Value of integrated graphics on mobo?

[mrdancer]

Yikes. I was thinking of getting a Sapphire. I tired your link
but just got a search page. Which Sapphire graphics card did you
mean as they sell 5 different ones.

Surely it's all plug and play these days and pretty much any modern
graphics card will work pretty much any modern mobo. Or not?

Try this link: http://tinyurl.com/hqrh and read the user reviews.
Newegg's pn for the Sapphire is: N82E16814102178

 

[Max]

the onboard gfx cards are cheap, maybe $50 to get equivalent
performance. You are better off with a separate card.

Do any graphics cards these days use the PCI slot?

If then then if I get an old PCI graphics, is it likely to be any
good?

 

[wayne]

I posted a decent card with 32 mb of memory that is available in PCI and AGP
for 22.00!

Wayne

 

[Filip]

or you could get what I got my brother....the PCI version of the FX5200
128MB(maybe 64, but I think 128...)...works pretty darn good for a PCI card.
I was actually quite surprised. Enjoy.

 

[Inglo]

or you could get what I got my brother....the PCI version of the FX5200
128MB(maybe 64, but I think 128...)...works pretty darn good for a PCI card.
I was actually quite surprised. Enjoy.

I have a friend who just got a PCI Radeon 9200 for his 900 MHz Celeron,
it actually plays Call of Duty, Max Payne2... pretty well, he just had
the crappy onboard intel graphics before which was horrible. The most
important thing to look for in one of those cards is memory bandwidth,
128 bit is leaps and bounds better than 64 bit. This is completely
different from the megabytes of RAM on the card. Some of these cheaper
cards come with up to 256 Mb of RAM, that is almost always a gimmick.
Fast 64 Mb RAM on 128 bit bus is going to be a lot better than slow 128
Mb RAM on a 64 bit bus.

 

[Piotr Makley]

I have a friend who just got a PCI Radeon 9200 for his 900 MHz
Celeron, it actually plays Call of Duty, Max Payne2... pretty
well, he just had the crappy onboard intel graphics before
which was horrible.

The most important thing to look for in
one of those cards is memory bandwidth, 128 bit is leaps and
bounds better than 64 bit.

This is completely different from
the megabytes of RAM on the card. Some of these cheaper cards
come with up to 256 Mb of RAM, that is almost always a
gimmick. Fast 64 Mb RAM on 128 bit bus is going to be a lot
better than slow 128 Mb RAM on a 64 bit bus.

Doesn't the use of PCI for a graphics card run the risk that the
PCI bus may be busy with work for other cards and so the
PCI graphics may suffer?

Also ... is the PCI bus as fast as the AGP slot?

 

[Rob Stow]

Doesn't the use of PCI for a graphics card run the risk that the
PCI bus may be busy with work for other cards and so the
PCI graphics may suffer?

Usually the only other PCI devices that might compete
significantly for PCI bus bandwidth are hard drives.
However, on most motherboards made in the past few years,
the IDE ports on the motherboard are on a PCI bus that
is completely independent of the bus(es) used by the PCI slots.

Also ... is the PCI bus as fast as the AGP slot?

A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
640x480 or 800x600.

For example, a PCI version of the Radeon 9200 benches pretty
much the same as the AGP version until you start playing games
at resolutions above 800x600. Even at 1024 x 768, most people
would need to see benchmarks to be able to tell the difference
between the AGP and PCI versions in most games.

As well, if you have a system so old that you are stuck with
PCI video, then your gaming bottleneck will be the processor.
If you have a PCI Radeon 9200 in an older system, then you
have eliminated the video card as the bottleneck for gaming or
other 3D performance - your ancient cpu is what you need to
worry about.

If you have a newer motherboard that has no AGP slot - then
shame on you for letting yourself get screwed by the vendor.
Server motherboards are, of course, a logical exemption.

 

[Roland Scheidegger]

A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
640x480 or 800x600.

The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not
scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered
different), thus this statement is completely false.
The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has
nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only
lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end
graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games,
but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without
loosing performance if such pci cards would exist).

Roland

 

[Rob Stow]

The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not
scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered
different), thus this statement is completely false.

Do a simple test: put a Radeon 9200 in a PCI slot. Run some
gaming benchmarks. Repeat the benchmarks with an AGP version
of that card in that same machine: same GPU running at the
same clock, same type and amount of RAM at the same speed.
Note that the benchmarks are very nearly identical at low resolutions,
but the AGP card edges ahead at higher resolutions.

The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has
nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only
lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card

You missed in my previous post that my original AGP vs PCI
comparison was for a Radeon 9200 - same GPU, same amount of
RAM on the card. How then do you explain that the PCI version
of the card keeps up with the AGP version until higher
resolutions are reached ?

(high-end
graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games,
but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without
loosing performance if such pci cards would exist).

Try out a Quadro 400 NVS. For best results you apparently
need to use it in a 64 bit/66 MHz slot instead of just a
32 bit/33 MHz slot. I saw someone demo one of those in
Calgary last fall. He did a few CAD/rendering demonstrations
and it seemed pretty impressive to me.

 

[Piotr Makley]

Usually the only other PCI devices that might compete
significantly for PCI bus bandwidth are hard drives.
However, on most motherboards made in the past few years,
the IDE ports on the motherboard are on a PCI bus that
is completely independent of the bus(es) used by the PCI
slots.


A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
640x480 or 800x600.

Are PCI graphics cards more or less expensive than the same card
for AGP?

 

[Psi-Tau Paladin]

Are PCI graphics cards more or less expensive than the same card
for AGP?

They are going up in price since not many people make them anymore.

 

[Piotr Makley]

They are going up in price since not many people make them
anymore.

