PCI-X vs PCI-Express

cubedcompaniescubedcompanies
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
so when the amazon accident happend, i ehard alot of people b@#$tching about lack of PCI-Express...



Well the G5 2.3 and 2.7 both have 3 PCI-X slots.



I thought PCI-X was teh same as PCI-Express but when I googled around I came to the conclusion that PCI-X is a faster interface... but, PC users are adapting to the -Express version.



Can anyone provide more insight? I assume the ATI 256mg g.card is AGP?



I was going to get the G5 2.0 but since 2.3 has 3 pci-x slots, i'm wondering if it's worth the extra $$$$.



:c

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    electric monkelectric monk Posts: 485member
    PCI-X is simply a faster version of PCI.



    Both are used for expansion cards. PCI used to be used for graphics cards but has been replaced by AGP and PCI-Express.



    PCI-Express can be used for graphics cards and other expansion cards and is different from AGP in that speeds are fast both ways.



    In answer to your question I doubt you need to buy the faster model.



    However the 2004 models are a better deal for you.



    The 2004 dual 2 GHz model has all the features of the current dual 2.3 GHz model while the 2005 dual 2 GHz model is crippled (PCI slots, RAM) like the 2004 1.8 GHz model.



    You should be able to pick up a 2004 dual 2 GHz cheaper then the new dual 2 GHz model and it's a better computer with the exception of the Superdrive.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubedcompanies

    so when the amazon accident happend, i ehard alot of people b@#$tching about lack of PCI-Express...



    Well the G5 2.3 and 2.7 both have 3 PCI-X slots.



    I thought PCI-X was teh same as PCI-Express but when I googled around I came to the conclusion that PCI-X is a faster interface... but, PC users are adapting to the -Express version.



    Can anyone provide more insight? I assume the ATI 256mg g.card is AGP?



    I was going to get the G5 2.0 but since 2.3 has 3 pci-x slots, i'm wondering if it's worth the extra $$$$.



    :c



    now at the end of the day, Apple has a slew of new technologies and it decides when and where Apple wants to be a champion of a new technology.



    it comes out with this by making 16x dual-layer dvd burning standard

    mac os 10.4 tiger is generally considered a 64-bit operating system

    powermac g5 with tiger is a 64-bit system

    quicktime 7 used in the latest ichatAV in Tiger will be using h.264, and mpeg4-part10 codec that is one of the most advanced out there.



    PCI-X is great for what you need it for, if for example you want a PCI-X gigabit ethernet card if you're always transferring large files over the network (and your network admins are competent enough to maintain gigabit ethernet performance) or you're doing network rendering



    the PC manufacturers, mainly on the gaming side (ati, nvidia) are pushing PCI-express



    but even the best ATI card you can buy now for the mac is specified as (card occupies AGP PRO 8X slot)



    so what-the-f8ck would one do with PCI-express?? pointless whining, i say...



    dont buy into the hype, if you are a hardcore gamer and all that SLI pci-express amd dual core stuff gets you off, well and good, but complaining about how the PowerMac doesn't have PCI-express is just silly because again show me a PCI-express card for Mac you would put in your powerMac g5 if it had PCI-express
  • Reply 3 of 8
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Electric Monk

    PCI-X is simply a faster version of PCI.



    Both are used for expansion cards. PCI used to be used for graphics cards but has been replaced by AGP and PCI-Express.



    PCI-Express can be used for graphics cards and other expansion cards and is different from AGP in that speeds are fast both ways.



    In answer to your question I doubt you need to buy the faster model.



    However the 2004 models are a better deal for you.



    The 2004 dual 2 GHz model has all the features of the current dual 2.3 GHz model while the 2005 dual 2 GHz model is crippled (PCI slots, RAM) like the 2004 1.8 GHz model.



    You should be able to pick up a 2004 dual 2 GHz cheaper then the new dual 2 GHz model and it's a better computer with the exception of the Superdrive.



    if he would still like the 'latest and greatest' powerMac feel (who doesn't if they're shelling out a few grand of hard-earned cash) ;-)



    the dual 2.3ghz offers PCI-X, is not liquid cooled, supports up to 8gb of memory, 250gb hard disk, and dual-layer 16x dvd burning... that's the sweet spot there for me...
  • Reply 4 of 8
    gregmightdothatgregmightdothat Posts: 1,709member
    Funny thing is PCI-Express doesn't really do a thing for games. The only technology today that could really make use of PCI-Express today is CoreImage, so I expect it to come when Apple next redesigns their motherboards.
  • Reply 5 of 8
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Funny thing is PCI-Express doesn't really do a thing for games. The only technology today that could really make use of PCI-Express today is CoreImage, so I expect it to come when Apple next redesigns their motherboards.



    How is running pixel shaders in CoreImage different from running them in games and where does the AGP/PCIe distinction fit in?
  • Reply 6 of 8
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sunilraman



    but even the best ATI card you can buy now for the mac is specified as (card occupies AGP PRO 8X slot)



    Oh yes, since it would make perfect sense for ATI to make a PCI-X card for the Mac, when no model has a PCI-X slot. Yay for logic.
  • Reply 7 of 8
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Stoo

    How is running pixel shaders in CoreImage different from running them in games and where does the AGP/PCIe distinction fit in?



    my guess would be that games get the advantage of going from GPU right to the window server when an Core Image app needs to get that modified data back into the program.



    I think it's the round trip that requires the faster duplex feature of PCI-Express.



    I'm really jazzed on the QoS featurs of PCI-Express. I can see why the video markets are starting to eyeball the good isochronous capabilities of PCI-Express. Being able to prioritize your video/audio streams is crucial.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    gregmightdothatgregmightdothat Posts: 1,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    my guess would be that games get the advantage of going from GPU right to the window server when an Core Image app needs to get that modified data back into the program.



    I think it's the round trip that requires the faster duplex feature of PCI-Express.



    I'm really jazzed on the QoS featurs of PCI-Express. I can see why the video markets are starting to eyeball the good isochronous capabilities of PCI-Express. Being able to prioritize your video/audio streams is crucial.



    Exactly. Games spit out data to the GPU and then directly to the screen.



    PCIe only speeds up going from the GPU back to the CPU. The only time you'd really ever need this is if you were working in CoreImage.
Sign In or Register to comment.