So AGP is slated for complete obsolesence?

[Doug]

The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely? I'd
think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue especially
w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?) who
were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If so, who
is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

 

[Andrew]

The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely? I'd
think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue especially
w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

That is why ATI are now able to bring out cheap cards without any
onboard RAM and can use system memory via PCI-Express.

 

[J. Clarke]

The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely?
I'd think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue
especially w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?)
who were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If
so, who is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

The bandwidth of x16 is, the bandwidth of x1 is not, I forget where the
crossover is.

And it's Intel that's pushing it--I don't think that Microsoft really gives
a damn one way or another--it doesn't affect them unless Intel screws up
the hardware design in such a manner that they have to put workarounds in
the OS to fix it.

One day Intel just up and announced "we've got this hot new bus and all of
our new chipsets are going to have it and not AGP and the rest of you
better support it" and the rest of the industry just rolled over for them.

 

[Ben Pope]

The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely? I'd
think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue especially
w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?

On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?) who
were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If so, who
is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.

AGP is about 267MB/s total.

AGP8x is 2.1GB/s

PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but
there's overhead)

PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s

AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
anything.

PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
and it's a good thing.

Ben

 

[J. Clarke]

If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?

PCI Express.

PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.

AGP is about 267MB/s total.

AGP8x is 2.1GB/s

PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but
there's overhead)

PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s

Uh, if PCIe is 2.5 Gb/sec then PCIe 16x is 16 times that. It scales
linearly from 1x to 16x. I think you've left something out.

AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
anything.

PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
and it's a good thing.

Why is it a good thing? Just because everybody says "rah rah it's a good
thing"? Look where that got Martha Stewart.

Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.

 

[Doug]

Since the Athlon FX is now using a 128-bit data bus (as opposed to the
previous 64-bit data bus or Pentium-based CPU's) obviously not everything is
going serial. I thought PCI Express was supposed to completely replace AGP?
Right?

 

[Phoenix AG]

Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.

Just like 5 years ago there was a "fad for pentium mmx" computers.
Now, 5 years down the line, we look back at them and laugh with our
pentium 4s with HT.

Everything gets upgraded. They are all fads. I think its a good move
to switch over to PCIe. And by the end of this year, hopefully, some
gfx cards will come out which utilize more of the bandwidth of PCIe.

Anyway, all of these new cards coming out are native PCIe. So it
doesn't make sense to go in for AGP now.


***
....the Phoenix shall rise...

 

[Ben Pope]

Since the Athlon FX is now using a 128-bit data bus (as opposed to the
previous 64-bit data bus or Pentium-based CPU's) obviously not everything is
going serial. I thought PCI Express was supposed to completely replace AGP?
Right?

No, not everything is going serial, that was perhaps an overstatement.
But then, we are talking about raw data rates of 6.4GBytes per second
for memory, and thats not overclocked. It's been shown that certain
boards with certain memory are pushing >50% on top of that - nearly
10GBytes/s.

PCIe will replace AGP, yes.

Ben

 

[Ben Pope]

PCI Express.

Well, yes, presumably, but the post was written as if the card would be
hard-wired to system RAM or something. I was after the OPs expectations.

Uh, if PCIe is 2.5 Gb/sec then PCIe 16x is 16 times that. It scales
linearly from 1x to 16x. I think you've left something out.

2.5G BITS *16 lanes / 8 bits is ~4G Bytes. OK, so the maths says it's
5GB, but like I said, there's overhead - so in terms of usuable data
rates it's more like 4GB/s.

Why is it a good thing? Just because everybody says "rah rah it's a good
thing"? Look where that got Martha Stewart.

Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.

It's a good thing because it means that cabling and connectors are more
manageable - I kinda like SATA connectors over ATA ones, and USB
connectors over 9pin D-Type.

Routing of tracks on boards is easier and takes up less space.

Signal levels can be reduced with a balanced line (differential pair) as
the effect of interference is reduced. This means less power requirements.

Ben

 

[J. Clarke]

Since the Athlon FX is now using a 128-bit data bus (as opposed to the
previous 64-bit data bus or Pentium-based CPU's) obviously not everything
is going serial. I thought PCI Express was supposed to completely replace
AGP? Right?

It is, but not because it is needed for that purpose, only because Intel has
decreed it so.

 

[Ed Forsythe]

I like the SATA cable/connector size but the connectors are a disaster. ATA
stays put. Each time I work in my case I inadvertently dislodge a SATA
connector. The cable is much too stiff for easy routing . I think the use
of silicone would improve that.

 

[J. Clarke]

Just like 5 years ago there was a "fad for pentium mmx" computers.
Now, 5 years down the line, we look back at them and laugh with our
pentium 4s with HT.

Not equivalent. Pentium MMX is one stage in the evolution of
microprocessors. The serial bus is a general class of technology that has
many different incarnations.

Everything gets upgraded. They are all fads.

Somehow I don't think that the integrated circuit microprocessor is a "fad".

