[Warning: Fudzilla]PCI Express 1.0/1.0a not compatible with 2.0 spec

[killer_uk]

That list says that the P965 is 1.0a. But intels whitepapers state thats its 1.1a?

 

[ps3ud0]

That list says that the P965 is 1.0a. But intels whitepapers state thats its 1.1a?

No idea - unless it was uprated post compliance. So difficult to get more information unfortunately - Id rely on Intels white paper (wish nVidia were so transparent)...

ps3ud0

 

[Final8y]

Double post

 

[Final8y]

So should I ignore the same scenerio of fitting a AGP 4x card into an AGP 2x slot? Which were actually physically incompatible?

As I said people are quick to forget the issues that happened when the signalling voltages changed from AGP Spec v1 (3.3v) to Spec v2 (1.5v) and effectively the same discussion you are having now happened then. Lots of people had mobos based on the AGP Spec v1 and expected Spec v2 cards to work unfortunately that wasnt the case (the real doozey was that AGP Spec v1 1x and 2x was incompatible with AGP Spec v2 1x and 2x - work that one out )...

Something to illustrate my point:




Which AGP Spec you talking about . AGP Spec v1 was superseded after a year; AGP Spec v2 after 4 years. PCIe v1 seems to have done ok so far (3 years)...

ps3ud0

Well i have only had a PC from feb last year so my knowledge of AGP is slim to nothing.

If the PCIE2 spec needs different voltage & physical slots then so be it.

 

[Final8y]

Anyway back on the topic, it looks like only motherboards that solely adhere to PCIe 1/1.0a will actually have a problem with PCIe 2 cards (lets ignore the SLI/Crossfire issue because tbh anyone who can afford to SLI/Crossfire using PCIe 2 parts is likely to be able to accomodate a mobo upgrade in the near future)



ps3ud0

I can afford a new mobo/cpu/ram...just to run a new gpu but im not happy about it as im really happy with the mobi/cpu/ram that i have got.

 

[MumboJumbo]

Why are you all getting so humpty over it not working in a secondly PCI-E slot?


PCI-E 2 is backwards compatible and will work in the PCI-E x16 slot of the P35 that was stated as a fact a long time ago. It just wont work in the secondly x4 slot. O well? lol

 

[killer_uk]

Why are you all getting so humpty over it not working in a secondly PCI-E slot?


PCI-E 2 is backwards compatible and will work in the PCI-E x16 slot of the P35 that was stated as a fact a long time ago. It just wont work in the secondly x4 slot. O well? lol

What was originally said was that PCIE 2.0 cards would be backwards compatible with any PCIE 1.0 board. Now it turns out they meant just PCIE 1.1 boards.

 

[MumboJumbo]

Theres nothing that can be done about it. And do any of you really have any intrest in running ATI crossfire on a P35 board with a PCI-E 2 card?

 

[Aurhinius]

I would take all this with a pinch of salt there is a lot of 975X boards out there I don't think any manufacturer would release a card that just won't work in x16 slot of a 975x board.

 

[queamin]

I would take all this with a pinch of salt there is a lot of 975X boards out there I don't think any manufacturer would release a card that just won't work in x16 slot of a 975x board.

Agp and pici-e, they released pci-e on us when everyone had agp?

 

[MumboJumbo]

Why shouldn't they release a card that runs on only the latest motherboards?

If they are constantly trying to please people who have old boards then that slows down advancement. And also, not everyone with these old boards may want to even fork out for such a high costing graphics card. Its illogical to keep trying to support old technology. Just slows them down.

 

[Aurhinius]

guess we will just have to wait and see, 975 was the top of the range intel board for what is an intel market at the moment in terms of CPU.

I would be very surprised if nvidia who will be first to market with their next generation do not support 975's.

Watch this space I guess.

 

[ergonomics]

Why shouldn't they release a card that runs on only the latest motherboards?

If they are constantly trying to please people who have old boards then that slows down advancement. And also, not everyone with these old boards may want to even fork out for such a high costing graphics card. Its illogical to keep trying to support old technology. Just slows them down.

id say getting fast cards to work on older agp boards is more of an achievement than just releasing new technology which isnt compatible with the current top of the range.

 

[Final8y]

Why shouldn't they release a card that runs on only the latest motherboards?

If they are constantly trying to please people who have old boards then that slows down advancement. And also, not everyone with these old boards may want to even fork out for such a high costing graphics card. Its illogical to keep trying to support old technology. Just slows them down.

I would not call a mobo a year or less old.
Just hope that a manufacture will bring out a PCIE version like they sometimes make AGP version even if it takes a hit.
Are they moving now because they really need to or just because they can plus the added benefit of adding pressure to buy a new mobo just if you want to upgrade the gfxcard.
There is very little difference in the advance in performance of mobos unlike CPU/GFX & RAM where the biggest impact in performance is gained out of the box over a given year.

 

[MumboJumbo]

id say getting fast cards to work on older agp boards is more of an achievement than just releasing new technology which isnt compatible with the current top of the range.

comprises have to be made and there is no real reason to. It may be a good achievement but the majority of agp users have to to keep up with new cpus probably anyway.

Then once you buy an agp card and find out you need a new motherboard then your gona have to buy a new pci-e card.

 

[Aurhinius]

I suspect the only thing the next gen of nvidia cards will use 2.0 for will be power but I could be wrong. I would expect to see legacy 6pin connectors on the board for use just incase you do not have a PCIe 2.0 board.

 

[lay-z-boy]

It's for power and the doubled bandwidth.