AGP Aperture Size...

[Derek Baker]

gee, thanks for the intelligent advice.

Look guy,

You set the aperture to a given value, benchmark with your main
application(s), set the value to a different value, and repeat.

Whichever value gives the best performance, assuming all are stable, is the
one that you use.

 

[SteveC]

Thanks guy. Will do.

Look guy,

You set the aperture to a given value, benchmark with your main
application(s), set the value to a different value, and repeat.

Whichever value gives the best performance, assuming all are stable, is the
one that you use.

 

[Bob M.]

Every site I've seen says it should be set to something different. Half your
ram, same as video memory, 64megs no matter what. If you really want to know
what works best for you, download 3Dmark2003 and run a benchmark test (take
about 15mins) at each setting - 32, 64, 128, 256megs and see what results in
a higher score. Thats what I did and never seen a big difference from 64 up,
but 128 was the winner.

Bob M.

 

[Steve Vai]

The main problem with top posting, and I don't think it's been mentioned in
the replies yet, is that a lot of users (I know, you won't believe this)
don't use a newsreader that puts threads together. In that case, these
people have to scroll to the bottom of the message to figure out what the
hell it's replying to, then scroll all the way back up to read the response.
Certainly, many more people use newsreaders that do organize posts into
threads now, but it is still customary to post in this standard way

huh, im using agent and if you bottom post and reply, it comes up that
way when you read it....which means u gotta scroll through everything
u just read, maybe theres a lot of people using outlook.

when you have a small convo like this theres no problem in bottom
posting, it can all fit on the screen but when its 1500 lines long its
easier to top post to read the reply...know what i mean? ahhh fug it.

 

[Steve Vai]

i guess "reading about video cards" wasn't an option either. sorry for
your purchase. you would have been better off with a geforce 3

 

[SteveC]

Ohh well, Shit happens. I'm happy with my video card so far.

Steve

 

[Ancra]

according to an article i read on tweak3d.net, generally speaking, the
higher the aas, the better. however, benchmark testing will be
required to determine what setting works best with your system.
if you're doing a lot of 3d rendering, then yes 256mb should be good,
but again, test to determine which aas boosts your performance the
most.

I saw a bunch of benchmarks on this on the web somewhere a good time
ago, more than a year ago, I think. Might have been tweak3d.net, don't
remember.
Anyway, those benchmarks showed almost absolutely linear performance
up to the moment of the aperture becoming too small, or too large.
And the lowest probability of it ever becoming too small or too large,
seemed to be achieved by setting it to 64MB. Seemingly almost
regardless of your hardware.


ancra

 

[Ancra]

SonOfAGun typed:

"Certainly, many more people use newsreaders that do organize posts into
threads now, but it is still customary to post in this standard way."

To hell with "customary". It's easier to top post.
Why "snip" or read the original post and/or replies over and over again ??
The "new" way is better. Get with the program !

No way.


ancra

 

[mrdancer]

I saw a bunch of benchmarks on this on the web somewhere a good time
ago, more than a year ago, I think. Might have been tweak3d.net, don't
remember.
Anyway, those benchmarks showed almost absolutely linear performance
up to the moment of the aperture becoming too small, or too large.
And the lowest probability of it ever becoming too small or too large,
seemed to be achieved by setting it to 64MB. Seemingly almost
regardless of your hardware.

Test:
http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/aperture-size/

Conclusion:
http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/aperture-size/4.shtml

 

[Steve Vai]

Ohh well, Shit happens. I'm happy with my video card so far.

cool man, as long as your happy with it whats the hurt right....

 

[Ancra]

Test:
http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/aperture-size/

Conclusion:
http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/aperture-size/4.shtml

- Terrific! That was it. Thanks.


ancra

 

[Dave M]

I have same findings. 128 was slightly better than all in many tests.
ati9800pro 256 card

 

[~misfit~]

"Certainly, many more people use newsreaders that do organize posts
into threads now, but it is still customary to post in this standard
way."

To hell with "customary". It's easier to top post.
Why "snip" or read the original post and/or replies over and over
again ?? The "new" way is better. Get with the program !

Lazy man.

 

[Ancra]

I have same findings. 128 was slightly better than all in many tests.
ati9800pro 256 card

That information certainly isn't valueless, by any means.
I just hope you realize that you've found out that 128 is the best
aperture size, on your system... - For running 3Dmark2003!


ancra

 

[Northern Light]

Adrian Wong's BIOS Optimisation Guide suggests 64 to 128MB:

quoted:

"It is recommended that you keep the AGP aperture around 64MB to 128MB in
size, even if your graphics card has a lot of onboard memory. This allows
flexibility in the event that you actually need extra memory for texture
storage. It will also keep the GART (Graphics Address Relocation Table)
within a reasonable size"

John

 

[Alceryes]

out myself. Most of the writing on the web on the topic seems to date
back

to when 128megs of rams was considered overkill.
Good luck.

