GPU Upgrade (What can I run with what I've got?)

[MrRiplEy[H]]

No current videocard requires pci-e 2.0 bus, they hardly can take all bandwith from a x16 1.0.

[gyrene81]

No current videocard requires pci-e 2.0 bus, they hardly can take all bandwith from a x16 1.0.

So, why would they be labeled for pci-e 2.0 and 2.1? Just a marketing tool?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

So, why would they be labeled for pci-e 2.0 and 2.1? Just a marketing tool?

Yep, pci-e 2.0 compatible does not mean it requires 2.0.

[Saurdaukar]

No current videocard requires pci-e 2.0 bus, they hardly can take all bandwith from a x16 1.0.

Ok - so what Im hearing is that the performance potential of a GPU which *can* use a 2.0 slot isn't severely impacted by being limited to a x16 1.0 slot because most "second tier" upgrade options (GTX+/250/260/etx) cant make full use of the 2.0 slot anyway?

[BaldEagl]

I don't think so.  I tried to find PCIe x16 1.1 vs 2.0 benchmarks and couldn't so I went to eVGA's website and chose the 8xxx series cards to do a product comparison.  Here's two identical cards, one based on PCIe x16 and the other based on PCIe x16 2.0:

 EVGA GeForce 8400 GS e-GeForce 8400 GS
Price EVGA Price $39.99 
     
 EVGA Price $39.99 
Backordered
 
General Info Remove From Comparison Remove From Comparison
Part Number 512-P3-N725-LR 512-P2-N738-LR
Bus PCI-E 2.0 2.1 PCI-E 16x
Connections DVI-I, VGA DVI-I, VGA, HDTV-7
SLI Ready No No
DirectX 10 Ready Yes Yes
Power Supply 350 Watt 350 Watt
Dimensions Height: 4.376 in - 111.15 mm
Length: 6.625 in - 168.27 mm  Height: 4.376 in - 111.15 mm
Length: 6.5 in - 165 mm 
Technical Info     
GPU 8400 GS 8400 GS
GPU Speed 567Mhz 459Mhz
Pixel Pipelines 16 16
RAMDAC Speed 400 400
RAM 512 512
RAM Type DDR2 DDR2
RAM Speed 532Mhz (effective) 532Mhz (effective)
Memory Bandwidth 4.26 GB/s 2.12 GB/s
Max Refresh 120Hz 120Hz
Max Resolution Analog 2048x1536 2048x1536
Max Resolution Digital 1920x1200 1920x1200
PDF Link Download Spec PDF Download Spec PDF

Granted these are older sub-par cards for gaming but note the difference in memory bandwith; double for the 2.0 slot vs the 1.x slot.

By comparison the 9800GTX+ runs 70.4 Gb/s memory bandwith (PCIe x16 2.0 from eVGA web-site) while the 8800 GT runs at 57.6 Gb/s (PCIe x16 2.0 from Wikipedia).  Your 8800 GT is probably running at just over 25 Gb/s which sounds like the numbers that eVGA used to post for those cards before they moved to 2.0.  At the same time upper end cards like the GT295 run an incredible 241.92 GB/s (PCIe x16 2.0 from eVGA web-site).  While there was a time where these cards couldn't utilize the bandwith of a 2.0 slot I don't think that's the case any longer, particularily when you look at what the high-end cards are capable of.

Back to the earlier recommendation of a 9800, regardless of the slot by the raw numbers the 9800 GTX+ offers a 22% increase in memory bandwith over the 8800 GT and could always be transferred into a new build at a later date when you'd automatically gain a big performance increase.

[Tinribs]

I run 2gts250s and my boy has a gtx260,we both have akasa 600w psu's and neither of us have ever had any problems,all my system is slightly overclocked too.The gtx260 is an awesome card and I would be very surprised if you have any trouble running it,best of luck with whatever you choose anyhow.
shotdown.