Although OCI graphics cards may be going up in price --- is that
from a base price which is lower or highter that the price of AGP
graphics cards?

 

[Psi-Tau Paladin]

Although OCI graphics cards may be going up in price --- is that
from a base price which is lower or highter that the price of AGP
graphics cards?

They were still cheaper about 2 or so years ago and they were equal about
last year due to supply. At this point in time I would say that most
cards in the pci version will cost more than the equivilant AGP version
due to limited supply. Of course there will always be places trying to
get rid of stock.

i.e.
http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/cp_111601_brand_pny.html

PNY Verto GeForce FX 5200 PCI (128 MB) = 69 pounds
PNY Verto GeForce FX 5200 Ultra AGP (128 MB) = 60 pounds

Pine XFX MX 400 PCI (64 MB) = 36 pounds
Pine XFX MX 400 AGP (64 MB) = 27 pounds

 

[Roland Scheidegger]

Do a simple test: put a Radeon 9200 in a PCI slot. Run some gaming
benchmarks. Repeat the benchmarks with an AGP version of that card
in that same machine: same GPU running at the same clock, same type
and amount of RAM at the same speed. Note that the benchmarks are
very nearly identical at low resolutions, but the AGP card edges
ahead at higher resolutions.

This is simply not true at all. If you did test this, you likely didn't
use identical cards - for instance you might have got the 64bit memory
interface version of the 9200 (afaik only hercules produces a 128bit pci
version) which is only about half as fast (and at lower resolutions
could still keep up if your game is cpu limited).
There were lots of comparisons between AGP and PCI when AGP was new, and
resolution just doesn't matter.
Resolution COULD make a difference, but only if you're running out of
local graphic memory because of the higher resolution - but this is
unlikely to happen, since the z/frame/back buffer don't use that much
memory (if you're not using FSAA which you can't really use with those
low-end cards).

You missed in my previous post that my original AGP vs PCI comparison
was for a Radeon 9200 - same GPU, same amount of RAM on the card.
How then do you explain that the PCI version of the card keeps up
with the AGP version until higher resolutions are reached ?

Since it's just not true, I don't need an explanation ;-)

Roland

 

[Roland Scheidegger]

There were lots of comparisons between AGP and PCI when AGP was new, and
resolution just doesn't matter.
Resolution COULD make a difference, but only if you're running out of
local graphic memory because of the higher resolution - but this is
unlikely to happen, since the z/frame/back buffer don't use that much
memory (if you're not using FSAA which you can't really use with those
low-end cards).

Here's a recent test, and you can actually see that the difference gets
SMALLER between pci and agp with higher resolution (which actually is
expected, since the same amount of geometry data is transfered, but the
card has to work harder thus lower framerates, and the difference is
quite small to begin with at 800x600 and non-existant at higher
resolutions (compare the club3d lp and sapphire pci 64MB card, those
have same clocks, both 64bit memory interface, though the pci card has
only 64MB while the agp card has 128MB).
http://www.ati-news.de/HTML/Berichte/Sapphire/R9200-PCI/Sapphire-R9200-PCI-Seite5.shtml
(btw forget the aquamark results, this test definitely penalizes cards
with less ram, the 3dmark01 results though show that there is indeed a
difference between pci and agp cards - but again, the difference does
not grow with higher resolution).

Roland

 

[Rob Stow]

130.133.1.4:




They are going up in price since not many people make them anymore.

It depends on the card. Most PCI cards *are* more expensive
than the AGP version of the same card, but for the Radeon 9200
the prices are about the same.

I suspect the reason is that the PCI version of the Radeon 9200
is selling like hotcakes. Hence better economies of scale come
into play for the manufacturer and their is more competition
among the vendors. This card is selling *very* well to people
who have integrated video and no AGP slot.

It is also a good card for people who already have a dual monitor
AGP card and want a cheap upgrade to a quad-display system. The PCI
Radeon 9200 plays nicely together with all of the AGP Radeon
8xxx and 9xxx cards.

 

[Piotr Makley]

Here's a recent test, and you can actually see that the
difference gets SMALLER between pci and agp with higher
resolution (which actually is expected, since the same amount
of geometry data is transfered, but the card has to work
harder thus lower framerates, and the difference is quite
small to begin with at 800x600 and non-existant at higher
resolutions (compare the club3d lp and sapphire pci 64MB card,
those have same clocks, both 64bit memory interface, though
the pci card has only 64MB while the agp card has 128MB).
http://www.ati-news.de/HTML/Berichte/Sapphire/R9200-PCI/Sapphir
e-R9200-PCI-Seite5.shtml (btw forget the aquamark results,
this test definitely penalizes cards with less ram, the
3dmark01 results though show that there is indeed a difference
between pci and agp cards - but again, the difference does not
grow with higher resolution).

Roland, I am getting confused following this thread.

Are you saying that there is very little difference between the
same PCI and AGP graphics cards?

 

[Roland Scheidegger]

Roland, I am getting confused following this thread.

Are you saying that there is very little difference between the
same PCI and AGP graphics cards?

Yes, if the cards are otherwise identical.
(And keep in mind only low-end cards are available for pci, with
high-end cards which are much, much faster today you'd see more difference.)

Roland

 

[Michael]

But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based video
cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much more
expensive than similar AGP based video cards?

 

[Rob Stow]

But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based video
cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much more
expensive than similar AGP based video cards?

No, the Radeon 9200's and 9200SE's are very similarly
priced for the AGP and PCI versions - and at some
vendors they have *exactly* the same price.

For example, about five weeks ago I bought four
128 MB ATI Radeon 9200 PCI cards for $139.95 each
at FutureShop (Canadian electronics store chain).
The AGP version of the card at that store had exactly
the same price.