VOGONS


"Fake AGP" slots?

Topic actions

First post, by 2mg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

So around 2004-2006 there were some dual AGP/PCIE motherboards.

From what I gather, only and only ULi 1695 chipset (for 939 Athlons, no Intel version) is the one that could pull a proper PCIE + AGP combo - this is from what little leftover resources I gathered on the web, I don't have it, so I can't confirm this.
Apparently VIA PT880 Pro/Ultra chipset does AGP x8 + PCIE x4 too, but the rest Asrock's AGI x8 are "PCI hacks".

Now for the rest - SiS made Ultra-AGP, ECS made AGP Express, Asrock made AGI, Epos made AGX, Biostar made XGP - these all seem to be a physical AGP slot running on PCI circuits + some extra wiring. MSI made AGR, but that is a hack of AGP on PCIE.

I can't confirm how they work, Wikipedia states that only AGP Express is a PCI in disguise, but users seem to consider all of these the same.
Most of these wouldn't properly do other AGP goodies like GART, sidebanding and better memory access.
Maybe most importantly, they were very picky about what GPUs they'd accept, unlike proper AGP slot.

Because if you look at https://www.asrock.com/mb/via/4coredual-sata2 you will see that it doesn't have AGI 8x (their term for fake AGP) nor AGI Express (their term for PCIe that runs at 4x only, which is also the case with these dual motherboards), it's AGP 8x and PCIe x16 (in x4 mode).
In fact, if you check the manual, there isn't even a mention of AGI, nor a list of Asrock approved GPUs that work on AGI 8x.

Compare this to https://www.asrock.com/mb/VIA/P4Dual-880Pro the site doesn't mention AGI, yet the manual does have a list of recommended GPUs.

And then you have the https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/P4Dual-915GL and you have AGI plastered all over, and in manual too.

I saw some benchmarks and some seem fine, some not, depending on GPU and year of testing.
Same goes for PCI x4, in 2004 it seems on par with (real) AGP 8x, in 2007 not so much.

So I come here asking for wisdom - are they all really just PCI in disguise?

Last edited by 2mg on 2022-12-11, 10:32. Edited 2 times in total.

Reply 1 of 43, by TrashPanda

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

No, some as you have said are emulated AGP via PCIe and others are true AGP on its own bus along side the PCI express bus. That said compatibility is always going to be an issue with hybrid boards with the emulated AGP ones having a host of issues due to the missing functions. Even the true AGP-8x ones will have issues with older AGP cards but this was also a problem with other boards that don't have PCIe.

Research is your best friend here when deciding which hybrid boards you want to use.

Reply 2 of 43, by 2mg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
TrashPanda wrote on 2022-12-03, 02:40:

No, some as you have said are emulated AGP via PCIe and others are true AGP on its own bus along side the PCI express bus. That said compatibility is always going to be an issue with hybrid boards with the emulated AGP ones having a host of issues due to the missing functions. Even the true AGP-8x ones will have issues with older AGP cards but this was also a problem with other boards that don't have PCIe.

Research is your best friend here when deciding which hybrid boards you want to use.

emulated AGP via PCIe - seems only MSI made those, unless you mean "they all cut PCIE down to x4 to use some of the lines for AGP"? It's confirmed that AGP Express at the very least uses undercover PCI trick.

others are true AGP on its own bus along side the PCI express bus - I mean, how can I trust what Asrock says when they use that AGI word liberally? For example, Asus has P4V800D-X - the same PT880 (pro/ultra?) chipset in Asrock's hybrids, but Asus doesn't mention AGI or the need for any specific GPU.

emulated AGP ones having a host of issues - wait, what about those true you mentioned? I mean, this loops back into "are they all fake"?

true AGP-8x ones will have issues with older AGP cards - you mean in the same vein like some RAM sticks just don't work with a build you made?

PS: I don't know what to research anymore, I came here because I really exhausted the Internet Archive trying to make sense of this.

