1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cpu,gpu,sli).

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by Skybuck Flying, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. Hello fellow netcitizens I have some hardware bandwidth questions for you:

    Q1: Some websites specifications say:

    1. The Athlon X2 4800 processor is limited to 6.4 Gigabyte/sec of memory
    bandwidth.
    2. Intel Pentium Extreme Edition processor is limited to 6.4 Gigabyte/sec of
    memory bandwidth.

    Case 1. Does this mean 3.2 Gigabyte/sec in both directions ?

    Case 2. Or is it possible to have 6.4 Gigabyte/sec going in one direction ?

    Q2: Some website specifications say (more or less):

    PCI-E 16x slot is 8 Gigabyte/sec, 4 Gigabyte/sec IN and 4 Gigabyte/Sec out
    PCI-E 8x slot is 4 Gigabyte/sec, 2 Gigabyte/sec IN and 2 Gigabyte/Sec out
    PCI-E 4x slot is 2 Gigabyte/sec, 1 Gigabyte/sec IN and 1 Gigabyte/Sec out
    PCI-E 2x slot is 1 Gigabyte/sec, 512 Megabyte/sec IN and 512 Megabyte/Sec
    out
    PCI-E 1x slot is 512 Megabyte/sec, 256 Megabyte/sec IN and 256 Megabyte/Sec
    out

    Case 3. So does this mean that PCI-E 16x slot is limited to 4 Gigabyte/sec
    in one direction ?

    Case 4. Or is it possible to go 8 Gigabyte/sec in one direction ?

    I'll assume Case 2 and Case 3 to be true.

    Furthermore it seems current SLI motherboards when in SLI mode,
    turn the two PCI-E 16x slots into PCI-E 8x slots.

    So the bandwidth that is available in SLI mode is the same as in SINGLE
    mode.

    Anyway in both cases this would mean a maximum input for the graphics cards
    of:

    Single: 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.

    SLI: 2 Gigabyte/sec + 2 Gigabyte/sec = 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.

    So that would leave 2.4 Gigabyte/sec for output.
    (from graphics card back to RAM)

    Single: 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output

    SLI: 1.2 Gigabyte/sec + 1.2 Gigabyte/sec = 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output.

    So if I were to buy such an SLI motherboard it would be pointless to buy a
    graphics card which can handle more than 2 gigabyte/sec of input and more
    than 1.2 gigabyte/sec of output.

    Q3: How much bandwidth can the new Nvidia GTX 7800 process for input and
    generate for output ?

    Q4: How much bandwidth can the processors handle ?

    Alternatively I could wait for new motherboards to come out with FULL
    BANDWIDTH PCI-E 16x slots.

    Then the picture would look like this:

    Single: 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.

    SLI: 4 Gigabyte/sec + 4 Gigabyte/sec = 8 Gigabyte/sec Input.

    BUT this is now limited by the the processor/memory controller: 6.4
    Gigabyte/sec

    SLI: 3.2 Gigabyte/sec + 3.2 Gigabyte/sec = 6.4 Gigabyte/sec Input.

    That would leave no room for output... that s bad.

    So better could be:

    SLI: 2 Gigabyte/sec + 2 Gigabyte/sec = 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.

    SLI: 1.2 Gigabyte/sec + 1.2 Gigabyte/sec = 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output/

    So I think I must come to the conclusion that with this processor/memory
    controller/bandwidth limitation waiting/buying this new motherboard will
    solve absolutely nothing. Since the bottleneck is in the processor/memory
    controller. (I think sometimes this is called the northbridge chip ? )

    Anyway these dual core processors are very expensive.. so just upgrading
    them in the future for a little bit more bandwidth seems crazy.

    My conclusion is as follows:

    1. If the single card (the gtx 7800) is able to handle 6.4 Gigabyte/sec of
    input + output then I don't need SLI ;)

    2. Otherwise I could buy into SLI as soon as the price has dropped to a
    certain point for the secondary graphics card.

    The performance increase for SLI is:
    ( ( Final Performance - Original Performance ) / Original Performance ) *
    100%
    ( ( 6.4 - 4.0 ) / 4.0 ) * 100% = 60%

    Let's see the current price is $500 dollars.

