Why isn't AGP used on these new boards with onboard Graphics?

[George Hester]

When I look at the specifications for boards that have integrated graphics I
find they are using the PCI interface. For example look here:

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tempesti5000px_spec.html

Look down at the section Integrated Video Controller it says this:

.. ATI® ES1000; PCI interface

I thought AGP was the way to go with a Graphics card. Are there any boards
nowadays that have a Integrated Video Controller that use the AGP interface?

 

[Noozer]

When I look at the specifications for boards that have integrated graphics
I
find they are using the PCI interface. For example look here:

<snip>

If they use the AGP interface, then you can't add an AGP card later.

Onboard solutions are rarely fast, so using AGP would not gain much.

 

[pen]

When I look at the specifications for boards that have integrated
graphics I
find they are using the PCI interface. For example look here:

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tempesti5000px_spec.html

Look down at the section Integrated Video Controller it says this:

. ATI® ES1000; PCI interface

I thought AGP was the way to go with a Graphics card. Are there any
boards
nowadays that have a Integrated Video Controller that use the AGP
interface?

The board does have PCI-E slots so you could use a modern graphics card.
AGP is
being replaced with PCI-E. However, this is a server board. Why would
you want
high end graphics?

 

[George Hester]

<snip>

If they use the AGP interface, then you can't add an AGP card later.

Onboard solutions are rarely fast, so using AGP would not gain much.

Yes I know but these boards don't seem to have an AGP slot. Seems they
think tthe onbaord PCI is sufficient. And even then aren't these boards
that are using a PCI interface for the video going to be stealing some of
the system memory for those onboard controllers?

 

[George Hester]

The board does have PCI-E slots so you could use a modern graphics card.
AGP is
being replaced with PCI-E. However, this is a server board. Why would
you want
high end graphics?

Ok so AGP is on the way out and PCI-E is on the way in to replace it? That
is good enough for me. Why would I want a high end graphics card for my
server? Well at the risk of causing a general gasp because I am makeing
this server and I want it to be kick-ass for the hellofit.

 

[Gojira]

Ok so AGP is on the way out and PCI-E is on the way in to replace it? That
is good enough for me. Why would I want a high end graphics card for my
server? Well at the risk of causing a general gasp because I am makeing
this server and I want it to be kick-ass for the hellofit.

AGP is pretty much dead now,PCI-E is the way to go if you want high end
graphics,and a SLI or Crossfire motherboard is the way to go if you want
kick ass.

 

[kony]

When I look at the specifications for boards that have integrated graphics I
find they are using the PCI interface. For example look here:

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tempesti5000px_spec.html

Look down at the section Integrated Video Controller it says this:

. ATI® ES1000; PCI interface

I thought AGP was the way to go with a Graphics card. Are there any boards
nowadays that have a Integrated Video Controller that use the AGP interface?

To put it simply:

Server boards often have server chipsets which did not allow
for AGP ports because AGP ports are of primary benefit as a
cheap interface for PC gaming/other uses. Server boards may
have wider or faster PCI busses so there isn't just a
133MB/s bandwidth available, and even if it was on a
32bit/33MHz bus, if the OTHER high bandwidth parts aren't on
the same bus, there isn't the same level of contention.

Installing a *great* video card on a server doesn't make it
kick-ass if it's not going to be doing any demanding video
work/game/etc., it just uses more power, creates more heat,
and the larger driver package tends to introduce more
potential for instability. The kick-ass way to go is set
the video as low a resolution, bit depth and refresh rate as
tolerable after installing the smallest driver package
possible. To do anything else it might better be called a
workstation instead of a server.

 

[George Hester]

Installing a *great* video card on a server doesn't make it
kick-ass if it's not going to be doing any demanding video
work/game/etc., it just uses more power, creates more heat,
and the larger driver package tends to introduce more
potential for instability. The kick-ass way to go is set
the video as low a resolution, bit depth and refresh rate as
tolerable after installing the smallest driver package
possible. To do anything else it might better be called a
workstation instead of a server.

Hmmm...thanks kony. I will think on it. I just use the server because it
has "all" access to the other machines in the Network. The other machines
are just drones. Maybe I should retire my server to be just a server and
use a kick-ass machine as one of the drones. Really though that was my
plan. Welp gotta think on it a little more.

 

[kony]

Hmmm...thanks kony. I will think on it. I just use the server because it
has "all" access to the other machines in the Network.

Well... maybe it's not really best termed a server then,
rather a workstation that also happens to be serving files.
My main point was that if it had no video performance
needs, it was best to have the video be the least impact
possible in every way.

The other machines
are just drones. Maybe I should retire my server to be just a server and
use a kick-ass machine as one of the drones. Really though that was my
plan. Welp gotta think on it a little more.

Personally I wouldn't use a *primary* site server for other
uses. It would be left static, have all possible security
holes closed in favor of reliable OS operation instead of
versatility (in uses).

What is the server doing exactly? If a different machine
can handle the job and you *need* more performance for your
uses, maybe another system should be the server but we lack
enough detail to decide something like this... that's a call
only you can make.

 

[George Hester]

Well... maybe it's not really best termed a server then,
rather a workstation that also happens to be serving files.
My main point was that if it had no video performance
needs, it was best to have the video be the least impact
possible in every way.



Personally I wouldn't use a *primary* site server for other
uses. It would be left static, have all possible security
holes closed in favor of reliable OS operation instead of
versatility (in uses).

What is the server doing exactly? If a different machine
can handle the job and you *need* more performance for your
uses, maybe another system should be the server but we lack
enough detail to decide something like this... that's a call
only you can make.

The server is my Domain Controller. I have another server that is my web
and ftp sites. The Domain Controller also has a web server but the router
keeps the public out it it. So my Domain Controller is what I use for most
everything because it is the one that has full permissions to the rest of
the Network. And I use all the machines on the network just don't sit in
front of them. The rest of the Network is Windows XP Prof and Windows 2000
Prof.

The trouble is the logistics of the room the Network is in. Pretty soon I
will have more leg room and at the point I can decide how I want to set
everything up. I have just been bouncing around eBay trying to get some
idea of what I want that I can afford. It looks like I want this server
board Intel SE7525RP2 but so far haven't really liked the prices of what I
have found so far. I am looking for scalability as well as kickass so
haven't decided on anything yet. I am still wondering how a 64-bit machine
can use a 32-bit op sys. In my book that is like installing Windows for
Workgroups on a 32-bit machine. Why??? It almost makes me wonder if 64-bit
is still a pipe dream. I know it isn't but so they say.