Reply 3 of 43, by TrashPanda

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
2mg wrote on 2022-12-03, 03:16:
emulated AGP via PCIe - seems only MSI made those, unless you mean "they all cut PCIE down to x4 to use some of the lines for AG […]
Show full quote
TrashPanda wrote on 2022-12-03, 02:40:

No, some as you have said are emulated AGP via PCIe and others are true AGP on its own bus along side the PCI express bus. That said compatibility is always going to be an issue with hybrid boards with the emulated AGP ones having a host of issues due to the missing functions. Even the true AGP-8x ones will have issues with older AGP cards but this was also a problem with other boards that don't have PCIe.

Research is your best friend here when deciding which hybrid boards you want to use.

emulated AGP via PCIe - seems only MSI made those, unless you mean "they all cut PCIE down to x4 to use some of the lines for AGP"? It's confirmed that AGP Express at the very least uses undercover PCI trick.

others are true AGP on its own bus along side the PCI express bus - I mean, how can I trust what Asrock says when they use that AGI word liberally? For example, Asus has P4V800D-X - the same PT880 (pro/ultra?) chipset in Asrock's hybrids, but Asus doesn't mention AGI or the need for any specific GPU.

emulated AGP ones having a host of issues - wait, what about those true you mentioned? I mean, this loops back into "are they all fake"?

true AGP-8x ones will have issues with older AGP cards - you mean in the same vein like some RAM sticks just don't work with a build you made?

PS: I don't know what to research anymore, I came here because I really exhausted the Internet Archive trying to make sense of this.

You are over complicating this and getting confused with all the bullshit terms the fabs used, if the manual mentions anything to do with AGP via PCIe then its emulated AGP regardless of how they implemented it or what they called it. The host of problems comes from not actually being AGP and thus missing a range of features, if you find a AGP/PCIe board that the fab has a list of compatible AGP cards then you can be almost 100% sure its fake AGP.

If you want a Hybrid board with true AGP and PCIe then look for any board with the Via PT880 Pro/Ultra chipset, it was the last chipset made that supported AGP, PCIe and Windows98.

The 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2 and 4CoreDual-SATA2 are both true AGP boards and the two most people use, I believe there was also a similar 939 model for AMD called the Asrock 939Dual SATA2 but I cant remember what chipset it used right now, pretty sure it was a ULI chipset. There may be other boards using these chipsets so keep an eye out for them, I have both the 775 and 939 boards listed above and they are rock solid boards and make for a overkill Windows 98 setup.

As for AGP-8X having issue with older AGP cards is mostly to do with the newer slot not 100% supporting features of the older AGP standards and also physical slot design and voltage support changes, Wikipedia has a great article on AGP which can clarify these changes.

Reply 4 of 43, by 2mg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
TrashPanda wrote on 2022-12-03, 03:39:
You are over complicating this and getting confused with all the bullshit terms the fabs used, if the manual mentions anything t […]
Show full quote

You are over complicating this and getting confused with all the bullshit terms the fabs used, if the manual mentions anything to do with AGP via PCIe then its emulated AGP regardless of how they implemented it or what they called it. The host of problems comes from not actually being AGP and thus missing a range of features, if you find a AGP/PCIe board that the fab has a list of compatible AGP cards then you can be almost 100% sure its fake AGP.

If you want a Hybrid board with true AGP and PCIe then look for any board with the Via PT880 Pro/Ultra chipset, it was the last chipset made that supported AGP, PCIe and Windows98.

The 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2 and 4CoreDual-SATA2 are both true AGP boards and the two most people use, I believe there was also a similar 939 model for AMD called the Asrock 939Dual SATA2 but I cant remember what chipset it used right now, pretty sure it was a ULI chipset. There may be other boards using these chipsets so keep an eye out for them, I have both the 775 and 939 boards listed above and they are rock solid boards and make for a overkill Windows 98 setup.

As for AGP-8X having issue with older AGP cards is mostly to do with the newer slot not 100% supporting features of the older AGP standards and also physical slot design and voltage support changes, Wikipedia has a great article on AGP which can clarify these changes.

Here let me give you my perspective:

1. P4Dual-880Pro:
Website - "PCI Express Graphics (@ x4 mode) and AGP interface to adopt both PCI Express and AGP Display card"
Manual - "Do NOT use a 3.3V AGP card on the AGP slot of this motherboard! It may cause permanent damage! For the information of the compatible AGP VGA cards, please refer to the “Supported AGP VGA Card List for AGP Slot” on page 8 and 9. (has a section for PCIe GPUs too)
Result - PT880 chipset, no mention of AGI, PCIe x4 mode.
Question - not a single word about AGI, yet it has a recommended AGP/PCIE GPU list, so is it fake AGP?

