Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TPU] Ivy Bridge PCI-Express Scaling with HD 7970 and GTX 680
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TPU] Ivy Bridge PCI-Express Scaling with HD 7970 and GTX 680 - Page 2

post #11 of 20
GTX 680 at x4 3.0 is 96%. How isn't that a bottle neck? This is the main reason I'm going to go for a dual GPU. I don't have to worry about the pcie lane bullcrap
I would love it if they showed the differences between a GTX 690 at x16 v x8. If big kepler is the card it's supposed to be, x8 could possibly be a serious limitation for the 700 series cards. Ultimatly, CPU architecture needs to be expanded to offer more PCIe lanes, PCIe 4.0+ availability, or widespread implimentation of PEX chips, is the only solutions for the future. (I don't like PEX idea.) People also forget that we don't have to just worry about GPUs. What about add on devices, wifi, usb, firewire, esata, AND SSDs. These all steal PCIe lanes! Anyway, /rant.
IVB-E Waiting
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3770K ASRock Z77 Extreme4 EVGA GTX 670 G. Skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Force 3 Seagate 7200.14 Pioneer BCD-202 Liquid Cooling (Water + Kill Coil + UltraViolet... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 Yamakasi Catleap 27' 2560x1440 Razer Tarantula CoolerMasters GOLD 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
ThermalTake Logitech G500 None Yamah 5.1 Surround Sound DDII + DTS 
Audio
Logitech G930 
  hide details  
Reply
IVB-E Waiting
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3770K ASRock Z77 Extreme4 EVGA GTX 670 G. Skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Force 3 Seagate 7200.14 Pioneer BCD-202 Liquid Cooling (Water + Kill Coil + UltraViolet... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 Yamakasi Catleap 27' 2560x1440 Razer Tarantula CoolerMasters GOLD 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
ThermalTake Logitech G500 None Yamah 5.1 Surround Sound DDII + DTS 
Audio
Logitech G930 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

Of course a single card won't bottleneck...Now add in a second and third card and watch the bottlenecks appear. This is like testing CPUs using some benchmark based around late 90s code like SuperPi, and trying to say it applies to anything but benchers.

Yeah, agreed--in fact, in reading the intro of their write-up, I kinda thought that was going to be their overall goal, especially in discussing Ivy Bridge properties specifically:
Quote:
Another impressive feature of Ivy Bridge Core processors, provided they're paired with Intel Z77 Express chipset, is that the second x8 link from the CPU root complex can be split as two x4 links, making x8/x4/x4 possible, giving some motherboards 3-way SLI and CrossFireX capabilities without clogging the DMI chipset bus (that 4 GB/s pipe between the CPU and chipset), which is better left untouched by graphics cards to help with today's bandwidth-hungry SSDs.

I thought it was a pretty mundane choice to showcase again that pci-e scaling (i.e. graphics card performance) with a single card has relatively little effect even at pci-e 1.1 8x. That really doesn't have much to do with Ivy Bridge as much as it has to do with GPUs not needing the bandwidth that current pci-e can provide. Even SB CPUs didn't bottleneck single cards, so why would you think IB would be any different for a single card? rolleyes.gif

Unless I am missing something grossly obvious?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 20
I am really surprised that there are in fact a few charts like this one:


649


An actual change going from 16x 2.0 / 8x 3.0 up to 16x 3.0. Usually the percentages are with 1-2% but there are a few where it actually makes a difference. That is a 13% increase in performance going all the way up to 16x 3.0, now just imagine multiple GPU's and those slots getting knocked down to 8x. So you can see PCI-E 3.0 is needed on high end setups, not so much for single GPU users.
Zybane
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6950X - 4.5 GHz Edition 10 Rampage V Extreme Titan Xp  G.Skill 32GB 3200 MHz CL14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1TB - Samsung SM961 Windows 10 Pro OLED 4K 55" LG C7P Razer BlackWidow TE Stealth Chroma 
PowerMouseAudioAudio
Corsair AX1500i 1500W Titanium Razer Mamba TE Denon AVR-X7200WA Elac BS 312 
AudioAudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD-700 Headphones Velodyne MiniVee Subwoofer Buttkicker LFE Razer Orbweaver Stealth Chroma 
  hide details  
Reply
Zybane
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6950X - 4.5 GHz Edition 10 Rampage V Extreme Titan Xp  G.Skill 32GB 3200 MHz CL14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1TB - Samsung SM961 Windows 10 Pro OLED 4K 55" LG C7P Razer BlackWidow TE Stealth Chroma 
PowerMouseAudioAudio
Corsair AX1500i 1500W Titanium Razer Mamba TE Denon AVR-X7200WA Elac BS 312 
AudioAudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD-700 Headphones Velodyne MiniVee Subwoofer Buttkicker LFE Razer Orbweaver Stealth Chroma 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post

