I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than
AGP ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are
they very responsive for 2D tasks?

I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
board. There is no AGP slot. So that only leaves putting a PCI card in
for somewhat better graphics.

Ideally I'd like 24 bit, (but 16 bit would do I guess) at 1600x1200 at
60 Hz to drive my TFT.

One option is to sell the dual Xeon motherboard and buy another, but
that is going to be more expensive.

--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:4420afe1@212.67.96.135...
> I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than
> AGP ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are
> they very responsive for 2D tasks?
>
> I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
> board. There is no AGP slot. So that only leaves putting a PCI card in
> for somewhat better graphics.
>
> Ideally I'd like 24 bit, (but 16 bit would do I guess) at 1600x1200 at
> 60 Hz to drive my TFT.

For your intentions there is NOTHING wrong with a PCI card and most likely
get 32bit depth at that screen size


>
> One option is to sell the dual Xeon motherboard and buy another, but
> that is going to be more expensive.
>
> --
> Dave K MCSE.
>
> MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
>
> Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
> It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
> for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

I think that'd you'd be OK with a PCI graphics card for 2D. The faster
interfaces seem to mainly be relevant for 3D graphics (games). The main
non-game application for fast 3D would be 3D CAD, and if you needed such a
card, I doubt that you'd have asked after PCI.

1600X1200 is 1.92 Mpixels. At 32 bit color (the same as 24 bit, except for 8
bits of alpha channel, which I've never understood), that's a bit less than
8 MB for a single frame. I don't know how many layers cards usually buffer,
but I don't believe that it's greater than 3. A 32 MB card ought to support
32 bit color on your LCD display.

If there are any errors in that reasoning, I trust that someone will jump on
it with both feet.

I recommend seeing what is available using the power search for video cards
at www.newegg.com. (As far as I know, they don't ship to the UK, but it will
still be instructive.) I see that you can get 128 MB Radeon 9250 cards or
Geforce FX5200 cards with DVI connectors (surely your 1600X1200 LCD display
has a DVI input) for a modest sum. The absolute cheapest PCI cards with a
DVI port are approx. $30US, and I only see one 32 MB card in the list - all
the rest have 64 MB or more.

Should you decide to take up gaming on your dual Xeon workstation, the
FX5200 supports DirectX 9 in hardware.

Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:4420afe1@212.67.96.135...
>I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than AGP
>ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are they very
>responsive for 2D tasks?
>
> I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
> board. There is no AGP slot. So that only leaves putting a PCI card in for
> somewhat better graphics.
>
> Ideally I'd like 24 bit, (but 16 bit would do I guess) at 1600x1200 at 60
> Hz to drive my TFT.
>
> One option is to sell the dual Xeon motherboard and buy another, but that
> is going to be more expensive.
>
> --
> Dave K MCSE.
>
> MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
>
> Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
> It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
> for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

Dave (from the UK) wrote:

> I've no interest in 3D games, but are they very responsive for 2D tasks?
>
> I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
> board. There is no AGP slot.

www.madonion.com has results for their 3Dmark benchmarks for several
different graphics cards, although I've found that people often report
very different results for the same hardware.

I once compared PCI and AGP versions of TNT2 M64 cards on my 500 MHz
VA-503+ mobo, and the AGP card was only 5% faster, overall. I don't
remember the benchmark, but it may have been 3Dmark2000 or 2001.
..

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:00:55 +0000, "Dave (from the UK)"
<see-my-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than
>AGP ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are
>they very responsive for 2D tasks?
>
>I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
>board. There is no AGP slot. So that only leaves putting a PCI card in
>for somewhat better graphics.
>
>Ideally I'd like 24 bit, (but 16 bit would do I guess) at 1600x1200 at
>60 Hz to drive my TFT.
>
>One option is to sell the dual Xeon motherboard and buy another, but
>that is going to be more expensive.

Hey Dave!