Good point. These articles I've seen are a little dated (and even then
didn't make much difference). If you have any of the newer cards (with 128MB
or higher) then you really don't have to worry where you set it (bear in
mind that some games are coded to look for a certain amount of AAS though).
*Note - the higher the resolution you play at and the higher AA and AF you
use, the more vid. RAM you'll use (higher AAS needed when playing with lack
luster 32-64MB vid. cards ).

*Also note that in no way am I trying to create a blanket statement. I'm
giving what I've found with the past 3 or 4 top-o-the-line computers I've
built. I encourage everyone to test their computer with AAS settings ranging
from 32MB to 512MB to see what works for them.

 

[Alex]

i dont see the bitching with top posting, its easier to read...you
read the first post, then go to the next and WHAT DO YOU KNOW? the
reply is on top so you dont have to scroll all the way through what
you JUST READ to read a reply...

The problem with top posting is that it is convenient only if the person reading the thread does so post by post, as you implied.
Unfortunately, many people are forced to use inferior NNTP servers that either lose posts or have atrocious retention.
Some don't have the money to pay for the use of a commercial NNTP server, others use ISPs that block ports, etc.
In short, the assumption is (still) that whoever reads your post, may not have easy access (if at all) to the whole thread.

That is why we quote - to provide the context necessary to understand our posts.

Now the problem with top posting becomes obvious:
If everybody uses bottom posting, the post reads naturally, like a dialog from a book page. It is easy to follow and easy to understand who said what in response to whom.

On the contrary, if you top post, the flow becomes unnatural. You must go down to the bottom of the post, scan up to find the beginning of the first post, read down to the end, scan up to find the beginning of the second post, read down to the beginning of the first post, scan up to the beginning of the third post, read down to the beginning of the second post, etc...

That's why top posting is disrespectful. You make reading harder on the people who don't have the resources to get the whole thread.

Best regards,
Alex

 

[Christos Stamos]

i dont see the bitching with top posting, its easier to read...you
read the first post, then go to the next and WHAT DO YOU KNOW? the
reply is on top so you dont have to scroll all the way through what
you JUST READ to read a reply...

/The problem with top posting is that it is convenient only if the person reading the thread does so
post by post, as you implied.
/Unfortunately, many people are forced to use inferior NNTP servers that either lose posts or have
atrocious retention.
/Some don't have the money to pay for the use of a commercial NNTP server, others use ISPs that
block ports, etc.
/In short, the assumption is (still) that whoever reads your post, may not have easy access (if at
all) to the whole thread.
/
/That is why we quote - to provide the context necessary to understand our posts.
/
/Now the problem with top posting becomes obvious:
/If everybody uses bottom posting, the post reads naturally, like a dialog from a book page. It is
easy to follow and easy to
/understand who said what in response to whom.
/
/On the contrary, if you top post, the flow becomes unnatural. You must go down to the bottom of
the post, scan up to find the beginning
/of the first post, read down to the end, scan up to find the beginning of the second post, read
down to the beginning of the first post, scan
/up to the beginning of the third post, read down to the beginning of the second post, etc...
/
/That's why top posting is disrespectful. You make reading harder on the people who don't have the
resources to get the whole thread.
/

But still, I would venture to say that most people "without the resources" would more probably use
free www usenet search engines such as Deja (aka Google Groups), which most certainly make it easier
to read top-posted replies, than the other way around.

 

[Alex]

But still, I would venture to say that most people "without the resources" would more probably use
free www usenet search engines such as Deja (aka Google Groups), which most certainly make it easier
to read top-posted replies, than the other way around.

Unfortunately, many people don't want to have their posts achieved for eternity and use the "X-no-archive" flag to effectively mask their posts from Google groups.

 

[Steve Vai]

The problem with top posting is that it is convenient only if the person reading the thread does so post by post, as you implied.
Unfortunately, many people are forced to use inferior NNTP servers that either lose posts or have atrocious retention.
Some don't have the money to pay for the use of a commercial NNTP server, others use ISPs that block ports, etc.
In short, the assumption is (still) that whoever reads your post, may not have easy access (if at all) to the whole thread.

true, i forgot that a lot of people are still under a rock and use
outlook and others...

That is why we quote - to provide the context necessary to understand our posts.

Now the problem with top posting becomes obvious:
If everybody uses bottom posting, the post reads naturally, like a dialog from a book page. It is easy to follow and easy to understand who said what in response to whom.

On the contrary, if you top post, the flow becomes unnatural. You must go down to the bottom of the post, scan up to find the beginning of the first post, read down to the end, scan up to find the beginning of the second post, read down to the beginning of the first post, scan up to the beginning of the third post, read down to the beginning of the second post, etc...

true, but i figured most people only read replies to a post they have
already read but maybe not....lets not get into turning text wrapping
on lol

That's why top posting is disrespectful. You make reading harder on the people who don't have the resources to get the whole thread.

yeah....i guess...