I am really surprised that there are in fact a few charts like this one:

An actual change going from 16x 2.0 / 8x 3.0 up to 16x 3.0. Usually the percentages are with 1-2% but there are a few where it actually makes a difference. That is a 13% increase in performance going all the way up to 16x 3.0, now just imagine multiple GPU's and those slots getting knocked down to 8x. So you can see PCI-E 3.0 is needed on high end setups, not so much for single GPU users.

Agreed--which is why THAT would have made for a much better (or rather, more interesting) investigation.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 20
I don't think multi-gpu setups are as relevant to this as the fact that some less savvy users have had concerns about using a PCIe 3.0 card on a 2.0 or lower system. Most of us here may know better, but it's possible that some people needed confirmation that PCIe 3.0 is not needed for a single GPU, which is probably what the majority of such people would be using.

To side with you guys though, I was hoping for multi-card testing as well. thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmerrick View Post

GTX 680 at x4 3.0 is 96%. How isn't that a bottle neck? This is the main reason I'm going to go for a dual GPU. I don't have to worry about the pcie lane bull****.
I would love it if they showed the differences between a GTX 690 at x16 v x8. If big kepler is the card it's supposed to be, x8 could possibly be a serious limitation for the 700 series cards. Ultimatly, CPU architecture needs to be expanded to offer more PCIe lanes, PCIe 4.0+ availability, or widespread implimentation of PEX chips, is the only solutions for the future. (I don't like PEX idea.) People also forget that we don't have to just worry about GPUs. What about add on devices, wifi, usb, firewire, esata, AND SSDs. These all steal PCIe lanes! Anyway, /rant.

Woah woah calm down, pcie 3.0 just came out and its nowhere near bottle-necked by any gpu on the planet.
 
x6 Folder
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k @ 4.8 w/ 1.31v watercooled Gigabyte z77x-UD3H Powercolor 290x w/ EK full cover G.Skill Ripjaws 2133mhz cl9 4x4gb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
128gb Samsung 830 + Seagate 4tb, Seagate 1tb, W... DVD RW Rasa loop w/ RX120 and RS240 Windows 7 Professional 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x 27" PCBANK 1440p, 1x 21" 1600x1200 Syncmaster Leopold 10keyless w/ red switches XFX 750w Black Edition CM Stacker 830 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G5 SteelSeries QCK Fiio E10 USB DAC+AMP | ATH-M50 | JVC HARX700 
  hide details  
Reply
 
x6 Folder
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k @ 4.8 w/ 1.31v watercooled Gigabyte z77x-UD3H Powercolor 290x w/ EK full cover G.Skill Ripjaws 2133mhz cl9 4x4gb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
128gb Samsung 830 + Seagate 4tb, Seagate 1tb, W... DVD RW Rasa loop w/ RX120 and RS240 Windows 7 Professional 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x 27" PCBANK 1440p, 1x 21" 1600x1200 Syncmaster Leopold 10keyless w/ red switches XFX 750w Black Edition CM Stacker 830 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G5 SteelSeries QCK Fiio E10 USB DAC+AMP | ATH-M50 | JVC HARX700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmerrick View Post

GTX 680 at x4 3.0 is 96%. How isn't that a bottle neck? This is the main reason I'm going to go for a dual GPU. I don't have to worry about the pcie lane bull****.
I would love it if they showed the differences between a GTX 690 at x16 v x8. If big kepler is the card it's supposed to be, x8 could possibly be a serious limitation for the 700 series cards. Ultimatly, CPU architecture needs to be expanded to offer more PCIe lanes, PCIe 4.0+ availability, or widespread implimentation of PEX chips, is the only solutions for the future. (I don't like PEX idea.) People also forget that we don't have to just worry about GPUs. What about add on devices, wifi, usb, firewire, esata, AND SSDs. These all steal PCIe lanes! Anyway, /rant.

