AGP 1x, 2x, 4x are the same?!

[Über~PhLuBB]

Before I upgraded to my new motherboard, I had rather poor 3d performance (~3000 marks in 3DMark2001) because I thought my AGP rate was stuck at 1X (Which it was).

Well, I bought a new Abit KA7, and installed the VIA 4in1's version 433, and guess what? No 3D performance increase. NONE.

I am at 4X AGP, because I installed the 4in1's in Turbo mode, and I have verified I'm in 4X with SiSoft SANDRA. But my 3DMark2001 score is still ~3000!

What the hell? I thought 1X AGP and 4X AGP would be a HUGE difference! My system specs are below. I know that I should be getting at LEAST 6000 3DMarks! What did I do wrong? Should I format and reinstall everythign from scratch?

I've tried installing the 4in1's over again, I've installed Detonator XP again, I've even tried using NVMax and Powerstrip. But my 3DMark2001 score will not increase!

[outhouse]

I think you found out the hard way that 1,2 and 4 by dont make that much of a difference. Ive found only a little difference changing different versions of the 4 in 1's but my MB is different from yours so you might find a good driver that will make a difference. Not sure why your scores are low wish you luck though.

[Über~PhLuBB]

Originally posted by outhouse
I think you found out the hard way that 1,2 and 4 by dont make that much of a difference. Ive found only a little difference changing different versions of the 4 in 1's but my MB is different from yours so you might find a good driver that will make a difference. Not sure why your scores are low wish you luck though.

Wel I know 2x and 4x shouldn't be too different, but going from 1x to 4x should have yielded twice the speed... but it didnt!

Bump

[FãU§T]

A simple search and read is always a good idea before you jump into or assume things. This will give you a good idea of what the deferences are and what they mean.

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=64

[Über~PhLuBB]

Originally posted by FãU§T
A simple search and read is always a good idea before you jump into or assume things. This will give you a good idea of what the deferences are and what they mean.

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=64

No, you see, I know it's a problem and not just my imagination. When I first built this rig, with a GeForce256, I could play Unreal Tournament at 1024x768x16, DetailTextures=True, CurvedSurfaces=True, MipMap surfaces Best Image Quality, at 60FPS+. All of a sudden, UT wouldn't play as smooth, so I had to turn down settings, and I still get barely 50FPS. I hadn't updated any drivers, or changed any settings.

I bought me GeForce2 Ultra, and it's still exactly the same, there isn't any difference whatsoever. It's not the CPU, because the CPU can't limit something like that (Not at 950MHz+ anyway), and it's not the Motherboard or Sound card, or hard drive, because I've changed all of those. The only thing I still use is my RAM, but PC100 RAM wouldn't limit something to 1X AGP performance in this rig.

[Monaco]

UT is really weird about benchmarks, they never really seemed to add up to me. On my old Pro133 motherboard, the difference between 1x and 2x is maybe 15% or so.

[FãU§T]

OK, the thing is you won't see a performance gain between 1x to 4x AGP in game or none that will show any difference in performance.

[6502kid]

Thats rough. I get an average FPS of over 110 in UT, and
I gots a cheapo Jaton GF2 card.

When I checked the difference between AGP4x and 2x on my
TNT2 card, it was so minimal, I stuck with 2x for stablity.

I would guess it might be some other bios setting or video
driver or DX problem causing the problem.

Thats not really a terrible score in 3dm. I get around 2300-2500
in 3dm 2001, and 5400 or so in 3dm 2000, depending upon
the det. version I is using.

Perhaps you should lose the Detonator XP and go back
to the 12.xx or 10.xx versions.


What OS are you using ? I think Win98 with DX 7 or 8 is fastest.

[Über~PhLuBB]

Originally posted by 6502kid
Thats rough. I get an average FPS of over 110 in UT, and
I gots a cheapo Jaton GF2 card.

When I checked the difference between AGP4x and 2x on my
TNT2 card, it was so minimal, I stuck with 2x for stablity.

I would guess it might be some other bios setting or video
driver or DX problem causing the problem.

Thats not really a terrible score in 3dm. I get around 2300-2500
in 3dm 2001, and 5400 or so in 3dm 2000, depending upon
the det. version I is using.