2. P4Dual-915GL:
Website - "ASRock AGI Express and AGI 8X interface to adopt both PCI Express and AGP Display card"
Manual - "The AGI [ASRock Graphics Interface] slot is a special design that only supports compatible AGP VGA cards. For the information of the compatible AGP VGA cards, please refer to the “Supported AGP VGA Card List for AGI Slot” on page 8 and page 9. For the proper installation of AGP VGA card, please refer to the installation guide on page 16." (has a section about PCIe GPUs too)
Result - not PT880 chipset, this does mention AGI, PCIe x4 mode.
Question - obviously this is a fake AGP, it's not a PT880 Pro/Ultra chipset, and AGI is mentioned, right?

3. 775Dual-880Pro:
Website - "PCI Express Graphics (@ x4 mode) and AGP interface to adopt both PCI Express and AGP Display card"
Manual - "Do NOT use a 3.3V AGP card on the AGP slot of this motherboard! It may cause permanent damage! For the information of the compatible AGP VGA cards, please refer to the “Supported AGP VGA Card List for AGP Slot” on page 9 and 10." (has a section about PCIe GPUs too)
Result - PT880 chipset, no mention of AGI, PCIe x4 mode.
Question - not a single word about AGI, yet it has a recommended AGP/PCIE GPU list, so is it fake AGP?

4. 775Dual-915gl:
Website - "ASRock A.G.I. 8X slot to adopt AGP8X/4X VGA Card (1.5V only), an unique VGA upgrade interface on i915GL platform"
Manual - "The AGI [ASRock Graphics Interface] slot is a special design that only supports compatible AGP VGA cards. For the information of the compatible AGP VGA cards, please refer to the “Supported AGP VGA Card List for AGI Slot” on page 8 and page 9."
Result - not PT880 chipset, this does mention AGI, PCIe x4 mode.
Question - obviously this is a fake AGP, it's not a PT880 Pro/Ultra chipset, and AGI is mentioned, right?

5. 775Dual-VSTA:
Website - "1 x PCI Express Graphics slot (@ x4 mode) 1 x AGP 8X"
Manual - "Do NOT use a 3.3V AGP card on the AGP slot of this motherboard! It may cause permanent damage!" (but it DOES have a section about PCIe GPUs)
Result - PT880 chipset, no mention of AGI, PCIe x4 mode.
Question - how come this has PT880 Pro/Ultra, but unlike the 2 mobos above, hasn't a list of supported AGP cards in the manual, and yet has PCIe card list?

6. P4V800D-X:
Website - can't find original - "System bottlenecks are eliminated with balanced architecture and peak bandwidths up to 6.4GB/s.
This motherboard supports PCI Express x16 and AGP8X slots to provide ultimate flexibility for graphics card upgrade. The PCI Express x16 slot running at PCI Express x4 speed outperforms PCI interface with its exceptional high bandwidth up to 2GB/s."

Manual - zero mentions of AGI, or any hint of a need for a supported GPU
Result - PT880 chipste, no mention of AGI, PCIe x4 mode.
Question - so apparently this one is "the realest" AGP mobo?

Do you feel me, I understant that non-PT880 are "fake", but why do some PT880 have a list in the manual and some don't, and knowing old manufacturers' manuals, they've might've just omitted it/forgotten about it.
There shouldn't be a list for AGP cards for 880PRO mobos, but only VSTA doesn't have one. Add the fact that P4V800D-X also has 0 mentions of AGI nor GPU recommendations, I dunno what to think of it all.
There's also GA-8VT880P Combo, PT880, says full AGP 8x, PCIe x4, and some recommended PCIe GPUs, nothing else.
Biostar PT880 PRO-A7C has AGP8X, but it has PCI-Extreme!?

PS: Why do people here go for those Core2Dual, by the time Core2 was popular, PCI x4 was becoming an issue. Also, it's WXP/Vista only.