    So the price of the future card should only be 60% of the price which it is
    now.

    $5 * 60% = $300 dollars

    Alternative way of calculating:

    The current performance is 100% procent.

    The future performance will be 160% procent.

    So the future total price should not exceed 160 * $5 dollars = $800 total
    dollars

    We might already have payed $500 dollars so an investment of $300 dollars is
    warrented to get the same percentagual increase in performance
    hehehehehehhihihihi.

    Ofcourse by then much better cards might have come out with even superior
    performance... though our current motherboards won't be able to benefit from
    them, simply because the bottleneck of 4 Gigabyte/sec
    in and 4 Gigabyte/sec out... but that would exceed the main memory/ram of
    6.4 Gigabyte... so finally we more or less limited to 3.2 Gigabyte/sec for
    current motherboards/processors/chipsets ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Oct 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Skybuck Flying

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Skybuck Flying crossposted some questions to way to many newsgroups:
    | Hello fellow netcitizens I have some hardware bandwidth questions for you:
    ..
    ..
    _____

    A memory bus is bidirectional; data can move in two directions, but NOT AT
    THE SAME TIME.

    Memory bandwidths are given in PEAK capacity. No current memory modules can
    come even close to delivering data as fast as current CPUs can use the data.

    No peripherials currently available (including display adapters) can use
    anything near the PEAK capacity of ANY of the newer buses for which they are
    designed. Even ATA133 can't be maxed out.

    Do a lot more reading and reconsider the rest of your questions.