Perhaps you should lose the Detonator XP and go back
to the 12.xx or 10.xx versions.


What OS are you using ? I think Win98 with DX 7 or 8 is fastest.

I'm on 98SE, DX8, using Det 21.81. I'll try out a lower one.

[Pitspawn]

AGP speeds are for bus bandwidth. I think 1AGP has 256Mb/s, 2AGP has 512Mb/s and 4AGP has 1024Mb/s.

4xAGP bandwidth is very rarely reached, BUT...If you like really high resolution with 32 bit colour and big big textures there will be an obvious difference.

A GeForce3 would be seriously crippled at 1xAGP. A GeForce2 wouldnt be as slow.

[lonewolf1983]

might seem like a stupid suggestion
but are u using the same version of 3dmark
ie,2000 and 2001
just when u said that u got 6000,then went down to 3000
seems very strange

[Kingslayer]

You have just experienced what I have been preaching since I have arrived here. Motherboard manufacuteres are coming out with insane products. 4x AGP, ATA-100 and 133, better PCI bandwidth, USB 2.0, Firewire. And all of things things pass enourmous amounts of data.

All of these things go through 4 things in your computer. CPU, Memory, Northbridge, and Southbridge.

CPU, no bandwidth problem there. It's usually the biggest pipe on the board.

Memory, with DDR, and even PC-133 it's enough to handle what's thrown at it relatively well.

Now look at your northbridge and southbridge. How many manufacturers have disclosed their north and southbridge bandwidth? NONE. This is because this is the biggest bottleneck on the motherboard. Now, VIA and others have overcome this slightly, but not enough to see a difference. (they found out by turning the chip around they got a little more bandwidth. This is research aimed at these bottlenecks....) It is too costly for them to remanufacturer these chips, not to mention a total retool of the factory.

And us, as consumers, looking for low cost computer parts, suffer. We will continue to suffer until this is changed. And that probably won't be anytime soon.

[Über~PhLuBB]

Originally posted by Kingslayer
You have just experienced what I have been preaching since I have arrived here. Motherboard manufacuteres are coming out with insane products. 4x AGP, ATA-100 and 133, better PCI bandwidth, USB 2.0, Firewire. And all of things things pass enourmous amounts of data.

All of these things go through 4 things in your computer. CPU, Memory, Northbridge, and Southbridge.

CPU, no bandwidth problem there. It's usually the biggest pipe on the board.

Memory, with DDR, and even PC-133 it's enough to handle what's thrown at it relatively well.

Now look at your northbridge and southbridge. How many manufacturers have disclosed their north and southbridge bandwidth? NONE. This is because this is the biggest bottleneck on the motherboard. Now, VIA and others have overcome this slightly, but not enough to see a difference. (they found out by turning the chip around they got a little more bandwidth. This is research aimed at these bottlenecks....) It is too costly for them to remanufacturer these chips, not to mention a total retool of the factory.

And us, as consumers, looking for low cost computer parts, suffer. We will continue to suffer until this is changed. And that probably won't be anytime soon.

I'm sure that has something to do with it, but like I said above, I used to get twice the performance, way back when I first got my computer. I had a GeForce256, and one day, it just didn't perform as well. It's like something burned out. But nothing burned out. I didnt change any drivers. I didn't update anything. It just stopped performing as well.

So I bought a GeForce2 Ultra to try to remedy the problem, but the performance didn't increase that much.

[Über~PhLuBB]

Originally posted by lonewolf1983
might seem like a stupid suggestion
but are u using the same version of 3dmark
ie,2000 and 2001
just when u said that u got 6000,then went down to 3000
seems very strange

No, no, I said I SHOULD be getting 6000+. I never got that much, because I never tried 3DMark200X before the problem started. I know I should be getting 6000+ in 3DMark2001 because people with equivalent rigs (See below) get those kinds of scores.

[Kingslayer]

You aren't going to get 6000+ points on 3DMark2001 with that card. If you do, put it on E-bay with a $1000 minimum bid.

[Über~PhLuBB]

Originally posted by Kingslayer
You aren't going to get 6000+ points on 3DMark2001 with that card. If you do, put it on E-bay with a $1000 minimum bid.

Still. 3000? That's pathetic. My UT game is suffering because I have to turn down the detail settings, and still get crappy FPS.