Reply 5 of 43, by melbar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
2mg wrote on 2022-12-03, 02:22:

MSI made AGR, but that is a hack of AGP on PCIE.

2mg wrote on 2022-12-03, 03:16:

emulated AGP via PCIe - seems only MSI made those, unless you mean "they all cut PCIE down to x4 to use some of the lines for AGP"? It's confirmed that AGP Express at the very least uses undercover PCI trick.

Some time ago, i have benchmarked the "AGR" slot in my athlon system (board: MSI MS-7135 , nForce4-4X, PCIe x16 and 'AGR (Advance Graphics Riser) slot' )

I don't know why you are talking in terms of: "a hack of AGP on PCIE"

First, in the manual there's a list of compatible VGA cards for AGR slot.
Second, there is an IRQ table, showing AGR is sharing interrupt.
To me it looks more like fake AGP on PCI,

IRQ.JPG
Filename
IRQ.JPG
File size
53.32 KiB
Views
1824 views
File license
GPL-2.0-or-later

my benchmarks:
3D mark 2001 SE , with socket 754 Athlon64 , 'AGR - slot' , nForce4-4X
12875 points, Geforce 6600 GT AGP

3D mark 2001 SE , with socket 478 Pentium 4 , AGP 8x , i865PE
16587 points, Geforce 6600 GT AGP

#1 K6-2/500, #2 Athlon1200, #3 Celeron1000A, #4 A64-3700, #5 P4HT-3200, #6 P4-2800, #7 Am486DX2-66

Reply 6 of 43, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

VIA provide true AGP in tandem with somewhat gimped PCIe 4x. PCIe bandwidth is not an issue for most scenarios with video cards that are realistically usable on such setup.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 7 of 43, by stef80

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
2mg wrote on 2022-12-03, 04:28:

Result - not PT880 chipset, this does mention AGI, PCIe x4 mode.

PCIe x4 is actually chipset limitation of PT880, unfortunatelly. But it is certfied PCIe solution.
Since AGP slot is not universal, you will not be able to physically fit old AGP card to AGP 3.0 slot because nothces do not match.

939Dual-Sata2 had two diferent ALi/ULI chipsets, NB handeled PCIe x16 and SB AGP x8 (chipsets communicated via HyperTransport so performance was not compromised in any way ). There was also combination of nforce3 + ULI with same idea behind it, can't remember what was the MBO name. Not sure why other manufacturers didn't use same solution. It was very elegant and transparent, no hacks.

Last edited by stef80 on 2022-12-03, 14:59. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 8 of 43, by Garrett W

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Heh AGR, I remember having quite a day troubleshooting that one during a quiet spring evening 10 years or so ago. Someone had given me an Asrock P4i65GV, a wholly different board to the P4i65G, something which I did not realize at the time (the fact the boards look almost identical certainly did not help in this matter).
You see, Intel made both an 865G and 865GV chipset with the latter lacking any AGP support and intended for use in systems that still needed the reliability, performance and features of 865G, but did not require anything other than the built-in IGP. In the end, I'm fairly certain the savings for the consumer were minimal, so it only served to confuse. It doesn't help in this case that Asrock decided it was a good idea to implement their so-called AGI slot which as people above has suggested essentially tricks the system into thinking is an AGP slot, but is actually some sort of elaborate and I'd say interesting PCI hack. The problem is that even after reading the manual, it's just so incredibly easy to miss the fact that this is not a real AGP slot or perhaps you can chalk the AGI naming to some sort of marketing euphemism.

That system gave me no end of headaches, random crashes galore and performance was terrible, I was questioning why it was struggling to maintain framerates in the 20s on certain games, that should have otherwise been a breeze. I remember going through different OSes, drivers, GPUs, RAM, CPUs and all sorts of things until I finally figured it out and it pissed me off very very much. I did eventually get the P4i65G which still happily runs and I think ended up giving away the P4i65GV with an explicit disclaimer about the AGI slot. I don't think it really mattered to the person that got, they used it in some lab to test equipment quickly and easily, so hopefully it all worked out in the end!

Reply 9 of 43, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I'm using a PC Chips A31G (761GX) with a "fake" AGP, the card just behaves like a PCI card, at least the ones I tested did (9250, MX4000), still a nice option to have in terms of compatibility I guess, but not a good solution for performance.
I think other than having a chipset with native AGP support there isn't a good solution available.