[Saurdaukar]

I don't think so.  I tried to find PCIe x16 1.1 vs 2.0 benchmarks and couldn't so I went to eVGA's website and chose the 8xxx series cards to do a product comparison.  Here's two identical cards, one based on PCIe x16 and the other based on PCIe x16 2.0:

 EVGA GeForce 8400 GS e-GeForce 8400 GS
Price EVGA Price $39.99 
     
 EVGA Price $39.99 
Backordered
 
General Info Remove From Comparison Remove From Comparison
Part Number 512-P3-N725-LR 512-P2-N738-LR
Bus PCI-E 2.0 2.1 PCI-E 16x
Connections DVI-I, VGA DVI-I, VGA, HDTV-7
SLI Ready No No
DirectX 10 Ready Yes Yes
Power Supply 350 Watt 350 Watt
Dimensions Height: 4.376 in - 111.15 mm
Length: 6.625 in - 168.27 mm  Height: 4.376 in - 111.15 mm
Length: 6.5 in - 165 mm 
Technical Info     
GPU 8400 GS 8400 GS
GPU Speed 567Mhz 459Mhz
Pixel Pipelines 16 16
RAMDAC Speed 400 400
RAM 512 512
RAM Type DDR2 DDR2
RAM Speed 532Mhz (effective) 532Mhz (effective)
Memory Bandwidth 4.26 GB/s 2.12 GB/s
Max Refresh 120Hz 120Hz
Max Resolution Analog 2048x1536 2048x1536
Max Resolution Digital 1920x1200 1920x1200
PDF Link Download Spec PDF Download Spec PDF

Granted these are older sub-par cards for gaming but note the difference in memory bandwith; double for the 2.0 slot vs the 1.x slot.

By comparison the 9800GTX+ runs 70.4 Gb/s memory bandwith (PCIe x16 2.0 from eVGA web-site) while the 8800 GT runs at 57.6 Gb/s (PCIe x16 2.0 from Wikipedia).  Your 8800 GT is probably running at just over 25 Gb/s which sounds like the numbers that eVGA used to post for those cards before they moved to 2.0.  At the same time upper end cards like the GT295 run an incredible 241.92 GB/s (PCIe x16 2.0 from eVGA web-site).  While there was a time where these cards couldn't utilize the bandwith of a 2.0 slot I don't think that's the case any longer, particularily when you look at what the high-end cards are capable of.

Back to the earlier recommendation of a 9800, regardless of the slot by the raw numbers the 9800 GTX+ offers a 22% increase in memory bandwith over the 8800 GT and could always be transferred into a new build at a later date when you'd automatically gain a big performance increase.

Its amazing how much I learn on this forum... you guys rock.



Back to RAM, breifly, if I may...

My FSB is 1333 and it appears that my MB will support DDR2-1067... (or 1066 depending on what you read - same thing).

DDR2-1067 Support Source: 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/asus-p5ne-sli_2.html



Any real benefit from going to DDR2-800 to DDR2-1067?  The prices are about identical.  Both about $120 for 2x2GB. 

Examples:

Kingston HyperX 2x2GB DDR2-800, 5-5-5-15.  Near as makes no difference; $120.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4505195&CatId=3412


Kingston HyperX 2x2GB DDR2-1066, 5-5-5-15.  Near as makes no difference; $120.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4242488&CatId=3413


If there is a benefit, why are the latency numbers (which I only partially understand) the same?  If the answer is complex - skip that question and move on to this one - do I even care?  What would you ("you" being someone more versed than me... so pretty much everyone else in this thread...) buy?

[gyrene81]

Yep, pci-e 2.0 compatible does not mean it requires 2.0.

It's not "compatible" bud...it's a specified standard. As you can see by BaldEagl's findings there is a difference.

Amazing the things you learn when you open your mind isn't it?




Saurdaukar, you might want to check the info on your mobo to see what needs to be done in order to run 1066 memory. Sometimes it's a bios tweak, sometimes it's just plug n play...when I looked at the specs on your mobo there wasn't any indication of special settings needed to run the 1066. If the cost is the same, of course I would go with the 1066 over the 800 as long as your mobo supports it.

[BaldEagl]

There's no need to go to DDR2 1066 but all other things being equal (latencies and price) then there's no harm in it.

