Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (121271)	12/8/2000 2:34:09 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, <If AGP ever succeeded at anything, it was at running AGP related tests, nothing of significance in real world.> Herr Uberclockermeister, once a vocal critic of AGP (see tomshardware.com ), later changed his mind and said, "AGP vs. PCI is a question that doesn't need to be asked anymore today. AGP has succeeded in the upper performance area quite a while ago already." (see tomshardware.com ) Also, AnandTech did some tests back in 1999 with AGP 1X, 2X, and 4X. If I recall correctly, there was a noticeable performance difference between AGP 1X and AGP 2X. (I tried looking for links, but couldn't find them. Also, if I recall correctly, AGP 4X didn't show any difference over AGP 2X, but this isn't surprising at the moment.) I don't know why you still hold onto the old notion that AGP is useless, because lots of graphics cards out there, including the popular Geforce 2, makes use of the bandwidth. The debate has been settled a long time ago. By the way, try downloading 64 MB of textures over a 133 MB/sec (or worse, 100 MB/sec effective bandwidth) PCI bus. Tenchusatsu P.S. - Just in case you thought AGP 4X was overkill, Intel already has AGP 8X in the works.