Reply 10 of 43, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

What do you mean by "just behaves like a PCI card"? Is fillrate similar of PCI variant?
AGP itself is "just like PCI", but clocked a lot faster. Afaik fancy Sideband Addressing gives it maybe 10-20% speed boost, and AGP texturing was a big failure anyway.

What Im asking is - what are the speeds those AGP like ports running at?

Open Source AT&T Globalyst/NCR/FIC 486-GAC-2 proprietary Cache Module reproduction

Reply 12 of 43, by Ryccardo

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Garrett W wrote on 2022-12-03, 12:23:
Asrock P4i65GV [...] only served to confuse [...] The problem is that even after reading the manual, it's just so incredibly eas […]
Show full quote

Asrock P4i65GV
[...]
only served to confuse
[...]
The problem is that even after reading the manual, it's just so incredibly easy to miss the fact that this is not a real AGP slot or perhaps you can chalk the AGI naming to some sort of marketing euphemism.

That system gave me no end of headaches, random crashes galore and performance was terrible[...]

That's the newest motherboard we explicitly bought in our family until... today 😁
IIRC that was in 2007 and it worked fine as my father's only PC until 2016 (well, as fine as Win 7 with 2016 software and 2 GB can be); even the box did say fairly clearly that AGI isn't 100% compatible with AGP (though we didn't understand what was their point), not sure if we ever connected anything there, but when I dug it out again in early 2022 it worked fine with my Radeon 7000 (and the SATA controller was busted 😜)

Reply 13 of 43, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
SPBHM wrote on 2022-12-03, 14:43:

afaik it's running like typical pci 32bit 33mhz.

I think it works like PCI-66.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 15 of 43, by 2mg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
melbar wrote on 2022-12-03, 11:12:

I don't know why you are talking in terms of: "a hack of AGP on PCIE"

From Wikipedia:
AGR
The Advanced Graphics Riser is a variation of the AGP port used in some PCIe motherboards made by MSI to offer limited backwards compatibility with AGP. It is, effectively, a modified PCIe slot allowing for performance comparable to an AGP 4×/8× slot,[18] but does not support all AGP cards; the manufacturer published a list of some cards and chipsets that work with the modified slot.[19]

Now the only way was to get AGP functionality over PCIe means a bridge of some sorts, as AGP - PCI hacks seem more simpler in nature.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-12-03, 11:35:

VIA provide true AGP in tandem with somewhat gimped PCIe 4x. PCIe bandwidth is not an issue for most scenarios with video cards that are realistically usable on such setup.

Yes, but some have AGI x8 and a list of supported cards (along AGI Express), some don't even mention AGI yet have a list of GPUs, some have none like that ASUS one... I mean, some state AGIx8, some AGPx8, for the same chipset... I'm worried more about AGP support here, PCIe x4 will gimp GF7000 series and on.

stef80 wrote on 2022-12-03, 11:46:

There was also combination of nforce3 + ULI with same idea behind it, can't remember what was the MBO name. Not sure why other manufacturers didn't use same solution. It was very elegant and transparent, no hacks.

AFAIK it came too late, PCIe already took of? Just my conjecture.

Garrett W wrote on 2022-12-03, 12:23:

The problem is that even after reading the manual, it's just so incredibly easy to miss the fact that this is not a real AGP slot or perhaps you can chalk the AGI naming to some sort of marketing euphemism.

Take a look at my post here, I wrote exactly what ASrock advertised on their web versus manuals. For the same PT880 Pro/Ultra, some have AGI, some don't, some have a list of supported GPUs, some don't, yet it's the same chipset so are they all AGI but poorly documented, or is there a difference?

SPBHM wrote on 2022-12-03, 14:43:

afaik it's running like typical pci 32bit 33mhz.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-12-03, 17:32:
SPBHM wrote on 2022-12-03, 14:43:

afaik it's running like typical pci 32bit 33mhz.

