• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Graph showing PCI 2 & PCI 3 differences.

Associate
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
967
gCqS1.jpg


This obviously isn't in depth, but I found this on another forum from a user who spent his time comparing PCI 2 and PCI 3.

Obviously the graph shows PCI 3 is currently useless if you play at 1920x1080, I have also seen something similar for the same thing at 2560x1440.

But at 5760x1080, it seems PCI 3 becomes a lot more significant, if you plan making a high end computer with a multi monitor setup, it seems really important to have PCI 3.
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
967
Yes, it's annoying that he didn't put a key for the colors. I assume they're just 5 different benches from different scenes or sessions. If I go through the original thread later and find out I'll post it here. EDIT: He posted 'Here's something that took me all day. It goes: low, high, average all the way down the line. Enjoy.' with the graph. That's your key.

Vega's benches also show similar results when dealing at multi-monitor resolutions:

NLZkp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
967
You could ask Vega to test, but..

I think single GPU setups wouldn't benefit as much as multi GPU setups seeing as PCI 3 seems to only matter on multi-monitor setups and you typically run those with 2 or more cards. Heck, with nvidia you HAD to run multi-monitor with 2 or more cards until last month.
 
Associate
Joined
10 Apr 2012
Posts
5
You could ask Vega to test, but..

I think single GPU setups wouldn't benefit as much as multi GPU setups seeing as PCI 3 seems to only matter on multi-monitor setups and you typically run those with 2 or more cards. Heck, with nvidia you HAD to run multi-monitor with 2 or more cards until last month.

"Seeing as PCI 3 seems to only matter on multi-monitor set-ups"

I'd have to disagree based on the chart in the OP. Look at the purple bar. It jumps to 68 from 60, and that's at a measly 1920 x 1080. I assume the purple bar shows average FPS at the absolute highest settings although who knows.


Since we see more than a 10% jump in performance between PCI 2 and 3 in the most demanding game test environment at 1080p, it's clear we should see a much bigger leap at 2560 x 1600, which after all is the true enthusiast's gaming resolution on a single monitor. Anything else is just for dabblers. :D
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Posts
428
Location
Cornish dairy land
I think I've figured out the graph, I'll explain it as simply as I can below:
There are 6 Bars for each resolution;
The first 3 represent the game on Ultra settings
The next 3 represent the game on High settings

Ultra settings colours:
Purple=Minimum FPS
Light Blue=Maximum FPS
Orange=Average FPS

High settings colours:
Blue:Minimum FPS
Red:Maximum FPS
Green:Average FPS
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
967
Since we see more than a 10% jump in performance between PCI 2 and 3 in the most demanding game test environment at 1080p, it's clear we should see a much bigger leap at 2560 x 1600, which after all is the true enthusiast's gaming resolution on a single monitor. Anything else is just for dabblers. :D

Well I'm not sure the 10% increase is going to warrant people replacing their z68 boards with z77, but at multi monitor resolutions it's definitely something you should seriously consider.

For gamers with multi-monitor setups who want to play games on high or above, it seems almost stupid not to replace previous boards with a PCI 3 board like a Z77. The increase is ridiculous, almost twice as many FPS and the boards start from £100, whereas even if you paid for 2/3/4 way SLI, you might not get that type of performance increase, even if it'll likely cost you at least £300, depending on what card you're using.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,997
"Seeing as PCI 3 seems to only matter on multi-monitor set-ups"

I'd have to disagree based on the chart in the OP. Look at the purple bar. It jumps to 68 from 60, and that's at a measly 1920 x 1080. I assume the purple bar shows average FPS at the absolute highest settings although who knows.


Since we see more than a 10% jump in performance between PCI 2 and 3 in the most demanding game test environment at 1080p, it's clear we should see a much bigger leap at 2560 x 1600, which after all is the true enthusiast's gaming resolution on a single monitor. Anything else is just for dabblers. :D

200fps in Ultra (some things switched off), 1080p, BF3 is of small interest - to people who take it seriously. This ensures its capped at the frame rate limiter.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Posts
15
gCqS1.jpg


This obviously isn't in depth, but I found this on another forum from a user who spent his time comparing PCI 2 and PCI 3.

Obviously the graph shows PCI 3 is currently useless if you play at 1920x1080, I have also seen something similar for the same thing at 2560x1440.

But at 5760x1080, it seems PCI 3 becomes a lot more significant, if you plan making a high end computer with a multi monitor setup, it seems really important to have PCI 3.

Do you have a link to the original thread with this image in? Can't find it anywhere, I'd quite like to know what setup he had.

Edit: never mind, found it! If anyone's interested it was here, and the motherboard used was an Asus P8Z77 WS.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom