bit-tech.net | Sapphire takes Radeon HD 3850 to AGP

Tyinsar 7th January 2008, 19:43

Have we saturated the AGP bus yet? - though I'm guessing the CPU would more often be the bottleneck on AGP systems. Still, I think this is cool and there is a market so:

DXR_13KE 7th January 2008, 19:47

i am still running an AGP system.... but to buy this GC is kind of stupid...... i can't use it in the event of some part of my system fries.....

C-Sniper 7th January 2008, 20:45

wouldn't the AGP bus itself become a bottleneck for this card?

proxess 7th January 2008, 22:47

First I'd like to see this in action. A review maybe? It feels like that "one last upgrade" for someone still running AGP. I don't think its that bad of an idea.

Jamie 7th January 2008, 23:13

Nice to see some companies still supporting AGP, I'm still running an AGP system.

willyolio 8th January 2008, 01:14

every time you think it's going to die... another company extends its lifetime by another generation.

i'm still running an AGP system, but i really don't see the point. pretty much everything is outdated, so even if i upgrade my video card i still have nothing left for my processor.

genesisofthesith 8th January 2008, 02:23

Bar those with a 939 agp board running an x2 this is pretty stupid. Just let AGP die already.

Amon 8th January 2008, 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-Sniper
wouldn't the AGP bus itself become a bottleneck for this card?

Not really. IIRC, there's still tonnes of bandwidth left that we still haven't really been able to use, so we could use even the next generation monster graphics cards on it if we wanted to (provided they are engineered in a compatible manner). But there were some obvious limitations of the AGP bus that were rectified with PCI-express, such as the amount of power it can provide.

As for the card, I hope the one thing they avoid f*cking up on this card is making it $50 more expensive than the PCIe version.

Jack_Pepsi 8th January 2008, 02:38

This will be perfect for my SN95G5. ;) It'll replace my X1950 Pro - with some water-cooling on that thing it should be as good as a 3870. :P

sotu1 8th January 2008, 03:35

not a bad idea...i think for the failing company it might bring about a little cash boost....probs not much tho TBH. its a great one last upgrade tho, agreed with u there

Ghys 8th January 2008, 04:49

useless

My Pentium M @ 2.7ghz bottlenecks my X850XT in call of duty 4 ... I doubt any cpu coupled with an AGP port would do anything of this card unless it's an extremely overclocked X2

HandMadeAndroid 8th January 2008, 05:04

I've been stretching out my old P4 system for months now, and to be honest the last AGP card I bought on a whim from Maplin was a complete waste of money (£70 for a 7300 such a premium), I'd have been better off saving my money towards a new system..... so today I got a new CPU/board and ram, XP installed in 10mins lol, gone is the 'vacuum cleaner' in the corner of my study! I do love the bios controlled fans...silence is golden. I must say though a bit off topic that the new, well new to me heat sink fitting for the core duo royally sucks and is cheap and nasty. I even rang the store up and the technician told me that the board would be visibly bent by it and not to worry; whats going on there? I'm guessing the card in this article is going to clock in at £150ish (?) Seems to me like chucking cash down the drain.

HourBeforeDawn 8th January 2008, 06:01

huh well this is great to see, I dont think we fully capped what the AGP slot could do before we made the move to PCI-E and my brother has a pretty decent system but with it being AGP thats the only thing dated but now we can make that one last upgrade to his system. ^_^

Imperious 8th January 2008, 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghys
useless

My Pentium M @ 2.7ghz bottlenecks my X850XT in call of duty 4 ... I doubt any cpu coupled with an AGP port would do anything of this card unless it's an extremely overclocked X2

I don't believe that at all, I also have a Pentium M 740 @ 2.7GHZ with a G70 based 7800gs on an Asus P4P800 dlx, and the only thing holding it back as far as new games go is the Video card, not to say of course that a more modern machine couldn't do better. I was at a Lan the other day and at 1440x900 on a LCD monitor UT3 ran appreciably slower than it does on my 19" CRT at 1152x864, which proves a video card bottleneck as opposed to cpu.
If the cpu was causing the bottleneck then it wouldn't matter much what resolution or detail settings were being used as the frame rate would stay roughly the same.
Obviously those of us who get a HD3850 AGP, we are all going to be cpu limited to a certain extent, only people with Asrock C2D and AGP will not have this issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by HandMadeAndroid...
I've been stretching out my old P4 system for months now, and to be honest the last AGP card I bought on a whim from Maplin was a complete waste of money (£70 for a 7300 such a premium)

I don't know what P4 You've got but a 7300 is more likely Your problem, they are the bottom of the 7xxx series, Nvidia also made 7600gs, 7600gt, 7800gs, 7900gs ,and 7950GT AGP cards. So Yours is at the bottom of the heap.

proxess 8th January 2008, 21:39

I wonder how my pc would work with it? I definitely need more ram tho, i can feel 1gb choking the way it is...

