PCI vs. AGP

[Greg Berchin]

I've recently been building-up systems from old components. Some
have PCI video cards, others AGP. These systems are used for
computation, not for gaming, so there's no 3D graphics or
animation in use. I find that the systems with PCI video cards
consistently give clearer, sharper images of documents and line
drawings than those with AGP, even on the same monitor at the same
resolution. Is this a universal trait, that PCI is inherently
better at 2D graphics than AGP, or is it just that I happen to
have some "good" old PCI cards and some "bad" old AGP cards?

Thanks,
Greg

 

[Jim]

I don't think it's anything inherently having to do w/ AGP vs. PCI itself,
but rather, the interfaces serve different "communities".

For example, Matrox has always had a repuation for 2D clarity that dates
back well before AGP. It therefore caters to a different market segment,
corporate customers, servers, and general business needs. You're also more
likely to see a DVI (digital) interface on a Matrox PCI (or AGP) card these
days then the hottest gaming cards from ATI/NVIDIA (yeah, they do have DVI
from time to time, but it really varies). And with LCD screens not very
good for gaming (too much ghosting, slow response, etc.), there's little
incentive for ATI/NVIDIA to push the DVI interface (despite being clearly
superior to VGA in terms of clarity), it's just not the meat of their
market. Gaming cards are always AGP, because speed is king for 3D (or as
gamers put it, FPS (frame per second) is Life), even if it means sacrificing
2D clarity. When clarity takes a back seat, VGA becomes acceptable. Tell
that to the wall street analyst with his three 21" LCD screens using DVI!!!
He wants CLARITY, no compromises!

So the problem isn't technical, its that the market each interface most
appeals to results in a different focus on technical details. Of course,
I'm making broad, sweeping generalizations here, there can always be
exceptions and special cases. The differences between gaming and business
cards have diminished greatly over the past few years, esp. the high-end
ATI/NVIDIA cards w/ DVI support. As a long time user of Matrox AGP and PCI
cards myself, and more recent experience w/ ATI/NVIDIA AGP/DVI, I wouldn't
hesitate to use the latter in a business machine, the differences in image
quaility (if any) will be neglible to most people. It's your older AGP and
PCI cards that are more apt to show a wider variance. Frankly, your biggest
problem TODAY is NOT bad video cards, it's crappy CRTs and LCDs (business
and personal)! No video card, no matter how great, can turn a frog of a
CRT/LCD into a prince.

At least that's the way I see it...

HTH

Jim

 

[Toshi1873]

I've recently been building-up systems from old components. Some
have PCI video cards, others AGP. These systems are used for
computation, not for gaming, so there's no 3D graphics or
animation in use. I find that the systems with PCI video cards
consistently give clearer, sharper images of documents and line
drawings than those with AGP, even on the same monitor at the same
resolution. Is this a universal trait, that PCI is inherently
better at 2D graphics than AGP, or is it just that I happen to
have some "good" old PCI cards and some "bad" old AGP cards?

The latter option... unless you happen to have a card
that comes in both flavors PCI and AGP, use the exact
same rev of the video drivers, you're probably comparing
apples and oranges.

A lot of 3D gaming cards aren't that good at 2D work.
Used to be what Matrox sold itself on (maybe they still
do?), that their cards were superior at 2D crispness and
only so-so for gaming.

 

[Greg Berchin]

Thanks for the answers. At least one of the systems that I just
built contains a brand-new motherboard with integrated NVidia AGP
graphics, but it is perhaps the worst of the bunch in terms of
image sharpness. The sharpest card that I have, by far, is an old
PCI Matrox Millennium II. I have compared all of the graphics
cards with an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 monitor, which is
commendably sharp.

Greg

 

[somebody]

Thanks for the answers. At least one of the systems that I just
built contains a brand-new motherboard with integrated NVidia AGP
graphics, but it is perhaps the worst of the bunch in terms of
image sharpness. The sharpest card that I have, by far, is an old
PCI Matrox Millennium II. I have compared all of the graphics
cards with an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 monitor, which is
commendably sharp.

I'd like to make an additional comment. Both Monitors and graphics
cards will be less sharp on higher pixelclocks. To compare videocards
fairly, they should be on the same refresh rate and resolution.

ancra




P.S.
(In general, nVidia certainly doesn't have any problem with lack of
sharpness, so I would blame the integrated solution.
I've had a bunch of Matrox cards over the years. All superb.
But both my nVidia Ti 4600, and my 4280 are at least as sharp, if not
sharper, than my MG400 and MG550. On my best CRT monitor (Mazellan),
the 4280 is 'perfectly' sharp, identical to a LCD display, even if you
wont believe it, each pixel a perfect little square even at 1600X1200.
Even on size 10pt font, every 7 has a jagged aliased staircase for a
leg. As I write this, I just reset the display to 1600X1200 to verify
this again, and true enough, that 7 as well as the V is jagged!

I like the colors better on Matrox though, but you don't _have_ to buy
Matrox to get a sharp display. (you're guaranteed it though...))

 

[Greg Berchin]

The Millennium II is sharper at 85 Hz than any of the other cards
at 70-75 Hz, at the same resolution.

Greg

 

[somebody]

The Millennium II is sharper at 85 Hz than any of the other cards
at 70-75 Hz, at the same resolution.

- Oh, I'm sure! If Matrox ever made a less than stirling card, in
this regard, it must have been an awful long time ago.

ancra