I think its a good move
to switch over to PCIe. And by the end of this year, hopefully, some
gfx cards will come out which utilize more of the bandwidth of PCIe.

Why would one want them to? They still have vastly more bandwidth to their
onboard memory.

Anyway, all of these new cards coming out are native PCIe. So it
doesn't make sense to go in for AGP now.

They're also for the most part available with AGP and with the same
performance. The reason to go PCI Express is not that video boards are not
available, it's that you can't buy a motherboard with a current-generation
Intel chipset on it that has anything else.

 

[J. Clarke]

Well, yes, presumably, but the post was written as if the card would be
hard-wired to system RAM or something. I was after the OPs expectations.


2.5G BITS *16 lanes / 8 bits is ~4G Bytes. OK, so the maths says it's
5GB, but like I said, there's overhead - so in terms of usuable data
rates it's more like 4GB/s.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to your units.

It's a good thing because it means that cabling and connectors are more
manageable - I kinda like SATA connectors over ATA ones,

I kinda decided that they suck the first time I broke one. They're almost
unbelievably fragile--I've seen eggs that took more effort to break. Not
"pull loose" but break as in you toss the cable if you're lucky or the
drive if you're not.

and USB
connectors over 9pin D-Type.

I don't see where there's much advantage either way. The USB is a bit more
convenient, but when you screw down the D it doesn't come loose.

Routing of tracks on boards is easier and takes up less space.

And this is of benefit in what fashion? If the routing of tracks on boards
was a major cost driver or if was limiting the possible miniaturization of
boards that might be one thing, but I don't think that there's much need
for a board smaller than a nano-ITX and the main cost of motherboards these
days is the labor to move them around the factory.

Signal levels can be reduced with a balanced line (differential pair) as
the effect of interference is reduced. This means less power
requirements.

So how much power does the bus draw as opposed to the video processor, the
CPU, the disk motors, etc?

It's all "rah-rah serial bus" until somebody actually demonstrates that
there is a real-world benefit, which nobody has done to date. It reminds
me of Microchannel, only unlike IBM, Intel has enough clout to pull it off.

 

[Ed Forsythe]

You beat me to it John I think I bought the first IBM MicroChannel
computer sold in this area (DC) at $5000! Then I had to pay another $400 to
get a decent MicroChannel graphics card. There's one born every minute ;-0

 

[Phoenix AG]

Not equivalent. Pentium MMX is one stage in the evolution of
microprocessors. The serial bus is a general class of technology that has
many different incarnations.

Well...let me put it this way...
PCIe is one stage in the evolution of Graphics card buses. I am sure
when AGP was introduced, which was an upgrade over PCI based graphics
cards, people like you said that its all a fad and who needs the extra
power anyway?

If we kept thinking like that...then we would seriously be very
technologically incompetent. Ok, there isn't a need for it today, but
when the new graphics cards come out, maybe they will need even more
than what AGP8x currently offers. Maybe they will need the speed of
PCIe.

Somehow I don't think that the integrated circuit microprocessor is a "fad".

Same as AGP isn't a fad. I hate the term fad and I wish you hadn't
used it in your original post
PCIe is a natural progression.

Why would one want them to? They still have vastly more bandwidth to their
onboard memory.

Would you not like to experience games in even better graphics? Maybe
even graphics that make you feel like you are experiencing it like
it's real? You expect that on AGP? I don't think so.
I probably won't even expect it on PCIe, but at least its a step
further than AGP. Always, one step forward, not backwards.

They're also for the most part available with AGP and with the same
performance. The reason to go PCI Express is not that video boards are not
available, it's that you can't buy a motherboard with a current-generation
Intel chipset on it that has anything else.

Yes, but still, they are made for PCIe buses. You can still find
motherboards with an AGP slot. In fact, I had trouble finding an AMD
motherboard with a PCIe slot. Thats why I took Intel then. Why buy
technology which is already obsolete?

You can fight it, but AGP is going to be made obsolete by PCIe. Maybe
it is Intel's evil agenda but the fact is, it does provide better
bandwidth.

In computing, it's never "why do I need?", always "because I can".
Intel could do it thats why they did it. You think an average home
user really *needs* the Pentium 4 3.0+ ghz processor with HT?
Nope...LOL...Most of the tasks can be handled easily with a 1gig or if
you really need it, a 1.5-2.0.


***
....the Phoenix shall rise...

 

[NightSky 421]

On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?)
who were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If
so, who is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

Nothing is truly obsolete until people abandon it in droves. I certainly
have the feeling that both ATI and nVidia would like to kill off AGP video
cards altogether, but since most users "still" (using the term loosely) have
AGP, they can't get rid of it yet. Doing so would kill a lot of sales of
video cards. Although I have a 9800 Pro and am not looking to buy a new
video card anytime soon, I'd be upset if I wanted to buy a new video card
and couldn't because I have AGP. Given that I have a 2.8GHz Pentium 4
Northwood C CPU, I'd definitely feel shafted if I had to change my
motherboard and processor because I wanted a new video card.

