Graph showing PCI 2 & PCI 3 differences.

[Cythx]

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.

 

[ntemples1]

is there any key for this? bit of a confusing graph.

 

[Cythx]

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:

 

[se_vietboi]

What about single GPU setups?

 

[Cythx]

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.

 

[Ashraman]

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.

 

[Nigel014]

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

 

[Cythx]

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.

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.

 

[Besty]

"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.

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.

 

[SD2k]

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.