You're tenacious. I'll bet a PCI card would be just the ticket. I'm
surprised at what is out there. Newegg has a big inventory and a good
search utility at:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:00:55 +0000, "Dave (from the UK)"
<see-my-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than
>AGP ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are
>they very responsive for 2D tasks?
>
>I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
>board. There is no AGP slot. So that only leaves putting a PCI card in
>for somewhat better graphics.
>
>Ideally I'd like 24 bit, (but 16 bit would do I guess) at 1600x1200 at
>60 Hz to drive my TFT.
>
>One option is to sell the dual Xeon motherboard and buy another, but
>that is going to be more expensive.

Hey Dave!

You're tenacious. I'll bet a PCI card would be just the ticket. I'm
surprised at what is out there. Newegg has a big inventory and a good
search utility at:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ice=&maxPrice=

Charlie

P.S. sorry about the double post, I hit a shortcut trying to paste the
link...

Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:00:55 +0000, "Dave (from the UK)"
> <see-my-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than
>>AGP ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are
>>they very responsive for 2D tasks?
>>
>>I've got a dual Xeon motherboard with a graphics card with only 8 MB on
>>board. There is no AGP slot. So that only leaves putting a PCI card in
>>for somewhat better graphics.
>>
>>Ideally I'd like 24 bit, (but 16 bit would do I guess) at 1600x1200 at
>>60 Hz to drive my TFT.
>>
>>One option is to sell the dual Xeon motherboard and buy another, but
>>that is going to be more expensive.
>
>
> Hey Dave!
>
> You're tenacious. I'll bet a PCI card would be just the ticket. I'm
> surprised at what is out there. Newegg has a big inventory and a good
> search utility at:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ice=&maxPrice=
>
> Charlie

Yes,

the PCI video option is certainly one. I'm just a bit concerned that I
know the particular CPU intensive application I occasionally run, which
might use a week or two of CPU time, runs faster on Opteron.

My friend who gave me the CPUs has said it is OK with him if I sell them
and buy something more suitable. So I am still not sure if to sell the
Xeon motherboard which I bought only this week and Xeon CPUs and buy
Opteron bits, or whether to buy a half-decent PCI graphics card and
assemble a Xeon based machine for which I have all the bits minus a case
and power supply.

I'm not sure what the relative performance of Opteron vs Xeon normally
is, but for this application I know some scores relative to a 1 GHz
Power Mac for several processors.

AMD64 FX-55 (2.8 GHz) = 5.12797
Opteron 252 (2.6 GHz) = 5.04373
Opteron 244 (1.8 GHz) = 3.40254
Pentium 4 XT ("Extreme Edition"), 3.2 GHz = 2.6867
Opteron 244 (1,8 GHz) = 2.73023
3.06GHz Xeon = 2.43878
P4, 3.2 GHz = 2.41661
Pentium Xeon, 2.4GHz = 1.79268
PowerMac 1GHz, 7 = 1.000000000

So a relatively cheap Opteron will be faster than the Xeon. I think the
Xeons will sell for more on eBay than an Opteron 244 will cost and yet
give better performance. The main advantage of the Opteron stratergy
would be there is likely to be a reasonable upgrade path in future when
Opterons fall in price. The motherboard will not support the faster
Xeons and those sort of chips don't tend to fall in price so much.

It is just that the motherboard costs for Opteron are much higher than
we paid for the Xeon motherboards.

I think despite the higher costs, selling the Xeons and buying Opterons
might be more sensible for me.

I also have the advantage of being able to run my application under
Solaris if I use the 64-bit Opteron, but I will have to install Linux to
run it on the Xeons, as it does not support 32-bit processors on
Solaris, although it does on Linux.

As you can see, there are many conflicting things here, but I think
overall the Opteron is a better solution. It is just a more expensive
one, at the time when I am unemployed, so don't want to spend more money
than necessary.

--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:53:30 +0000, "Dave (from the UK)"
<see-my-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I think despite the higher costs, selling the Xeons and buying Opterons
>might be more sensible for me.
>
>I also have the advantage of being able to run my application under
>Solaris if I use the 64-bit Opteron, but I will have to install Linux to
>run it on the Xeons, as it does not support 32-bit processors on
>Solaris, although it does on Linux.
>
>As you can see, there are many conflicting things here, but I think
>overall the Opteron is a better solution. It is just a more expensive
>one, at the time when I am unemployed, so don't want to spend more money
>than necessary.

