector to
make it useful? is it because the AGP standard is so poor that PCI is
outpacing it??
and why doesn't every graphics card manufacturer just skip supporting the
slot since there is only one (AGP slot per motherboad) to begin with?
if you are correct, it all seems like a big waste of time, and that
everything everyone has told me about AGP is false. there _has_ to be a
premium with use of the connector _somewhere_, or (again) it all seems like
a waste of time.
if someone else can help clarify this, the help would be greatly appreciated.
- adm -
At 09:44 AM 12/11/02 +0200, you wrote:
>Actually if you look at this -
>http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020718/radeon9700-04.html you will
>see that there is no difference for 3D also in AGP Vs PCI - there memory
>throughput of the card is 19.4GB per second and what the AGP bus gives you
>is 2GB per second , so it will never improve the cards performance unless
>you use huge textures which doesn't happen in todays games and when it does
>we'll get the 256MB of the 9700 or the new nVidia card.
>
>The problem is that i didn't see any high end graphics cards for PCI yet -
>the best I've seen is the GeForce 2 MX, if there was a radeon 9700 for PCI
>then there wouldn't be much difference from the AGP one.
>
>Ido
>
----------
Alan D. Mazurka Webspace Design & Implementation
adm.design@verizon.net
--=====================_3441374==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
HI, Ido.<br><br>
well, you've got me spinning. if there is next-to-no difference between
AGP and regular PCI, then why do motherboard manufacturers bother to make
the slot? why do graphics card manufacturers bother to implement it? is
there more than just the memory bandwith considerations with the
connector to make it useful? is it because the AGP standard is so poor
that PCI is outpacing it??<br>
and why doesn't every graphics card manufacturer just skip supporting the
slot since there is only one (AGP slot per motherboad) to begin
with?<br><br>
if you are correct, it all seems like a big waste of time, and that
everything everyone has told me about AGP is false. there _has_ to be a
premium with use of the connector _somewhere_, or (again) it all seems
like a waste of time.<br><br>
if someone else can help clarify this, the help would be greatly
appreciated.<br><br>
- adm - <br><br>
At 09:44 AM 12/11/02 +0200, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Actually if you look at this
-<br>
<a href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020718/radeon9700-04.html" eudora="autourl">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020718/radeon9700-04.html</a>
you will<br>
see that there is no difference for 3D also in AGP Vs PCI - there memory<br>
throughput of the card is 19.4GB per second and what the AGP bus gives you<br>
is 2GB per second , so it will never improve the cards performance unless<br>
you use huge textures which doesn't happen in todays games and when it does<br>
we'll get the 256MB of the 9700 or the new nVidia card.<br><br>
The problem is that i didn't see any high end graphics cards for PCI yet -<br>
the best I've seen is the GeForce 2 MX, if there was a radeon 9700 for PCI<br>
then there wouldn't be much difference from the AGP one.<br><br>
Ido<br><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<hr>
<br>
Alan D. Mazurka Webspace Design & Implementation<br>
adm.design@verizon.net <br>
</html>
--=====================_3441374==_.ALT--