Long Live AGP

[JonnyBlaze]

there is this thing called the future. stick with your agp ports & $400 cards and see what happens next year.

you will alll be using pcie sooner or later.

 

[Topweasel]

Long Live AGP as long as no future top end card is produced for it. Its Funny when people cry about saving pennies on system upgrades when they want to buy $600 video cards. Not only that but next to AXP their isn't a Platform used today that a simple motherboard exchange can't fix. I don't care tha AGP still has enough bandwidth and niether do the manufacturers out there. Think about it why change production and Produce a card that maybe 1%-2% of the public uses when your talking about shipping hundreds of thousands of products.

 

[munchow2]

Originally posted by: hellblazer
I have an Athlon XP clocked at 2.5ghz with 230mhz bus 2.5cl and score a 5415 3dmark 05 with an unlocked 6800nu @ 445/920.

5400 3d05 marks is equal to a pci-e nf4 AMD Athlon 64 4000+ CPU (2.40GHz, 1MB L2) with a 6800ultra. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7800-gt_26.html

I don't see a reason to upgrade at all since all modern graphics cards are cpu limited after 1600x1200 and that's the resolution that you would want to be playing at anyway. In another review, a 2.6ghz athlon fx with a bfg6800u oc only got a 3dmark05 5688. The 2.6ghz fx with 430/1200 ultra only scores 5% faster than my rig.

I have no problem with someone who paid $300 more for their cpu and mb to have a 5% faster system. I don't see why so many people here are down on AGP and think that spending $200 (venice 2gz) +$125 (NF4MB) is justifiable for a 5% increase. I don't care that my video card is cpu limted at resolutions lower than 1600x1200. I wish nvidia would release the 7800gtx on AGP because all cpu's rated 3ghz or more score the same after the eye candy is turned up.

There is a reason to upgrade. It is because no one will make new AGP mobos anymore. If you want support for new technology, you have to keep up and not live in the old days. Sure there may be something magical about AGP that we have yet to explore (ie: Pentium III's brilliant architecture had to go to favour p4 for a while), but that is the way technology is.

 

[VIAN]

If you don't see a reason to upgrade then don't. Then will you find a reason.

 

[neutralizer]

Definitely, I'm not upgrading my board just to get a premium PCI-E

 

[TGS]

Considering all cards except the 7800 are agp or pcie, that's a bogus statement. The majority of the big guys cards are the lower and mid tier levels. Or in Intels case integrated.

There is nothing wrong with AGP, although manufacturers are trying to get people to see the writting on the wall.

If they ever released a 7800AGP, I would jump on it in a minute. Though the extra cost of the motherboard is something I refuse to swallow at the moment.

The only thing I have to do to play future games, is to drop to 2xAA which is my bottom line for AA settings. Once I can't run that on the highest end AGP card will I be forced to upgrade. Not a day before. My 6800GT is still a fantastic card for the settings I run. PciE really doesn't bring me much other than SLI, and using a 1280x1024 maximum resolution LCD panel isn't giving me much.

 

[linkinpark342]

Originally posted by: munchow2
There is a reason to upgrade. It is because no one will make new AGP mobos anymore.

*patiently waits for ULi*
The SLI issue is also solved with this, so the only reason I could currently think of upgrading my high-end agp to pci-e or getting crossfire in the future with ULi would be because the Avalon desktop engine will supposedly (we won't know until its out ) need the extra pipes pci-e provides, but even that is pretty far in the future...

 

[VIAN]

I very highly doubt that. An average of 50-60 frames per second is not "great."

That's subjective. To me, those are great.

And for the record. AXPs aren't even in the same class. You may get a AXP to possibly be as fast as a 2800, but then the 2800 is still a better value.

I respect that, but would you really be able to tell the difference in a AXP machine between a 6800U and 7800GT? Transparency AA? Games won't be any smoother, minimum framerates would still suck on the newest games, and it would be a dumb upgrade IMHO. AA&AF would be better, yes, but the money would be better spent on the rest of the system at that point.

Possibly, but the 7800 can run FEAR with less of a problem than the 6800. A game with many shaders who can strip the power from many video cards. Plus transparency AA which kicks ass. The money will be may be better spent elsewhere, but it's still a performance increase, even when all you do is upgrade image quality.

 

[Kogan]

Oh my, people are getting smarter every day

Anyone can play any current game fine at high resolutions with a 2ghz AMD XP system and a fairly fast video card (6800nu agp). Unless you want to go 300fps at 640x480, then an uprade to a fast AMD64 system is not worth it.