Tyinsar 8th January 2008, 22:02

If it's the P4 in your sig a new machine would be your best bet by a long shot.

Ghys 9th January 2008, 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperious
I don't believe that at all, I also have a Pentium M 740 @ 2.7GHZ with a G70 based 7800gs on an Asus P4P800 dlx, and the only thing holding it back as far as new games go is the Video card, not to say of course that a more modern machine couldn't do better. I was at a Lan the other day and at 1440x900 on a LCD monitor UT3 ran appreciably slower than it does on my 19" CRT at 1152x864, which proves a video card bottleneck as opposed to cpu.
If the cpu was causing the bottleneck then it wouldn't matter much what resolution or detail settings were being used as the frame rate would stay roughly the same.

I know how these things work and I came to the conclusion that my cpu bottlenecks my videocard by using the same process as you did. In cod4 AND ut3, between 64x480 and 1280x960 there is no framerate difference at all. Enabling visual effects does not affect the framerate a lot either, which means it's the cpu that can't keep up

that's how things are for me, they might be different for you

proxess 9th January 2008, 23:29

any reviews out?

Amon 10th January 2008, 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghys
I know how these things work and I came to the conclusion that my cpu bottlenecks my videocard by using the same process as you did. In cod4 AND ut3, between 64x480 and 1280x960 there is no framerate difference at all. Enabling visual effects does not affect the framerate a lot either, which means it's the cpu that can't keep up

that's how things are for me, they might be different for you

Hmm, I guess it depends on what you play. Everything I play is almost entirely GPU-limited, so a lot of time needs to be spent to settle on a compromise of visual quality and consistency--whereas you may spend time toying around with physics-based effects to play comfortably. So far, the games I play don't hammer my CPU to pieces like yours may, so that's probably the difference between our experiences. Then again, mine and other people's dual-core processors might be the difference between ours and your computer.

Imperious 10th January 2008, 08:23

Ok, Ghys, I was assuming that You have a Asus MB with a CT479 adaptor like me, but am aware of some other Pentium M desktop solutions.
I did some benchmarking in Supreme commander, results as follows....

Pentium M 740@226x12=2712mhz. 1gig Dual channel ram @452mhz cas 2.5,3,3,5
MSI 7800GS g70 @ 513mhz core 1606mhz ram (its been volt modded)

Supreme Commander
1024x768 FPS min 4.73, max 85.29, average 34.359 Total pixels 786432
1280x1024 FPS min 3.79, max 52.52, average 22.139 Total pixels 1310720
1440x900 FPS min 4.81, max 66.8 , average 25.762 Total pixels 1296000

game settings were equal for all 3 test runs, slightly above medium, custom.

So for my setup, and with this game, I am definitely GPU limited.

rogerbodger 12th January 2008, 22:31

hi all, you can probably help me back from the edge of extinction, cut a very long story short, i had overheating problems which i think came from my AMD ATHLON 3800?? running at 2.4ghz ish maybe 2.6 with a radeon x800xt platinum card.{not positive on the chip} i now have an amd 4000? i think running at 2.6 ghz and also bought an agp ati sapphire hd2600xt as a bit of an upgrade. we couldnt get the card to run bf2 or ghost recon or cod4 anywhere near as good as the old components, really laggy and jerky especially when i was getting blown up in bf2, and so the card is going back and i have been advised to wait for the 3850 and try that as the drivers for the 2600 didnt seem up to much.
i cant afford to get a complete new system with pci-e so wondered what your thoughts were, the x800xt is back in and running fine and the chip seems cool enough and hasnt switched off.

as much as i am a biff at this my mate is a bit of a ninja.

if you want any other specs let me know and i will find out.

hope you can offer me some advice other than find a skip

and i hope i posted this in the right place

and its a skt 939

many thanks

Ghys 13th January 2008, 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperious
Ok, Ghys, I was assuming that You have a Asus MB with a CT479 adaptor like me, but am aware of some other Pentium M desktop solutions.
I did some benchmarking in Supreme commander, results as follows....