    Phil Weldon

    | Hello fellow netcitizens I have some hardware bandwidth questions for you:
    |
    | Q1: Some websites specifications say:
    |
    | 1. The Athlon X2 4800 processor is limited to 6.4 Gigabyte/sec of memory
    | bandwidth.
    | 2. Intel Pentium Extreme Edition processor is limited to 6.4 Gigabyte/sec
    of
    | memory bandwidth.
    |
    | Case 1. Does this mean 3.2 Gigabyte/sec in both directions ?
    |
    | Case 2. Or is it possible to have 6.4 Gigabyte/sec going in one direction
    ?
    |
    | Q2: Some website specifications say (more or less):
    |
    | PCI-E 16x slot is 8 Gigabyte/sec, 4 Gigabyte/sec IN and 4 Gigabyte/Sec out
    | PCI-E 8x slot is 4 Gigabyte/sec, 2 Gigabyte/sec IN and 2 Gigabyte/Sec out
    | PCI-E 4x slot is 2 Gigabyte/sec, 1 Gigabyte/sec IN and 1 Gigabyte/Sec out
    | PCI-E 2x slot is 1 Gigabyte/sec, 512 Megabyte/sec IN and 512 Megabyte/Sec
    | out
    | PCI-E 1x slot is 512 Megabyte/sec, 256 Megabyte/sec IN and 256
    Megabyte/Sec
    | out
    |
    | Case 3. So does this mean that PCI-E 16x slot is limited to 4 Gigabyte/sec
    | in one direction ?
    |
    | Case 4. Or is it possible to go 8 Gigabyte/sec in one direction ?
    |
    | I'll assume Case 2 and Case 3 to be true.
    |
    | Furthermore it seems current SLI motherboards when in SLI mode,
    | turn the two PCI-E 16x slots into PCI-E 8x slots.
    |
    | So the bandwidth that is available in SLI mode is the same as in SINGLE
    | mode.
    |
    | Anyway in both cases this would mean a maximum input for the graphics
    cards
    | of:
    |
    | Single: 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
    |
    | SLI: 2 Gigabyte/sec + 2 Gigabyte/sec = 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
    |
    | So that would leave 2.4 Gigabyte/sec for output.
    | (from graphics card back to RAM)
    |
    | Single: 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output
    |
    | SLI: 1.2 Gigabyte/sec + 1.2 Gigabyte/sec = 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output.
    |
    | So if I were to buy such an SLI motherboard it would be pointless to buy a
    | graphics card which can handle more than 2 gigabyte/sec of input and more
    | than 1.2 gigabyte/sec of output.
    |
    | Q3: How much bandwidth can the new Nvidia GTX 7800 process for input and
    | generate for output ?
    |
    | Q4: How much bandwidth can the processors handle ?
    |
    | Alternatively I could wait for new motherboards to come out with FULL
    | BANDWIDTH PCI-E 16x slots.
    |
    | Then the picture would look like this:
    |
    | Single: 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
    |
    | SLI: 4 Gigabyte/sec + 4 Gigabyte/sec = 8 Gigabyte/sec Input.
    |
    | BUT this is now limited by the the processor/memory controller: 6.4
    | Gigabyte/sec
    |
    | SLI: 3.2 Gigabyte/sec + 3.2 Gigabyte/sec = 6.4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
    |
    | That would leave no room for output... that s bad.
    |
    | So better could be:
    |
    | SLI: 2 Gigabyte/sec + 2 Gigabyte/sec = 4 Gigabyte/sec Input.
    |
    | SLI: 1.2 Gigabyte/sec + 1.2 Gigabyte/sec = 2.4 Gigabyte/sec Output/
    |
    | So I think I must come to the conclusion that with this processor/memory
    | controller/bandwidth limitation waiting/buying this new motherboard will
    | solve absolutely nothing. Since the bottleneck is in the processor/memory
    | controller. (I think sometimes this is called the northbridge chip ? )
    |
    | Anyway these dual core processors are very expensive.. so just upgrading
    | them in the future for a little bit more bandwidth seems crazy.
    |
    | My conclusion is as follows:
    |
    | 1. If the single card (the gtx 7800) is able to handle 6.4 Gigabyte/sec of
    | input + output then I don't need SLI ;)
    |
    | 2. Otherwise I could buy into SLI as soon as the price has dropped to a
    | certain point for the secondary graphics card.
    |
    | The performance increase for SLI is:
    | ( ( Final Performance - Original Performance ) / Original Performance ) *
    | 100%
    | ( ( 6.4 - 4.0 ) / 4.0 ) * 100% = 60%
    |
    | Let's see the current price is $500 dollars.
    |
    | So the price of the future card should only be 60% of the price which it
    is
    | now.
    |
    | $5 * 60% = $300 dollars
    |
    | Alternative way of calculating:
    |
    | The current performance is 100% procent.
    |
    | The future performance will be 160% procent.
    |
    | So the future total price should not exceed 160 * $5 dollars = $800 total
    | dollars
    |
    | We might already have payed $500 dollars so an investment of $300 dollars
    is
    | warrented to get the same percentagual increase in performance
    | hehehehehehhihihihi.
    |
    | Ofcourse by then much better cards might have come out with even superior
    | performance... though our current motherboards won't be able to benefit
    from
    | them, simply because the bottleneck of 4 Gigabyte/sec
    | in and 4 Gigabyte/sec out... but that would exceed the main memory/ram of
    | 6.4 Gigabyte... so finally we more or less limited to 3.2 Gigabyte/sec for
    | current motherboards/processors/chipsets ;)
    |
    | Bye,
    | Skybuck.
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Oct 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I have already googled extensively for the words bandwidth, cpu, gpu, ram,
    diagrams, netburst, hyper transport, maximum, graphics etc.

    Not once have I encountered a website which states the ammount of bandwidth
    that a cpu, gpu, ram chip or transport technology can practically process or
    generate.

    The only things I have encountered are:

    1. Occording to you apperently theoretical maximum bandwidths.

    2. PC/System benchmarks, which ofcourse depend on many factors and
    combinations and are therefore bogus.

    You claim to have knowledge of practical limitations of these devices.

    I claim that you are full of bullshit since this information is not
    available on the internet, so there is after all nothing to read.

    Ofcourse you are free to prove me wrong =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Oct 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Skybuck Flying

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Skybuck Flying' wrote, in part:
    |I have already googled extensively for the words bandwidth, cpu, gpu, ram,
    | diagrams, netburst, hyper transport, maximum, graphics etc.
    |
    | Not once have I encountered a website which states the ammount of
    bandwidth
    | that a cpu, gpu, ram chip or transport technology can practically process
    or
    | generate.
    _____

    Google + websites do not necessarily = learning.
    Websites are not the only place one can read.
    While googling and surfing you might also read up on
    how to post to a newsgroup
    why it is a good idea to read at least some of the posts in newsgroups
    before posting
    why it is a good idea to trim quotes when posting
    why it is a good idea to limit crossposting.