No use in arguing AGP VS PCI-E. If someone has an AGP system that is capable of any recent processor (xp 2400+ and up), there is no need to upgrade to PCI-E, and they only need to buy a fast agp video card to make the system run great in games.

And if you already have PCI-E, you simply have different options on what fast video card you can buy.

Saying something like this is just mean (or you're just a pci-e fanboy):

there is this thing called the future. stick with your agp ports & $400 cards and see what happens next year.

you will alll be using pcie sooner or later.

Of course, everyone will be upgrading next year or the year after that, as all of us will. that's the way computer hardware goes.

People have different needs and just because you upraded to a pci-e system doesn't mean other people need to. Hell, I just recently bought a 939 nforce3 agp motherboard and it wil be lasting me for at least another 3 years, just as my last amd xp system with a geforce2 video card did.

I got pulled into the upgrade frenzy a month or two ago and bought a 6800nu to replace my older geforce card and I actually sort of regret it I can play all of the same games at slightly better resolutions, but to me, it's hardly worth the $150 I paid for it (When taking other video-game systems into consideration - xbox, ps2, xbox360).

But then again, I'm not biased one way or another for any certain company or technology, so I can see most things objectively (some of you guys should try this one day).

I upgraded the system that had a geforce 6800nu from an amd xp 2.2ghz to an amd 64 2.7ghz and actually get the exact same or lower 3d game benchmark scores at high resolutions (1600x1200). But of course, if you guys read a lot of reviews, you should already know that the video card is the main factor in 3d games The sometimes lower scores have to do with my ram not running at 100% on the amd64 system (damn these weird amd64 ram multipliers).

Even SLI's 7800GTX's are severly under-powered when paired up with the fastest processors (at high resolutions with all eye-candy options on). There's no use in upgrading to the fastest processor for 3d games when you'll be eventually limited by your video card.

Enough talking, back to searching for good deals on ddr600 ram

 

[rbV5]

I'll likely hang on to AGP in at least some of my rigs for some time myself. I'm running PCI, AGP and PCIe graphics currently on Intel, Nvidia and ATI chipset motherboards Using Intel P2 266 through AMD64 processors.

That said, my PCIe rig was the easiest, most inexpensive and most stable build I've ever had, and all my new rigs will definately be PCIe going forward. That doesn't mean I won't want to pick up an AGP card for one of my Nforce MB's down the road, but I doubt I'll ever want something more than X850XT PE or 6800UE for one of those rigs.

 

[touchmyichi]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Like the platform change is that big of a deal, especially when youre buying a $500 graphics card. :thumbsdown:

but why should we pay 150 dollars more for a decent motherboard if we can get the same exact preformance on our current AGP board (especially NF3 ultra users). Anyways, I'm not going to complain about AGP not being supported because it certainly is. ATI plans to have their top ends on AGP, as should Nvidia. With how many decent AGP equipped machines in existence it would be a a grave mistake to neglect it.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Kensai
Dual 7800GTX + AMD X2 4400+ = Killer gaming performance.

for future games
. . . or at ultra-high resolutions and mucho AA/AF . . . a "waste" for MOST - 90%+ - gamers
:roll:


bragging rights . . . priceless . .
that's all

Yep, I play BF2 @ 1400/1050 with some AA and high settings on my 6800GT @ Ultra and it runs awesome.. cept for the fact I need another gig of RAM NO complaints!

 

[Vernor]

One good thing about this is that people are dumping powerful AGP cards for some really bargain prices..

 

[rise]

its not the the 7800 and 520 won't come out on agp, its just you'll be waiting. whats the big deal?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Like the platform change is that big of a deal, especially when youre buying a $500 graphics card. :thumbsdown:

I can't, I'm a studient and is very hard to have the money for the GFX card, let alone the card and a MOBO....

I'm also waiting for a good MoBo with that ULi chip.

So youre changing chipsets anyway... to avoid upgrading chipsets. Smart.

 

[skace]

Jeff7181 /threaded this thing... assuming there was even a point to this thread to begin with.

 

[linkinpark342]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
So youre changing chipsets anyway... to avoid upgrading chipsets. Smart.

I think we can all agree that ~$90 for a new mobo is a lot cheaper then $300-$600(or however much your going to spend) to get a new mobo and video card

 

[Budarow]

I've got nothing against AGP, but I wouldn't want to build a new PC using it because from the little I've read regarding AGP bandwidth and recent video card throughput...looks like in another ~2 generations of topend video cards may saturate the AGP bus.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Budarow
I've got nothing against AGP, but I wouldn't want to build a new PC using it because from the little I've read regarding AGP bandwidth and recent video card throughput...looks like in another ~2 generations of topend video cards may saturate the AGP bus.

