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.

Is there any point to manipulating AGP voltage or bus speed?

Discussion in 'ATI' started by pigdos, Jan 12, 2006.

  1. pigdos

    pigdos Guest

    I've always wondered if the AGP voltage or AGP bus speed BIOS settings made
    any difference whatsoever in gaming performance.
    pigdos, Jan 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. pigdos

    rms Guest

    I've always wondered if the AGP voltage or AGP bus speed BIOS settings
    Raising agp voltage did help videocard stability in some cases when
    these high-powered vidcards first started appearing, a year or two ago.
    Nowadays it's rare to hear of it mattering. I routinely leave mine a notch
    above default tho, it won't hurt anything.

    rms, Jan 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. pigdos

    pigdos Guest

    Rms is the AGP voltage the signalling voltage (for data) or the voltage used
    to power the card?
    pigdos, Jan 14, 2006
  4. pigdos

    First of One Guest

    First of One, Jan 15, 2006
  5. pigdos

    pigdos Guest

    First of One could you take a look at my post on "A question about modern
    GPU's"? I'd really appreciate your input.

    BTW, what do you think of the Xbox 360's video graphics hardware? It would
    seem to me, that regardless of the high bandwidth to/from main memory in the
    Xbox 360 (700 Mhz) that the 500Mhz GPU would be a bottleneck. Does the Xbox
    360 have things like geometry instancing or adaptive anti-aliasing? I've
    noticed the specs on the XBox 360 are really vague. If it's based on the
    PowerPC architecture (not IBM's Power 5 architecture) I'll bet it's probably
    slower than any of the dual core AMD opterons or Athlon 64 X2's.
    pigdos, Jan 16, 2006
  6. pigdos

    First of One Guest

    This is regarding the "dual-ported" memory interface? Real-world tests
    obviously hasn't shown any performance gains going from AGP4x to 8x, in this
    article that I reference often: http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=554
    Today's video cards simply don't move enough data across the AGP bus to make
    a difference.

    The GPU doesn't have to be "synchronized" to the AGP bus or to video RAM or
    to anything, especially when the AGP bus is quad- or eight-pumped, while the
    video RAM can be DDR, GDDR3, etc. Modern GPUs also have small internal
    caches. On the 7800GTX, different portions of the GPU run at different clock
    speeds. See: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2479&p=3 Throw in
    things like a crossbar- or "ring bus" memory interface, and it becomes very
    difficult to look at "bottlenecking" from clock speed alone.
    I don't think the 360's hardware needs to be as powerful as PC hardware.
    According to http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2610&p=8 . The
    360 can output to 720p or 1080i, which means the max effective resolutions
    are 1280x720 or 1920x540, not that many pixels. Do they even test PC video
    cards below 1280x1024 any more?
    There's 10 MB of embedded DRAM in a separate die on the GPU package. Suffice
    to say it will act like a cache. Any performance loss arising from
    "mismatched" clocks (which I'm not convinced to be an issue) probably will
    disappear anyway.
    No idea, though seeing both features are already functional on Radeon 9x00
    hardware, I would expect them to be present in the 360. The GPU already
    integrates the system northbridge / memory controller and the TV encoder. Is
    geometry instancing even meaningful? There's 512 MB of unified RAM; and the
    CPU can only access the RAM *through* the GPU.
    We know it's based on PowerPC. If I remember correctly, the XBox 360 demos
    shown at E3 last year were all running off Macs hidden under the table.
    Something like a Intel Core Duo probably would yield better performance,
    while downsizing that massive power brick. :)

    The choice of CPU was a business decision, because IBM was likely the only
    one willing to sell the design to Microsoft with no strings attached. Same
    story with ATi. Microsoft can get the chips produced in Taiwan for the
    lowest cost possible, and do a die-shrink any time for continued savings
    year after year.
    First of One, Jan 17, 2006
  7. pigdos

    pigdos Guest

    That Sudhian article was testing on a relatively old, slow GPU (450 Mhz). It
    shows how ignorant the authors were that they didn't realize this basic
    fact: registers are implemented as clocked, d-flip-flops and you can't clock
    in data faster than the clock rate fed to the d-flip-flop, so feeding data
    faster than a GPU's registers can read it in is a waste. This is basic
    digital logic & design. I haven't read anything, anywhere that contradicts
    that. So, of course, their tests would indicate there is no difference
    between AGP 4x and 8x. Sure you can buffer data in some sort of higher
    clocked FIFO but if the GPU isn't reading that data out fast enough that
    FIFO will fill up.