    And you might also consider not asking a question if you don't want an
    answer. A different attitude might invite more answers to your questions.

    Phil Weldon

    |I have already googled extensively for the words bandwidth, cpu, gpu, ram,
    | diagrams, netburst, hyper transport, maximum, graphics etc.
    |
    | Not once have I encountered a website which states the ammount of
    bandwidth
    | that a cpu, gpu, ram chip or transport technology can practically process
    or
    | generate.
    |
    | The only things I have encountered are:
    |
    | 1. Occording to you apperently theoretical maximum bandwidths.
    |
    | 2. PC/System benchmarks, which ofcourse depend on many factors and
    | combinations and are therefore bogus.
    |
    | You claim to have knowledge of practical limitations of these devices.
    |
    | I claim that you are full of bullshit since this information is not
    | available on the internet, so there is after all nothing to read.
    |
    | Ofcourse you are free to prove me wrong =D
    |
    | Bye,
    | Skybuck.
    |
    || >
    | >
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Oct 31, 2005
    #4
  5. Here is a nice start:

    Technical specifications of GeForce 7800:

    http://www.nvidia.com/page/specs_gf7800.html

    Graphics Bus Technology: PCI Express
    Memory Interface: 256-bit
    Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec.): 38.4
    Fill Rate (billion pixels/sec.): 10.32
    Vertices/sec. (million): 860
    Pixels per clock (peak): 24
    RAMDACs (MHz): 400

    In particular notice this line:

    Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec.): 38.4

    Is this a theoretical or practically limitation ?

    I would guess a practical since the rest looks pretty practical too.

    However this information could be misleading.

    What is ment with memory bandwidth in this case ?

    Case 1: Main/PC/System RAM <=> System Bus <=> Graphics Card

    or

    Case 2: Onboard graphics card memory/ram communication.

    My guess would be 2 !!!!! ( Because PCI express can't even handle that much
    bandwidth at the present time)

    Which is still pretty fucking amazing ;)

    Here we are with an Athlon X2 4800 dual core which is able to "only" manage
    to pump around 6.4 GB/sec...

    Gjee... ;)

    Maybe I am wrong and maybe it's case 2 =D <- that would be cool =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Oct 31, 2005
    #5
  6. You might be interested in getting a clue to what you're talking about ;)

    Bye, Bye,
    Mister Trolly ;) :)
     
    Skybuck Flying, Oct 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Once again I am happy to disappoint you:

    It's rare, here is fucking bandwidth test, instead of other real world not
    so real fake bullshit tests:

    http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=455&p=3

    Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiippppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeekwaaaaaaaajeeeeeeeeee
    motherfucker

    Look at that bandwidth fly by !!!!
    wwwwwwwoooooooooooeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhoooooooeeeeeeewwwwwwwiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee
    eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    Well into the multiple gigabytes/sec ! ;) =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Skybuck Flying

    Mac Guest

    [snip]

    Just to clarify, in the Intel architecture, the processor is not connected
    to the memory. The processor bandwidth given would probably be the host
    bus bandwidth. This is the bus connecting the processor to the so-called
    north bridge, which is where the memory controller and PCI bus are.

    --Mac
     
    Mac, Nov 1, 2005
    #8
  9. You would do well to go away, reconsider your attitude, taking on the fair
    advice that Phil has given you, and then try again, preferably after
    apologising for coming across as an ignorant arsehole. Does the saying "Do
    not bite the hand that feeds" mean anything to you?
    --


    Richard Hopkins
    Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
    (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

    The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
     
    Richard Hopkins, Nov 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Skybuck Flying wrote:

    [removed the groups where this is OT]
    No. The FSB of the Pentium4 is bidirectional, being able to do 6.4GB/s
    in both directions. The AMD x64 CPUs (Athlon64, Opteron) use
    Hypertransport links that are unidirectional...