I think it works like PCI-66.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1344

Add the fact that it probably lacks all the features of true AGP, however small they are, and IF it's a PCI slot underneath, that means it shared bandwidth (unless it's a somehow separate PCI slot), also a single PCI can't be 66 if it's shared with other PCI 33 slots, basically the web and old Tomshardware and Anandtech have "it's just pimped PCI, but not AGP either".
Also, it's still not true AGP and buying an expensive "retro" GPU now only to find it's no compatible is crap. Also, dunno if AGP had bigger power draw capability vs PCI.
At best, it's a PCI or "dual" PCI slot, clocked higher, and added some wiring for a bigger power draw, and there was a warning in a manual about it actually wearing your GPU faster, imagine that.

So I dunno if I should even be looking at these PT880 Pro/Ultra boards, because they make an excellent W98/XP system (GF4/FX5 into AGP, GF6000+ into PCIe)...

PS: There was a warning that some of these fake AGPs ran at weird voltages and that they could reduce the lifespan of a GPU, written by mobo manufacturer themself, can't find it now...

Reply 16 of 43, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

PCIe x4 will gimp GF7000 series and on.

Hardly. If you have enough VRAM - PCIe will have minimal impact on performance.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-ivy- … -scaling/6.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-expr … sis,1572-8.html

Yes, but some have AGI x8

No.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 17 of 43, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Great topic ! Agree some Asrock boards were very good at putting some complicated things together and make them work. Now to my question for the OP:

2mg wrote on 2022-12-03, 02:22:

I saw some benchmarks and some seem fine, some not, depending on GPU and year of testing.

For testing purposes I can see why a AGP + PCIe working board might be a good thing other than certain limitations.
But why would anyone want one for daily use or expect great benchmarks... or am mis-reading your intent ?

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 18 of 43, by 2mg

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-12-04, 02:06:

This:

cod2.JPG
Filename
cod2.JPG
File size
95.33 KiB
Views
1510 views
File comment
PCI 2007
File license
Public domain

"The two 3D games we used - Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2 - certainly cannot be called demanding these days, yet they benefit somewhat from faster link speeds. The professional benchmark SPECviewperf 9.03 was the real eye-opener, as it categorically disqualifies PCI Express link speeds below x16."
Yes, in Quake 4 there isn't such a huge dropoff, but any other chart shows x4 cuts the GPU almost in half.

From your other article: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-ivy- … -scaling/8.html
The way I see it, there are more charts that show PCI x4 drops than there are charts that show near x16 performance.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-12-04, 02:06:

No.

True, but maybe no, because why do they have a list of compatible GPUs in manuals?
Re: "Fake AGP" slots?

AFAIK this was only done to test AGI compatibility, dobut there was a need to mention tested GPUs if it was a native AGP.
What do you think - real AGP on PT880 Pro/Ultra, or AGI "but not mentioned as such"?

Horun wrote on 2022-12-04, 03:08:
Great topic ! Agree some Asrock boards were very good at putting some complicated things together and make them work. Now to my […]
Show full quote

Great topic ! Agree some Asrock boards were very good at putting some complicated things together and make them work. Now to my question for the OP:

2mg wrote on 2022-12-03, 02:22:

I saw some benchmarks and some seem fine, some not, depending on GPU and year of testing.

For testing purposes I can see why a AGP + PCIe working board might be a good thing other than certain limitations.
But why would anyone want one for daily use or expect great benchmarks... or am mis-reading your intent ?

Because with AGP+PCIe from that era you can make a superfast Win98 machine (GF4/FX5 AGP) & WinXP GF6000+ PCIe hybrid PC.
Sure, there are faster options for XP, but why not have a medium fast XP machine along with a superfast W98 machine, in one build?
I just don't know if I should stick to 478 or 775 Pentiums, are 478 Northwoods/Prescotts and slower or hotter than 775 ones?

Reply 19 of 43, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
2mg wrote:

This:

That actually proves my point:

8800GTS 320mb (not enougb VRAM) = bad performance.
X1900XTX 512mb (enough VRAM) = good performance.

What do you think - real AGP on PT880 Pro/Ultra

Just read VIA chipset specifications. My opinion can't change them.

From your other article

Perfectly suitable performance - 100fps+. And that's with cards which are much more powerful to what realistically can be used on VIA motherboard, with much more weaker CPU.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.