Yeah, I sure think so. For someone who has a business with a lot of
inventory and clerks, the xeons+board ought to be an enticing deal.
For you, a fast AMD is a better deal, and, as you say, offers a much
better upgrade path.

However, now that I am aware of the PCI video options, the setup you
have doesn't look as improbable.

You must be doing chaos math, or maybe a real-life Jurassic Park, eh?
I can see why you are averse to overclocking if you have 2-week runs.

I looked at that case you are eyeballing. I don't think you need to
throw out the PSU. But why not get a junker and just buy the Antec TP
2, to save a few bucks. I got this great big server case free. My
system looks tacky, because I left the cover off, but if I wanted to,
I could make it look very nice indeed with a little paint, epoxy and
wet-sanding. I might actually do it when I get bored with everything
else. I'm thinking Chinese red with black trim.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

>>As you can see, there are many conflicting things here, but I think
>>overall the Opteron is a better solution. It is just a more expensive
>>one, at the time when I am unemployed, so don't want to spend more money
>>than necessary.
>
>
> Yeah, I sure think so. For someone who has a business with a lot of
> inventory and clerks, the xeons+board ought to be an enticing deal.
> For you, a fast AMD is a better deal, and, as you say, offers a much
> better upgrade path.

I've stuck one Xeon on eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=6862924106

Not sure if it was best to sell the lot in one go, or individually.
Since the Xeons are new, in Compaq boxes, they might be tempting to a
Compaq dealer. They have the Compaq heat sinks too.

> However, now that I am aware of the PCI video options, the setup you
> have doesn't look as improbable.

Agreed, it looks workable, and probably the best value for money, unless
the Xeons fetch a fair amount.

> You must be doing chaos math, or maybe a real-life Jurassic Park, eh?
> I can see why you are averse to overclocking if you have 2-week runs.

Maths is a bit of a hobby some times, so I do CPU intensive things. I
also worked as a scientist, so have done various things over the years
which use a lot of CPU time. I was running 24 computers in parallel long
before things like seti@home were popular. I published the method in a
scientific journal many years ago.

> I looked at that case you are eyeballing. I don't think you need to
> throw out the PSU. But why not get a junker and just buy the Antec TP
> 2, to save a few bucks.

Finding one that takes extended ATX is not so easy. It is possible the
case I have will do so. There certainly would be if I removed the
internal disk drives, which I could do if I put a disk in one of the 3
spaces for external devices (CD/DVDs) etc. It is a full tower case. I
only have a CD writer there, so could fill one space with an internal
disk. It would need some attention to cooling though.

The motherboard I have is only ATX, but is dual processor with SCSI on
board.

> I got this great big server case free. My
> system looks tacky, because I left the cover off, but if I wanted to,
> I could make it look very nice indeed with a little paint, epoxy and
> wet-sanding. I might actually do it when I get bored with everything
> else. I'm thinking Chinese red with black trim.

I'm not too bothered what it looks like. I will however have to look
around at the cost of new Opteron based PCs, as buying a new one might
be cheaper, since the only item I think I can salvage is the SCSI disks
and SCSI controller.

One advantage of buying a new case is that I should be able to upgrade
easily to 4 or 8 CPUs at a later date if I wanted. However, this machine
has 4 CPUs, but I rarely manage to get them all working very
effectively, as so few tasks can be split effectively for multiple
processors and even fewer programs are written to exploit multiple
processors.



> Charlie


--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote...
>I get the feeling PCI graphics cards are going to be a lot slower than AGP
>ones. But how bad are they? I've no interest in 3D games, but are they very
>responsive for 2D tasks?

Only about 5 years back a 32 MB PCI Gfx card was the bleeding edge. For 2D
work, find a (then) high-end Matrox, which pretty much led the business app
Gfx benchmarks.