    But then, with intel all processors share the same FSB which is a really
    big limitation when having more than one CPU...
    One PCIe link (PCIe 1x) provides 250MB/s in and out. PCIe 16x can do
    4GB/s in and out.
    No. 4GB/s in every direction. PCIe is unidirectional...
    Regarding the overall bandwith, yes.
    .... and output.
    No. 2GB/s in and out. You can't just add these numbers...
    No. 4GB/s for single gfx card and 2GB/s for SLI...
    No. Even 2GB/s are much more than what even the latest and greatest
    games need....
    The 7800GTX has a native PCIe 16x interface which can handle up to 4GB/s
    in and out (16x 250MB/s)...

    The internal bandwith between GPU and gfx card RAM is much higher,
    though. The 7800GTX has an internal bandwith of around 38GB/s (yes,
    gigabytes!) between the GPU and the gfx card memory...
    see above.
    Won't take long...
    .... and output.
    .... and output.
    Nope. As I said even PCIe8x is much more than current and even future
    games need....
    Nope. The
    Apples and oranges. SLI is not there to improve bus performance. SLI is
    there to improve rendering speed. Again, the busses are more than fast
    enough. The limitation still is the GPU, that's why there are techniques
    like SLI...

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Nov 1, 2005
    #10
  11. I was gonna say: "Go suck his dick"

    But it's clear you already doing that lol.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Hello Benjamin thank you for some answers.

    However this thread is ofcourse about future limitations.

    What games do now is totally uninteresting.

    What games will do in the future say 1,2,3,4,5 even 10 years from now is
    much more interesting.

    Currently I am not aware of any software or hardware which allows measuring
    how much bandwidth travels through the computer at any giving time, playing
    games, using applications, etc, whatever.

    These tools possibly don't exist that's why people have to fall back on
    games, which ofcourse don't push the system to it's limits. Doom 3 is an
    example which simple limits the game to 60 fps per second.

    Other games might use less textures than the system can handle etc.

    Therefore I am more interested in software, maybe like sandra synthetic
    benchmarks which push every little piece to it's maximum performance. Still
    even these benchmarks might not be suited to test individual components
    since the individual component being tested might not reach it's full
    potential because of other system limitations.

    Knowing each component's true limitation/maximum performance is important
    for selecting components to build a PC with.

    The longer the PC lasts and keeps up the more valuable it is. A pc which
    cant keep up because some individually component is the bottleneck is less
    valuable. The problem is how to find out which component is the bottleneck
    ;)

    When simply measuring the following dilemma exists:

    1. Is the component the bottleneck ?

    or

    2. Is the system bottlenecking the component ?

    ;)

    So having some specifications about maximum throughput of each technology
    can help.

    Also tools to measure the bandwidth to get more insight into the system
    performance would help greatly.

    Combining these two pieces of information would allow one to pin point/guess
    which component might be the limitation factor/bottleneck. Etc. ;)
    How do you know the GPU is the limitation ? Do you mean executing
    instructions ?

    Prove it ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Skybuck Flying

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Nov 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Ok, then think about on what computers were highend 10 years ago:
    Pentium 200MMX with 16MB RAM and one of the first 3D cards like a Matrox
    Millenium PCI. And now think about who cares about these computers
    today. Exactly. no-one. Almost everything has changed during the last 10
    years: busses, processors, memory, gfx cards, and much more...

    In 10 years from now certainly no-one gives a **** on PCIe 16x any more...
    What do you want your PC to be: a tool or a penis enlargement? PCIe is
    the last thing that is a performance bottleneck. Number one are disk
    drives which are slow like hell compared to all other data transfer
    processes in a PC. Second is RAM which is still plain slow compared to
    what CPUs are able to transfer...
    Nope. Especially since just counting numbers like you do is quite silly.
    To understand the limitations of a system you need much deeper knowledge
    than just a few figures you read from a website. And it heavily depends
    on the applications that are used, and the data that is processed, and a
    lot of other variables that simply make it impossible to give something
    like a universal rule...