PCI-Express is also a low latency point-to-point bus. It's not just about bandwidth. It's about latency and versatility as well. AGP is ONLY for video cards. PCI-Express can be used for anything.

 

[ballmode]

If AGP can remain cheap, and integrated video does not advance faster/cheaper, then I don't see any problem with AGP.

For the world that doesn't game which is alot, most people don't need a PCI-E videocard let alone a good AGP card either.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: linkinpark342

Originally posted by: Acanthus
So youre changing chipsets anyway... to avoid upgrading chipsets. Smart.

I think we can all agree that ~$90 for a new mobo is a lot cheaper then $300-$600(or however much your going to spend) to get a new mobo and video card

The point still stands that all midrange and lower chipsets are available in AGP, the only time you are FORCED to upgrade to PCI-E is extreme high end ($500+) cards, for a limited time you can even get an SLI motherboard for free with the purchase of such a card. The excuses are running short many of you are just stubborn.

 

[TGS]

I think the large point to drive how, that one could use to defend against a forced move to PciE is simply how many devices will be replaced? How many devices will end up going from either AGP or PCI to PCIE. The typical answer from most people here is 1, the video card.

Unless there are some devices that require excessive amounts of bandwidth, none come close other than save for perhaps multiple hard drive controller cards. Which is not really in the realm of the typical home user upgrade path. No current PCI devices (that I can recall) require the vast amounts of bandwidth that the PCIE spec has been designed for. What is does provide is a great buffer for years to come, as the bandwidth on PCI/AGP devices will eventually saturate their current respective busses. The PCIE bus is to accomedate that growth over the coming years, not now. I haven't seen a single all PCIE board being manufacturered, all have some "legacy" PCI slots, due to the fact the PCIE equivalent devices are just not there.

If you take out video cards out of the PCIE upgrade equation, then it leaves almost no devices that will show performance gains from moving to PCI to PCIE. You could argue that a disk controller card would have more bandwidth available, though there are very many SATA II spec drives if any. For a user looking for real disk performance would probably be better served using a PCIX slot with a SCSI based system.

PCIE gives you room to grow and currently SLI capabilities. If you don't use SLI, than there is no compelling reason to upgrade to a PCIE board. If manufacturers released an AGP based card from their high end stock, once again I would have zero reason to get a PCIE board at this current time. If they don't than I'm being forced to upgrade for the latest and greatest card. I think the past developments have shown that it is possible to create an agp card from a native PCIE card, so again I have no clue why they are trying to force an upgrade path unto the customers.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: TGS
I think the large point to drive how, that one could use to defend against a forced move to PciE is simply how many devices will be replaced? How many devices will end up going from either AGP or PCI to PCIE. The typical answer from most people here is 1, the video card.

Unless there are some devices that require excessive amounts of bandwidth, none come close other than save for perhaps multiple hard drive controller cards. Which is not really in the realm of the typical home user upgrade path. No current PCI devices (that I can recall) require the vast amounts of bandwidth that the PCIE spec has been designed for. What is does provide is a great buffer for years to come, as the bandwidth on PCI/AGP devices will eventually saturate their current respective busses. The PCIE bus is to accomedate that growth over the coming years, not now. I haven't seen a single all PCIE board being manufacturered, all have some "legacy" PCI slots, due to the fact the PCIE equivalent devices are just not there.

If you take out video cards out of the PCIE upgrade equation, then it leaves almost no devices that will show performance gains from moving to PCI to PCIE. You could argue that a disk controller card would have more bandwidth available, though there are very many SATA II spec drives if any. For a user looking for real disk performance would probably be better served using a PCIX slot with a SCSI based system.

PCIE gives you room to grow and currently SLI capabilities. If you don't use SLI, than there is no compelling reason to upgrade to a PCIE board. If manufacturers released an AGP based card from their high end stock, once again I would have zero reason to get a PCIE board at this current time. If they don't than I'm being forced to upgrade for the latest and greatest card. I think the past developments have shown that it is possible to create an agp card from a native PCIE card, so again I have no clue why they are trying to force an upgrade path unto the customers.

As I pointed out... PCI-Express is not all about bandwidth. It has lower latency than AGP and PCI as well.

 

[impemonk]

AGP is great. PCIe is great too. Let us leave it at that and recall to mind that its your damn money so spend it however you want to.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: impemonk
AGP is great. PCIe is great too. Let us leave it at that and recall to mind that its your damn money so spend it however you want to.

But lets not call for technology to hault because someone's too short sighted to see that in the future, faster interfaces will be needed.