    If you don't think mismatched clock rates are a problem you have a lot to
    learn about digital logic and design. A lot of signalling lines (in PCI, ISA
    and AGP buses, as well as in memory buses to say nothing of CPU's) are
    dedicated to data rate management. If it wasn't a problem, these lines
    wouldn't exist.
    pigdos, Jan 17, 2006
  8. pigdos

    First of One Guest

    You missed the point. AGP8x apparently offers no gains over AGP4x on the
    FX5900, not because the GPU is the bottleneck, but because there simply
    isn't much data moving across AGP to begin with, in most games.

    On the flip side, even assuming the GPU can saturate AGP to the absolute
    theoretical limit of the AGP interface, the available bandwidth is still
    orders of magnitude less than that afforded by the local video RAM. If an
    application/game needs to move a lot of data across the AGP bus, it will be
    slow, period.
    Perhaps, but I think it's safe to assume the ATi and nVidia designers
    know significantly more than you or me. :) The GPU internal registers do
    not interface with video RAM directly, but rather through a data cache.

    If what you were saying is true, the ideal GPU design would only have 4-8
    pipelines, built on a tiny die with a small transistor count, allowing it to
    be clocked much higher. It would also mean overclocking the memory on a
    FX5900 has no impact on performance. All the 6800NU owners who unmasked the
    4 extra "pipelines" would see no gains because the GPU still runs at the
    same clock speed. Obviously none of these scenarios are true.

    According to
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2044&p=4 ,
    the number of internal registers is highly variable from one GPU
    architecture to the next. In fact, according to
    it scales with the number of quads. You cannot just assume the rate of data
    fed to the GPU is only dependent on clock speed alone.
    First of One, Jan 18, 2006
  9. pigdos

    pigdos Guest

    No, you are missing the point, registers, in fact ARE implemented as
    D-flip-flops and the clock rate fed to those D flip-flops determines, along
    with bus width the data rate they can clock in. There's no magical way
    around this fact. Maybe you should take a look at some basic digital logic
    and design textbooks and try to understand the concept of registers and
    their relationship to flip flops and clocks. A GPU clocked at 400Mhz cannot
    clock in data faster than this fundamental rate. The clock rate at which a
    GPU, CPU or MCU can clock in data is related to the bit-width and the clock
    speed...that's it. Neither of your articles dispute this fact. Clock rate
    and bus width determine the rate at which any GPU, CPU or MCU can consume
    data (it's maximum data xfer rate). Have you ever actually designed or
    implemented any bus designs in your life?
    pigdos, Jan 19, 2006
  10. pigdos

    First of One Guest

    By your logic, it would make no sense whatsoever to have the GPU clocked
    slower than the memory. Well, let's see.. The original Geforce256 had a 120
    MHz core and 166 MHz SDR memory. Yet, the switch to DDR memory instantly
    brought huge performance gains. Today's Geforce 7800GTX 512 runs at 550 MHz
    core, but the memory is 1.7 GHz. The increased latency of GDDR3 doesn't
    explain a clock speed three times as high! nVidia didn't specify such a high
    memory clock just to make the cards more expensive to produce. nVidia did it
    to improve performance.

    There are enough real-world examples to make your theory look silly. No, I
    haven't designed or implemented any bus designs in my life, nor do I intend
    to in the future. Though it's clear you haven't designed anything remotely
    approaching the complexity of a graphics card, either. Please think your
    theories through before preaching basic textbooks like the holy grail.
    First of One, Jan 20, 2006
    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.