    And it's also important to understand that benchmarks like the ones
    you're looking for are just that: benchmarks. And the only thing they
    can tell you is how a computer performs at that benchmark. They _don't_
    tell you how this PC will perform with real applications...
    No matter what you buy today, it _will_ get outdated. And no matter what
    you buy, even the ultra-best and finest components that you can buy for
    money today will perform like shit compared to what will be available in
    any el-cheapo PC in 3, 4, or 5 years from now...
    Because SLI is made to increase the rendering performance, not because
    the bus limits throughput...
    I don't have to. Anyone who is at least at medium knowledge in computer
    hardware should know that. You asked a question and got an response.
    What you make from it is your part. But there should be enough sources
    around the web which will explain you where the bottlenecks in todays
    computers are and where not...

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Nov 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Ok, windows 95 era.
    Great computer. Internet, word processing, even some shooters which haven't
    changed that much... aka doom3 aka quake 4 ;)
    People who want to internet and word process ?
    Lol, are you the all knowing god ?

    I think a poor person in some under developed country would be happy with
    such a computer.

    (Or people fed up with cleaning out dust from the dust sucking pc's nowadays
    LOL)
    Gje, when will those bastards get it right huh ? :)
    Most people don't give a **** today since their clueless ?
    I hope so, that would be great.
    True, access time hasn't changed at all the last 10 years.

    Throughput however has become quite fast...
    Hmm.. I like to think of RAM being fast.

    How fast do you think CPU can generate data ?
    I think it's quite smart to start at the theoretical limitations and proceed
    downwards from there.
    I read a lot more than just some numbers ;)
    Then stop using those applications to measure your system's performance.

    Use a synthetic benchmark to test the true performance of your hardware.
    You should seperate hardware performance from software performance since
    those two things are two completely seperate things.
    No there are different benchmarks.

    I in particular like the benchmarks which drive every component to it's
    maximum.
    benchmark.

    The idea is ofcourse to use a good benchmark which will show the maximum
    performance of the hardware.
    Again you are mixing software performance with hardware performance.

    If the hardware performance is good and the software performance is bad then
    what does that tell you ?
    The point of this thread is to focus on bottlenecks and raise those necks so
    that the computer will keeping performing incredibly well for the coming
    1,2,3,4,5 years at least.

    Component selection/understanding is what it's all about. Do your job well
    today and you'll be laughing at people 5 years down the road because they
    bought a PC off the shelf with a 5000+ CPU but have some serious bottleneck
    elsewhere without them even knowing about it ;)

    Maybe you are wrong.

    It seems that future motherboards can simply add PCI-E lanes and increase
    bus performance.

    SLI simply uses multiple PCI slots and could therefore increase the ammount
    of bandwidth flowing to the graphics cards.
    Lol, you funny, what do you think is needed for rendering ? Exactly data !
    That data has to be transferred !
    Thus the bandwidth bottleneck is born ;)
    Oops, now you are just dead wrong.

    Just install poorly written game x out of a million and watch your pc crawl
    to a halt ;)

    In other words, 25 textures of 1024x1024x32 bits colors being pushed through
    the system at 70 frames per second. That's 25 * 70 * 4 MB = 100 * 70 = 7
    GB/sec.

    And we haven't talked about all other things that need to be transferred
    etc...

    Even the 7 GB/sec the athlon can't do.

    The make matters worse a single card can't pull that kind of data simply
    because PCI-E 16x slot is limited to 4 GB/sec.

    So these figures are worrieing.

    So maybe the following statement could be true:

    If I choose a pentium chip over an athlon chip then the pentium chip might
    have lower frames rates in present games... but the pentium chip might
    achieve the same frame rate in future games simply because it can sustain a
    higher bandwidth.

    The athlon chip simply can't provide enough bandwidth and therefore an
    athlon based system will simply hit the bottleneck much sooner and cause
    games to crawl.

    So as you can see it's very interesting to get some facts/measurements about
    all this and not just somebody on a newsgroup claiming that bussess are fast
    enough ;)

    I was hoping to use nvidia's NVPerfMon to do some measurements on some of my
    favorite opengl games on my current computer and to figure out what the
    bottlenecks are for these games, which could be extrapolated onto future
    system requirements ;)
    Why use SLI in the first place ?

