VOGONS


First post, by KT7AGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I've got a socket 754 Athlon 64 system with AGP and a 6800 GT. Right now it dual-boots Win98SE and WinXP. However, I think I'm going to replace the 6800 GT with a Quadro FX 3000 and just have it single-boot Win9x. I just can't think of a good reason to use AGP in a legacy WinXP box when PCI-E boards can use much better video cards and have no real compatibility issues with older software.

Unless one is intentionally trying to build an early AGP WinXP system, is there any advantage at all to using it instead of a PCI-E board?

Reply 2 of 14, by derSammler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Well, depends on how you see it. When XP was released, PCI-E did no even exist. PCI-E 1.x started to appear in 2003, but took several years to really take off. And when that happened, XP was already becoming an outdated OS. AGP however was fully matured during the climax of XP, so it fits better.

But of course, if speed is all which matters to you, go for PCI-E.

Reply 3 of 14, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Kinda agree with the above.
AGP and even IDE "feels" right for WinXP
However PCI-E and SATA are the better options in the real world.

Reply 5 of 14, by Srandista

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I would argue, that X850 maybe is way to much power for 98 (thought is that even thing, "way too much power"?), but it's definitely not enough power for XP in my eyes. To run late XP games comfortably, PCIe GPU is a must imho.

Socket 775 - ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA, Pentium E6500K, 4GB RAM, Radeon 9500@9700, ESS Solo-1, Win 98/XP
Socket A - ASRock K7S41GX, AMD Athlon XP 3000+, 512MB RAM, GeForce4 Ti4200, SB Live, Win 98

Reply 6 of 14, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I can't think of any advantage, apart from having the slot on the motherboard giving you compatibility with older cards, making it interesting for testing and dual boot with 98.

derSammler wrote on 2020-06-02, 08:03:

Well, depends on how you see it. When XP was released, PCI-E did no even exist. PCI-E 1.x started to appear in 2003, but took several years to really take off. And when that happened, XP was already becoming an outdated OS. AGP however was fully matured during the climax of XP, so it fits better.

But of course, if speed is all which matters to you, go for PCI-E.

video cards with PCIE were a thing in 2004 with x800 and 6800 series, I remember PCIE already being popular in late 2004 and specially 2005 even for more budget cards (6600GT being a common PCIE card and nforce 4 without SLI was not expensive)

Vista wasn't out yet, and Vista was Vista, I think many gaming focused people kept using XP for a few years, many jumped from XP directly to 7 (2009)
I saw more people migrating to Vista in 2007 when more DX10 cards were out and people wanted to try it.

Reply 7 of 14, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

For me s754 with AGP 6800GT seems really overkill for Win9x and I know WinXP will most likely simply work perfectly fine.
Whenever I build a system using anything with at least 2 real cores (like an AM2 or newer board or something) I think I'd install Windows 7 instead.

I don't know if WinXP has some inherent flaws on late AGP systems which Win9x would solve, but I reckon the reverse would be more likely.
I guess it doesn't really matter in the end and is a matter of personal preference.

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 8 of 14, by Almoststew1990

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

From a sensible point of view PCI-E makes sense for XP. It'll be a lot cheaper, cooler quieter system. I've had no compatibility issues with PCI-E playing games from 1999 or so.

I've sort of gone half way and got an Athlon 3200+ Venice on 939 which has a PCI-E slot.

Ryzen 3700X | 16GB 3600MHz RAM | AMD 6800XT | 2Tb NVME SSD | Windows 10
AMD DX2-80 | 16MB RAM | STB LIghtspeed 128 | AWE32 CT3910
I have a vacancy for a main Windows 98 PC

Reply 9 of 14, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Srandista wrote on 2020-06-02, 13:10:

I would argue, that X850 maybe is way to much power for 98 (thought is that even thing, "way too much power"?), but it's definitely not enough power for XP in my eyes. To run late XP games comfortably, PCIe GPU is a must imho.

Maybe but for late XP I've got a phenom ii and GTX 560 TI. I play my games in the os that feels right, and to me 98se is no longer relevant for year 2001, dx8 is the domain of 2k/XP. But some games from this period don't like smp so I like to keep a system handy to cover it. I also like reliving my high school experience.