Pentium M 740@226x12=2712mhz. 1gig Dual channel ram @452mhz cas 2.5,3,3,5
MSI 7800GS g70 @ 513mhz core 1606mhz ram (its been volt modded)

Supreme Commander
1024x768 FPS min 4.73, max 85.29, average 34.359 Total pixels 786432
1280x1024 FPS min 3.79, max 52.52, average 22.139 Total pixels 1310720
1440x900 FPS min 4.81, max 66.8 , average 25.762 Total pixels 1296000

game settings were equal for all 3 test runs, slightly above medium, custom.

So for my setup, and with this game, I am definitely GPU limited.

I do have a P4C800-E Deluxe and a CT479. I would make some cod4 benches but recently my pc has been dieing on me and crashing while gaming.. I had to drop my overclock 500mhz to 2.2ghz... Therefore there is a much greater chance for the cpu to truly bottleneck. Maybe these stability problems are why cod4 has been running so bad ever since i bought it. It's actually getting worse everyday. For those of you who know the game, I now drop in the 20's fps in Backlot or Downpour... It's become totally unplayable

the problem is you're going UP in resolution for your testing. You should go down or else it's obvious you'll be cpu limited. Of course your 3 year old gpu will bottleneck if you run 3months old games in 1440x900

lectrician 13th January 2008, 17:57

-------------------------THIS-------IS--------THE------DEFINITIVE ANSWER----------------- ON -------THIS--------SUBJECT
Hi. Abouth the AGP bus bottleneck. I am inclined to believe its a myth put forward by those that need you to continue to spend money on new parts. this really sucks if you have a budget, and want full settings in games. The Bandwidth for AGP is 2.1 GB per second; unilaterally. So with this assumption the AGP would bottleneck a game with 512 MB textures like Quake 4 at 4 frames a second.

512MB+512MB+512MB+512MB=2 GB

this is simply not the case. I run AMD 4200+, 2GB DDRII 667, -----------------512 MB Radeon 1950 pro AGP 8x---------------
I get 4790 3dmarks in 3dmark 06, 60-100 FPS in Battlefield 2142 at supermax settings, 50-85 FPS in Team Fortress 2 Supermax settings, and UT3 is georgeous at 45 FPS 2 notches below all high detail. I push WAY MORE than 2.1 GB a second on this old 8x Bus. The biggest performance boost is RAM amount, and your processor power. pair this new AGP card with 2-4 GB of ram, and a 6000+ series intel or AMD chip and youve got a low budget monster killer on your hands that will run anything you throw its way; SUPERMAX.

Ghys 13th January 2008, 18:04

glad to hear it...

now, could someone test if dual cores are a necessity in today's game ? :)

none4you 15th January 2008, 14:56

Ok here is little Test I'm Using http://www.asrock.com/mb/cpu.asp?Model=AM2NF3-VSTA&s= Mother board with x2 5200+ and x1950pro AGPx8 and find that games are remarkably stable and fluent. I did Compare tests with http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?func=prodcpusupport&prod_no=251&maincat_no=1 with x1950Pro PCI-e and speed gain was 1-3% Top which can be added to chipset and SATAII 300 Transfer

mclean007 16th January 2008, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by lectrician
-------------------------THIS-------IS--------THE------DEFINITIVE ANSWER----------------- ON -------THIS--------SUBJECT
Hi. Abouth the AGP bus bottleneck. I am inclined to believe its a myth put forward by those that need you to continue to spend money on new parts. this really sucks if you have a budget, and want full settings in games. The Bandwidth for AGP is 2.1 GB per second; unilaterally. So with this assumption the AGP would bottleneck a game with 512 MB textures like Quake 4 at 4 frames a second.