    Why not simply put two GPU's on one card ;)

    Maybe Scalable Link Interface is like two network cards: it increases the
    bandwidth.

    Some motherboard manufacturers are coming out with two "full bandwidth"
    pci-e 16x slots.

    Ofcourse this could only be marketing bullshit or maybe there is some thruth
    in it.

    The current bottleneck is not PCI-E or SLI but the bottleneck is the
    CPU<->RAM connection which can only deliver 6.4 GB/sec. (As I tried to
    explain in one of my previous post).

    The question is thus if Athlons/SLI/Nforce4/Geforces are worth their money
    price/performance wise.

    Euhm what are our choices:

    1. Buy into Athlons/SLI/Nforce4/2 Geforces and then be bandwidth limited.

    or

    2. Buy into Pentium/????

    At this point I am not sure if the bandwidth limitation is Nforce4 chipset
    specific or if it's only athlon cpu specific. (Think of integrated memory
    controller etc, northbridge chip etc)

    The northbridge chip is normally part of the chipset I believe so it could
    be Nforce4 chipset specific... that could mean a new/different chipset is
    needed which doesn't have this main memory bandwidth limitation to fully
    justify SLI/double graphics cards etc...

    It's quite interesting to see if their is or is not an alternative competing
    technology from intel or ati ;)

    However ati has buggy drivers so that rules out ati, which means intel
    remains... though intel is said to have power hungry and overheating cpu's
    so the athlon/sli/nvidia deal seems best at the moment =D
    Cheap.

    You should really try to figure stuff out yourself and if you have the
    chance test it... otherwise you run the risk of marketing people screwing
    you over lol =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck ;)
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 2, 2005
    #15
  16. Skybuck Flying wrote:

    [due to the amount of nonsense I answered only the most anoying parts]
    Maybe these shooters didn't change much regarding game content. But they
    changed a lot when it comes to system ressources...
    Yeah, right. You definitely want to do internet with an outdated OS that
    doesn't get updated any more like Windows95, because only there you can
    be sure to catch _every_ bit of malware that's around...
    Sure. Tell the people that are dying because of hunger or diseases
    because they are so poor that they can't afford food and medicine that
    everything is good as long as they have that old Pentium200 running
    Windows95. It's not that they don't have any bigger problems...

    Besides that, even in development countries, such a system will be quite
    useless because even there it catches all worms that are floating
    around. But yeah, we definitely need more unsecure computers that are
    used as SPAM sources...
    Or perhaps they just know it better than you?
    Yeah, right. ~60MB/s is sooo fast. And you're whining about PCIe being a
    bottleneck...
    Wrong thought.
    The old Pentium4 1.5GHz that sits here besides my desk does around
    12GB/s between CPU and L1 cache and ~10GB/s between CPU and L2 cache...

    BTW. that's the reason why processors do have cache: simply because RAM
    is so slow...
    Nope, it's useless, especially as a end user like you that only has the
    choice of a certain amount of components that are available on the
    market. As long as you don't do electronics engineering such discussions
    are worthless...
    Yes, you read a lot, but you obviously are lacking the technical
    background to fully understand what's really going on inside the
    computer. Sadly, most websites won't help you there...
    Synthetic benchmarks are called "synthetic" because they have no
    relation to real-world applications. But the latter are the things that
    are important, because most people buy a computer to work with real
    applications and not for running synthetic benchmarks...
    Nope, they are not. Software performance depends on the hardware and
    vice versa...
    Fine. But that's really only useful if you see your PC as a penis
    protesis...
    So, then tell us what PC one should have choosen 5 years ago to be able
    to lough about people that have a current system?
    No. Maybe you should start reading Nvidias SLI documentation...
    Not ad infinitum.
    No, since bandwith isn't the problem...
    BS. You really should learn some basics first. Of course generating 3D
    visuals needs huge amounts of data. But these data are not generated by
    the CPU but by the GPU. The amount of data that is floating from the CPU
    is much smaller than what leaves the GPU. That's why the GPUs have such
    fast connections to their on board memory, and why even AGP4x is more
    than fast enough...
    Again you prove your lack of knowledge. Textures are only loaded once in
    the gfx card RAM, not again and again. And of course you're totally
    ignoring the fact that the _GPU_ does all the calculations, not the CPU.
    The CPU doesn't have to send the content pixel for pixel to the gfx
    processor. The CPU send raw position and processing data, and the GPU
    does the processing....
    Well, I _know_ that the busses are fast enough. Which btw every somewhat
    reliable source confirms...
    SLI is technology from 1997, made by 3DFx and bought by Nvidia. The
    reason SLI is quite rare is that most games simply don't scale linear
    with the number of gfx cores. So having two GPUs doesn't mean you get 2x
    the performance of a single card...
    Asus does that...
    Again, read the documentation first...