If you ask me, your logic is flawed. Why would you even be concerned about PCIe x4? 96% on only 4 lanes actually sounds pretty good and is also an indication that an x8 link would be sufficient for one card. That being said, on a Z68 or Z77 platform you'll have 20 PCIe lanes. So, theoretically, you could have a pair of GTX680's @ x8/x8 3.0 along with each of the other devices that borrow PCIe lanes and not be starving for bandwidth.
Please enlighten us on exactly where the problem with that is.
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal_gunjee View Post

I'd like to see the same testing on an AMD system where the PCI-e data still has to take a ride thru the system bus.

AMD FX CPU with HT 3.1 (Hyper Transport at 3.2Ghz) can process data transfer up to 25.6GB/s (12.8GB/s unidirectional) at factory clocks.
And I don't remember where, but I've seen a review describing GTX 680 on PCIe 3.0 has a maximum data rate (GPU to CPU) of 9.1GB/s (unidirectional, checked by sandra GPU benchmarks).
I know other peripheral devices depend on HyperTransport bus too. But If we slightly overclock thye HT bus, AMD can get better results from a PCIe 3.0 GPU (Untill there is no single GPU performing as fast as quad 680). I also know there will absolutely be a difference with PCIe 2.0 over PCIe 3.0. But as long as there is 60+ fps at any resolution then at least for AMD, its not a problem. Yes AMD will be failing competing in Benchmarks.

No offense man ! Just said what was in my mind. thumb.gif And as you want, I really would like to see this type of reviews with AMD system too.
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 AMD Radeon HD 7850 ♥ 1GB 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 AMD Radeon HD 7850 ♥ 1GB 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitlian View Post

AMD FX CPU with HT 3.1 (Hyper Transport at 3.2Ghz) can process data transfer up to 25.6GB/s (12.8GB/s unidirectional) at factory clocks.
And I don't remember where, but I've seen a review describing GTX 680 on PCIe 3.0 has a maximum data rate (GPU to CPU) of 9.1GB/s (unidirectional, checked by sandra GPU benchmarks).
I know other peripheral devices depend on HyperTransport bus too. But If we slightly overclock thye HT bus, AMD can get better results from a PCIe 3.0 GPU (Untill there is no single GPU performing as fast as quad 680). I also know there will absolutely be a difference with PCIe 2.0 over PCIe 3.0. But as long as there is 60+ fps at any resolution then at least for AMD, its not a problem. Yes AMD will be failing competing in Benchmarks.
No offense man ! Just said what was in my mind. thumb.gif And as you want, I really would like to see this type of reviews with AMD system too.

Sounds reasonable to me.
I'm actually an AMD fan myself (but not fanboy if ya know what I mean) smile.gif but I've wondered for a long time just how much advantage an on-die PCIe controller has.
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmerrick View Post

GTX 680 at x4 3.0 is 96%. How isn't that a bottle neck? This is the main reason I'm going to go for a dual GPU. I don't have to worry about the pcie lane bull****.
4% is within a margin of error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmerrick View Post

I would love it if they showed the differences between a GTX 690 at x16 v x8. If big kepler is the card it's supposed to be, x8 could possibly be a serious limitation for the 700 series cards. Ultimatly, CPU architecture needs to be expanded to offer more PCIe lanes, PCIe 4.0+ availability, or widespread implimentation of PEX chips, is the only solutions for the future. (I don't like PEX idea.)
A double of the card does NOT mean double of the data though. i.e. The texture data to the cards is not increased since data is mirrored. System architecture already offer enough bandwidth to cover future expandability for years to come... as demonstrated in the the review. What is a PEX chip? Do you mean PLX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmerrick View Post

People also forget that we don't have to just worry about GPUs. What about add on devices, wifi, usb, firewire, esata, AND SSDs. These all steal PCIe lanes! Anyway, /rant.
Well, that's the point of this benchmark.... to see what happens when there are few PCIe lanes. Since PCIe is point-to-point, any other devices use PCIe have no direct impact on the GPU though.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TPU] Ivy Bridge PCI-Express Scaling with HD 7970 and GTX 680