Your RAM is limited by your CPU.  You have a double pumped dual core CPU running on a 1333 FSB.  That means the core clock speed is 333 Mhz (1333/4).  Because you have DDR2 RAM anything higher that DDR2 667 will be waiting on the CPU (333x2).  If you overclock your CPU about 20% the FSB will go to 1600 Mhz with a core clock of 400 Mhz and make full use of your DDR2 800 RAM.  DDR2 1066 would allow an even higher OC but it's doubtful you'de actually get much higher than that 1600 FSB mark (an OC to 3.6 Ghz would fully utilize DDR2 800 while an OC to 4.8 Ghz would fully utilize DDR2 1066).

So, if you think 3.6 Ghz will be the limit then finding DDR2 800 with the lowest latencies possible would perform better than DDR2 1066 with higher latencies.  Like I said, latencies and price being the same you might as well get the 1066 even though you won't really use it.  In fact, if you knew you'de never OC then DDR2 667 with even lower latencies would perform better than what you have.


BTW, I'm going to reneg on an earlier comment and tell you you could run a card as high as a GTX260 but no higher and, depending on specific card and manufacturer you'll have to be very careful not to exceed a 36 amp requirement.  You have 36 amps and the manufacturer's recommendations do include typical system requirements outside of the video card.  If you have a lot of internal components then I wouldn't do it and even if you're "normal" in terms of system amperage just be aware you'll be on the edge as far as your PSU goes.  It could work but do so at your own risk.  You don't have overhead to spare.

[EDIT]  I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't break the 1600 FSB barrier but that a 20% OC of any recent Intel CPU is pretty easily attainable.  After that it starts to get dicier.  If you break that OC then the faster RAM is what you want (the 1066).  Even though you could OC the slower RAM that presents a whole new set of challenges so you're better off just buying the faster stuff to start with and under utilizing it.

I also meant to say you want your RAM limited by your CPU, not the other way around.

[Saurdaukar]

Ok, I understand that... let me digest it...

[Saurdaukar]

Decision update:

After careful consideration, I purchased an EVGA 9800GTX+ 512MB and 4GB of Kingston Hyper X PC6400 DDR2 (5-5-5-15).

RAM arrived today.  GPU will probably arrive tomorrow.  

That being the case... I may very well hit you up, BE, on your offer of OC assistance in the semi-near future.  I'd like to measure stock v. stock performance, first, however.  If your offer stands, I'll shoot you a PM when I think I've learned enough to take the machine a step up.

(As a caveat, I went with PC6400 because any future overclock I would prefer to be "mild."  I have no desire to abuse the system.  As such, the 1066 wouldnt be fully utilized, I suppose.)

Thanks all very much.  

[BaldEagl]

Shoot me a PM when you're ready.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

It's not "compatible" bud...it's a specified standard. As you can see by BaldEagl's findings there is a difference.

Amazing the things you learn when you open your mind isn't it?

No, the amount of blatant misinformation on this forum is mind boggling. The memory bandwith is INTERNAL TO THE CARD and has NOTHING to do with PCI-E bus rating. The very fact that you couldn't find any reviews comparing the two bus types shows it's totally non relevant to performance with current generation cards!

Please people, do not spread bs.

The only situation where the bus may make a difference is low end non-gaming capable cards that use shared system memory or textures that over saturate internal card memory. That is about 10x slower than any card with dedicated memory running PCI-E 1.0 x8. Regardless of bus speed you're going to get stuttering if you need to load stuff from system memory.

[gyrene81]

See Rule #4

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Here is a comparison of different pci-e bus speeds and games.

FSX being the exception there's no difference between running pci-e 1.0 x16 or 2.0 x16

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-express-2.0,1915-10.html

and this is only because FSX overflows the internal vram. So basically it crawls with any card because of this.

So for AH2 and majority of other current games it makes no difference whether you run x1.0 or x2.0 capable vcard / motherboard. So in conclusion having 2.0 is beneficial but it is in no way a requirement nor does lack of it hinder performance with any other game probably except fsx.