    Well, I'm already very deep into that stuff in my job so I don't need
    any marketing droids or geeks to get my informations from...

    EOD

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Nov 2, 2005
    #16
  17. Skybuck Flying

    Ed Forsythe Guest

    I agree Phil but it's obvious that this cretin is a troll so why feed him?
     
    Ed Forsythe, Nov 2, 2005
    #17
  18. Good, that means you getting tired of your own non-sense :)
    So what the classics are better anyway LOL.
    Simply patch it, update it and it won't be that bad.
    Bull, see above.

    There are even companies specially in re-using old computer equipment for th
    ird world countries.
    Nope, I doubt it ;)
    Dude, where do you get these silly numbers ?

    1. First of all my own old PIII 450 mhz is able to read with 180 MB/sec from
    the harddisk and that is only the harddisk, go figure !

    2. Second of all the sandra benchmark shows a bandwidth of 7 GB/sec. So that
    means either sandra is full of bullshit or you are full of bullshit LOL.

    Gjee I wonder which case it might be ? ;) Euhhmmm yeah me goes for second
    option: you full of bullshit LOL.
    Right thought, get your facts straight.
    I wouldn't know about that... but you have inspired me to go test everything
    to understand my current system's limitations... I am especially interested
    in finding out if the system buys is the most limitating factor.

    Seeing you being off on all other figures no doubt are you off on these
    figures as well ;) :)
    Sure if you say so, NOT :)
    At least I am not an idiot like you, and yes I can get any component I want
    thanks to the internet.

    Welcome to the real world, from crawling forth from under your stinking ROCK
    lol.
    It's obvious that you are a clueless troll and I wish you lot's of lack with
    it.
    Sure, synthetic benchmarks are useless.. (NOT :)) the only push the system
    to it's maximum performance.... gjeee ;)
    Sure thing trollyboy, if you say so, NOT ;)
    Lol, all trolls think like that.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Idiots like you ofcourse with systems which only achieve 66 MB/sec
    hahahahahahahahaahahahahaha.
    Maybe you should give it up troll ;)
    Gje, you think ? ;)
    Sure if you say so troll, NOT.
    Sure, if you say so TROLL, get some facts man, at least be a plausible
    troll, LOL.
    Dude, get real, try a fast moving shooters, enough said.
    You know jack squate, good luck with your next bandwidth limited PC

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    What will be next, 100 MB/sec ? LOL !
    Oh boy, did you bother read an actually benchmark this time ? Good for you
    LOL.

    You still have no clue to how fast it really is.
    Yeah so ?
    Try getting a clue yourself for a change ;)
    LOL,

    You just another incompetent clueless idiot claiming to have a job :)
    hahahahahahaha.

    I am pretty mcuh done with you, have a nice day ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck =D Wieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 5, 2005
    #18
  19. Skybuck Flying

    Mushr00mhead Guest

    So what is the point of a newsgroup if all you are going to do is bash
    on one another. What would be nice is if you guys could support your
    arguments with some credible facts. Don't just regurgitate what you
    think is correct, give some supporting facts to go with it. As for the
    name calling, is it necessary?
     
    Mushr00mhead, Nov 5, 2005
    #19
  20. Skybuck Flying

    Mushr00mhead Guest

    Oh yeah, one more thing. Isn't this newsgroup about game programming
    and algorithms? If not, then I guess I need to go find that newsgroup.
     
    Mushr00mhead, Nov 5, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.