Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: Matt2
Besides, not creating any AGP products is the ONLY way for PCI-E to overtake AGP. If there were AGP equivalents to the PCI-E cards would you AGP users EVER make the move? Probably not.
Yes, but I think you are missing the point. There was nothing wrong with AGP slot to begin with (perhaps you couldn't do SLI with 2x 8X AGP slots?). All other things aside, any videocard on AGP slot and PCIe will give equal performance if it is the same videocard. Thus, does switching to PCIe warrant spending $100 on a new motherboard? (and for some users a new cpu that is barely faster than their older system?). From return on investment, switching to PCIe never made sense. However, like you mentioned, the industry is heading there so we have to follow since there is no choice on the high-end for AGP users. I just think it's a matter of principle -- why spend more for no difference in performance just because everyone else is willing to? At least with SATA, the switching costs were low and the cables less bulky.
Yet, for the consumer switching to PCIe (besides SLI) provides 0 tangible benefit all things being equal in a test system. For the manufacturer it solves a lot of problems - produce and budget for 1 standard only and relieve any worries associated with estimating demand for 2 standards; and alleviate issues with power mgmt since AGP slot provides what? 48W and PCIe 75W or something along those lines? Thus the circuitry and 2 power headers on the card would have increased costs for Nvidia and ATI perhaps. Since both can sell motherboards, and resolve the videocard issues, migration to PCIe was the next logical step from the supply side.