512MB+512MB+512MB+512MB=2 GB

this is simply not the case. I run AMD 4200+, 2GB DDRII 667, -----------------512 MB Radeon 1950 pro AGP 8x---------------
I get 4790 3dmarks in 3dmark 06, 60-100 FPS in Battlefield 2142 at supermax settings, 50-85 FPS in Team Fortress 2 Supermax settings, and UT3 is georgeous at 45 FPS 2 notches below all high detail. I push WAY MORE than 2.1 GB a second on this old 8x Bus. The biggest performance boost is RAM amount, and your processor power. pair this new AGP card with 2-4 GB of ram, and a 6000+ series intel or AMD chip and youve got a low budget monster killer on your hands that will run anything you throw its way; SUPERMAX.

Sorry mate, but your analysis massively oversimplifies the issue to the point that it is just wrong (no offence!). First off, a game engine that shunted every texture in a frame across the AGP interconnect for every frame would be hugely inefficient. The graphics card caches textures onboard where it might need to use them again in future frames. Secondly, what is your source for saying that Quake 4 uses 512 MB textures?

You do not push more than 2.1GB/s over the 8x AGP bus, period. It is simply not possible. 2.1GB/s is the interface maximum speed and with overheads you won't even get that.

Da Dego 17th January 2008, 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by lectrician
-------------------------THIS-------IS--------THE------DEFINITIVE ANSWER----------------- ON -------THIS--------SUBJECT
Hi. Abouth the AGP bus bottleneck. I am inclined to believe its a myth put forward by those that need you to continue to spend money on new parts
...insert tin-foil hat...

Wow....that just made my head hurt.

Though I appreciate what you're going for and that your end conclusion (that AGP is in no way bandwidth oversaturated) is accidentally correct, that was probably THE most flawed analysis I've seen as of late...and that's after some pretty bad ones from my watercooling article. ;)

This just misses a tremendous amount of how a graphics card actually processes textures, or really anything for that matter...

Harrycat88 29th January 2008, 03:44

Some of you people are not very brite.
I have a 939Dual-Sata2 which is a combo AGP/PCI-E board based on the ULI chipset..And on this board my AGP slot out runs the PCI-E slot by 2 to 5 frames and never pauses like the PCI-E slot does. I always wonder about this but now I know the answer.
The Nvidia GeForce 8800Ultra would not even max out the bandwidth of the AGP bus because the video card is only as fast as the CPU, GPU, and HT BUS is.
http://www.kyol.net/%7Eharrycat/Goldfinger.html

Hazardous 29th January 2008, 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harrycat88

Some of you people are not very brite.

Pot... kettle

tsaal 14th February 2008, 23:19

I have a P4 Prescott 3.0 on a asus P4P800 Deluxe over clocked to 3.6 with 2 gig of ram and it still rocks. All I need to do is upgrade that x850xt I have. I have a intel duo core to and they seam no faster, probably because im running vista and on the p4 XP. Im in!!! cant wait to buy it but the price has to be inline with the pci-e versen.

Jack_Pepsi 29th April 2008, 14:18

Well, my lovely girlfriend went and gave me my birthday present early... I love my girlfriend! XD

She bought me the Sapphire 3850 and I've got a pleasant picture for you all. Enjoy!

http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=90783dmark06dh5.jpg

kenco_uk 29th April 2008, 15:54

Oh. I was expecting a pic of er.. something else.

00tonytone 21st May 2008, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by willyolio
every time you think it's going to die... another company extends its lifetime by another generation.

i'm still running an AGP system, but i really don't see the point. pretty much everything is outdated, so even if i upgrade my video card i still have nothing left for my processor.

I just recieved agp HD 3850 card, from newegg I had ati 9550 256mb before and im not sure if its the powersupply, 400watts +12volts 11A the card did work with 11A it requires 30A, but the 9550 plays counterstrike better and the HD 3850 also doesnt install the latest catalyst drivers. I think i threw away my money $178 dollars on agp instead of just upgrading to pci express. now i have to spend another 100 to get a decent powersupply to see if upgrade was worth it. What i want to ask anybody that can help me, Can I get a PSU with Pci E connector and use that to power the AGP HD 3850 card, its the same 6pin connector.
I have an Intel d865perl, 2.8 fsb 800 CPU, 1gig ddr400 and a sata 16mb HD . Any help on what PSU would work for me would be appreciated. Im not trying to keep AGP alive i was just trying to upgrade ala Cheap and think its gonna end up costing me more with worst results . lol. thank you.

Log in

Sapphire takes Radeon HD 3850 to AGP

Related articles on bit-tech.net