It's sort of like Windows 98 and ME...people still use those OS's now, but
it took at least two years after the release of Windows XP before people
really started to adopt it (XP). The gaming industry didn't feel
comfortable with starting to abandon 9x until last year, and even now a lot
of games still support it.

 

[Arthur Hagen]

You can fight it, but AGP is going to be made obsolete by PCIe. Maybe
it is Intel's evil agenda but the fact is, it does provide better
bandwidth.

Yes, but what about latency?
With most if not all of today's games, graphics card bus bandwidth isn't the
bottleneck, and you'll get the exact same performance with AGP 4x as 8x.

Another trend that worries me is that you no longer can plug in a lot of
devices -- there's no more than 3-4 usable slots on new motherboards. I
have five PCI slots in use on this box, and just *can't* imagine getting rid
of functionality (or quality) I have now. Even when there's PCIe
counterparts, there just aren't enough slots anymore.

Regards,

 

[Tom Lake]

Another trend that worries me is that you no longer can plug in a lot of

devices -- there's no more than 3-4 usable slots on new motherboards. I
have five PCI slots in use on this box, and just *can't* imagine getting
rid
of functionality (or quality) I have now. Even when there's PCIe
counterparts, there just aren't enough slots anymore.

Eventually, if you want to buy a new computer, you'll have to buy a
legacy-free PC with only ONE slot! USB will be used for everything other
than video.

Tom Lake

 

[J. Clarke]

Well...let me put it this way...
PCIe is one stage in the evolution of Graphics card buses. I am sure
when AGP was introduced, which was an upgrade over PCI based graphics
cards, people like you said that its all a fad and who needs the extra
power anyway?

There is a well-established high-speed parallel PCI implementation that
Intel even uses internally in their PCI Express chipsets that is
backward-compatible with regular PCI.

Further, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that PCI Express is
only for video. It is not, it is intended to replace PCI as well as AGP.

Further, I said that serial buses were a fad, not that one particular serial
bus was a fad.

If we kept thinking like that...then we would seriously be very
technologically incompetent. Ok, there isn't a need for it today, but
when the new graphics cards come out, maybe they will need even more
than what AGP8x currently offers. Maybe they will need the speed of
PCIe.

Or the speed of PCI-X.

Same as AGP isn't a fad. I hate the term fad and I wish you hadn't
used it in your original post
PCIe is a natural progression.

No, PCIe is not a "natural progression". PCI-X is a "natural progression".

And again you are focussing on PCIe as being the "fad" and not the notion of
serial bus.

Would you not like to experience games in even better graphics?

How will PCI Express bring this about?

Maybe
even graphics that make you feel like you are experiencing it like
it's real? You expect that on AGP? I don't think so.
I probably won't even expect it on PCIe, but at least its a step
further than AGP. Always, one step forward, not backwards.

I don't expect it on _any_ technology in which the bus is the bottleneck.
The only place where that is the case is in the shared-memory schemes used
on very-low end hardware.

Yes, but still, they are made for PCIe buses.

Some are "made for PCIe buses" and have bridges to support AGP. Others are
"made for AGP buses" and have bridges to support PCIe. So far there has
not been one iota of difference in performance between them.

You can still find
motherboards with an AGP slot.

Not with a current-generation Intel chipset you can't.

In fact, I had trouble finding an AMD
motherboard with a PCIe slot. Thats why I took Intel then. Why buy
technology which is already obsolete?

So you bought a 32-bit machine? ROF,L.

You can fight it, but AGP is going to be made obsolete by PCIe. Maybe
it is Intel's evil agenda but the fact is, it does provide better
bandwidth.

Who said anything about "fighting it"? There's no point to "fighting it",
Intel is going to win this one.

And so it "provides better bandwidth". So does PCI-X. So what? Where is
the _need_?

In computing, it's never "why do I need?", always "because I can".
Intel could do it thats why they did it.

What Intel could do is force it down the market's throat even if the market
did not want it. That's not "because I can". There are other technologies
that in principle offer even more bandwidth, technologies that Intel in
fact uses in their own PCI Express chipsets and then slows down to support
PCI Express, but Intel chose not to expose those on the pinout.

You think an average home
user really *needs* the Pentium 4 3.0+ ghz processor with HT?
Nope...LOL...Most of the tasks can be handled easily with a 1gig or if
you really need it, a 1.5-2.0.

So? One is not _forced_ to accept a P4 3.0+ GHz processor. If one buys a
new machine, one _is_ pretty much forced to PCI Express.

***
...the Phoenix shall rise...

Better to hurl those than Volkswagens I guess.

 

[J. Clarke]

Eventually, if you want to buy a new computer, you'll have to buy a
legacy-free PC with only ONE slot! USB will be used for everything other
than video.

Yeah, right, USB will be used to attach a fibre-channel RAID. Sure it will.