As for pcie being common in 2004, I guess if people bought alot of new pentium4 systems around you. The people I knew where still on s754 or fast socket a rigs and either upgraded to gf6/x*** agp cards, or held onto their 9800(9600 cards and moved into pcie with the 7800 series in mid 05. AGP was common right until about 2007.

Reply 10 of 14, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
candle_86 wrote on 2020-06-03, 11:43:
Srandista wrote on 2020-06-02, 13:10:

I would argue, that X850 maybe is way to much power for 98 (thought is that even thing, "way too much power"?), but it's definitely not enough power for XP in my eyes. To run late XP games comfortably, PCIe GPU is a must imho.

Maybe but for late XP I've got a phenom ii and GTX 560 TI. I play my games in the os that feels right, and to me 98se is no longer relevant for year 2001, dx8 is the domain of 2k/XP. But some games from this period don't like smp so I like to keep a system handy to cover it. I also like reliving my high school experience.

As for pcie being common in 2004, I guess if people bought alot of new pentium4 systems around you. The people I knew where still on s754 or fast socket a rigs and either upgraded to gf6/x*** agp cards, or held onto their 9800(9600 cards and moved into pcie with the 7800 series in mid 05. AGP was common right until about 2007.

x800 released in 2004 was already native PCIE with a bridge chip to support AGP, nforce 4 came out in late 2004, it wasn't common but it became in 2005 no doubt, I remember lots of people going for the A64 3000+ 939 + cheaper nforce 4 boards and a 6600GT in early 2005, if I look for used 6600GTs seem to be far more common with PCIE than AGP

by 2007 AGP was available but I wouldn't call it common, the transition to PCIE was really fast in 2005/2006

Reply 11 of 14, by Srandista

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
SPBHM wrote on 2020-06-03, 13:22:

x800 released in 2004 was already native PCIE with a bridge chip to support AGP

With X800, it was the other way around. X800 was AGP native, X700 was PCIe native.

Socket 775 - ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA, Pentium E6500K, 4GB RAM, Radeon 9500@9700, ESS Solo-1, Win 98/XP
Socket A - ASRock K7S41GX, AMD Athlon XP 3000+, 512MB RAM, GeForce4 Ti4200, SB Live, Win 98

Reply 12 of 14, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
SPBHM wrote on 2020-06-03, 13:22:
candle_86 wrote on 2020-06-03, 11:43:
Srandista wrote on 2020-06-02, 13:10:

I would argue, that X850 maybe is way to much power for 98 (thought is that even thing, "way too much power"?), but it's definitely not enough power for XP in my eyes. To run late XP games comfortably, PCIe GPU is a must imho.

Maybe but for late XP I've got a phenom ii and GTX 560 TI. I play my games in the os that feels right, and to me 98se is no longer relevant for year 2001, dx8 is the domain of 2k/XP. But some games from this period don't like smp so I like to keep a system handy to cover it. I also like reliving my high school experience.

As for pcie being common in 2004, I guess if people bought alot of new pentium4 systems around you. The people I knew where still on s754 or fast socket a rigs and either upgraded to gf6/x*** agp cards, or held onto their 9800(9600 cards and moved into pcie with the 7800 series in mid 05. AGP was common right until about 2007.

x800 released in 2004 was already native PCIE with a bridge chip to support AGP, nforce 4 came out in late 2004, it wasn't common but it became in 2005 no doubt, I remember lots of people going for the A64 3000+ 939 + cheaper nforce 4 boards and a 6600GT in early 2005, if I look for used 6600GTs seem to be far more common with PCIE than AGP

by 2007 AGP was available but I wouldn't call it common, the transition to PCIE was really fast in 2005/2006

Not around the people I knew or even the shop I frequented, the truth is alot of folks bought athlon 64 754 or p4 ht on skt 478, or xp 2600/2800/3000/3200 and the move to single core 939 or 775 p4 wasn't worth it, the big shift happened with dual core when am2 and core 2 hit, all except the bleeding edge gamers weren't upgrading except if they had to. Great example a friend of mine in 2004 bought an a64 3200 and 6800gt ago on an nforce3, board, there would have been Zero good reason to upgrade to pcie for him. They sold all cards in ago in 2004 and only in 2005 did they start to make the high end pcie exclusive. I saw the big shift happen with core 2 and dx10.

Reply 13 of 14, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Srandista wrote on 2020-06-03, 13:24:
SPBHM wrote on 2020-06-03, 13:22:

x800 released in 2004 was already native PCIE with a bridge chip to support AGP

With X800, it was the other way around. X800 was AGP native, X700 was PCIe native.

right, but the rest of the line I think was PCIE native, like the x300, x600
very soon the AGP cards were all using the bridge chip.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-06-03, 15:07:
SPBHM wrote on 2020-06-03, 13:22:
candle_86 wrote on 2020-06-03, 11:43:

Maybe but for late XP I've got a phenom ii and GTX 560 TI. I play my games in the os that feels right, and to me 98se is no longer relevant for year 2001, dx8 is the domain of 2k/XP. But some games from this period don't like smp so I like to keep a system handy to cover it. I also like reliving my high school experience.

As for pcie being common in 2004, I guess if people bought alot of new pentium4 systems around you. The people I knew where still on s754 or fast socket a rigs and either upgraded to gf6/x*** agp cards, or held onto their 9800(9600 cards and moved into pcie with the 7800 series in mid 05. AGP was common right until about 2007.

x800 released in 2004 was already native PCIE with a bridge chip to support AGP, nforce 4 came out in late 2004, it wasn't common but it became in 2005 no doubt, I remember lots of people going for the A64 3000+ 939 + cheaper nforce 4 boards and a 6600GT in early 2005, if I look for used 6600GTs seem to be far more common with PCIE than AGP

by 2007 AGP was available but I wouldn't call it common, the transition to PCIE was really fast in 2005/2006

Not around the people I knew or even the shop I frequented, the truth is alot of folks bought athlon 64 754 or p4 ht on skt 478, or xp 2600/2800/3000/3200 and the move to single core 939 or 775 p4 wasn't worth it, the big shift happened with dual core when am2 and core 2 hit, all except the bleeding edge gamers weren't upgrading except if they had to. Great example a friend of mine in 2004 bought an a64 3200 and 6800gt ago on an nforce3, board, there would have been Zero good reason to upgrade to pcie for him. They sold all cards in ago in 2004 and only in 2005 did they start to make the high end pcie exclusive. I saw the big shift happen with core 2 and dx10.

I think that depends on timing, my PC in 2004 was still the same from 2003 with Athlon XP Tbred
but in early 2005 I've built what was the common setup online, A64 3000+ s939, a cheaper nforce 4 board (non sli) and a PCIE video card, later in that year I also bought a s754 board with PCIE with a Sempron (the ones that were based on the Venice core and could OC well).
basically if you had a high end system with AGP from 2003/2004 the move to PCIE would not be needed, but if you had something older and was building a PC in early 2005 it would make sense to buy something PCIE based.

the PCIE 6600GTs were very common in 2005, later that year the geforce 7 were mostly PCIE and so on, so I think the switch was clearly happening in 2005 and by 2006, even before the 8800GTX PCIE was already the standard, even for the midrange, when Nvidia released the 7800GS AGP it already felt like a new AGP card was an odd thing.

in any case, both would be common in mid-late 2005 realistically,

Reply 14 of 14, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
candle_86 wrote on 2020-06-03, 11:43:
Srandista wrote on 2020-06-02, 13:10:

I would argue, that X850 maybe is way to much power for 98 (thought is that even thing, "way too much power"?), but it's definitely not enough power for XP in my eyes. To run late XP games comfortably, PCIe GPU is a must imho.

Maybe but for late XP I've got a phenom ii and GTX 560 TI. I play my games in the os that feels right, and to me 98se is no longer relevant for year 2001, dx8 is the domain of 2k/XP. But some games from this period don't like smp so I like to keep a system handy to cover it. I also like reliving my high school experience.

As for pcie being common in 2004, I guess if people bought alot of new pentium4 systems around you. The people I knew where still on s754 or fast socket a rigs and either upgraded to gf6/x*** agp cards, or held onto their 9800(9600 cards and moved into pcie with the 7800 series in mid 05. AGP was common right until about 2007.

I build 3 A64 rigs when they were sorta-new, of which 1 was my main rig for a year or 3 and the other 2 were used as LAN rigs for some multiplayer LAN with some friends. I specifically picked A64 boards with AGP so I could reuse the AGP graphics cards that I already had and because I figured that in the long run it would be better to have 3 extra higher end AGP cards then to have 3 extra lowest-end PCIE graphics card.

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!