![]() |
|
|
#12 | |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
10110111110012 Posts |
Quote:
I am not certain I can get a PCIe 2.0 motherboard with LGA 775(Core 2 Quad). I would probably use replacing that as an excuse for the whole system anyway. I am trying to wait for skylake to come out with DDR4. Currently one of my biggest problems with my system is that high density DDR2(currently have 4GB of memory) is expensive and barely available. I don't want to get a long term system with a memory architecture that is getting close to the end of it's life span(plus there has been a spate of new instruction sets that are useful that I would like). edit: looked it up I could get a PCIe 2.0 motherboard Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2013-03-22 at 18:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany
11·101 Posts |
Quote:
For CPU sievings mfaktc needs to transfer 4 bytes per candidate. So if you card is capable of 200M/s you'll need 200M/s*4 = 800MB/s. Oliver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
23·53 Posts |
I may have missed something, but as far as I know you can always put a 2.0 card in a 3.0 board. There's not any problem with getting a 3.0 board regardless of your gpu hardware. The problem would be trying to put a 3.0 card in a 2.0 board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
23×271 Posts |
I have a PCI 3.0 gpu in a PCI 2.0 slot in the motherboard here.
Last fiddled with by kracker on 2013-03-22 at 20:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
100101101001012 Posts |
The only problem would be to put a card with a longer connector in a shorter slot, for which you will need a milling machine, and at the end it will not work...
PCIe is a versatile animal. You can put 2.0 cards into 3.0 slots, if they fit physically, and you get all 2.0 performance, as your mobo will always know the deal. You can put 3.0 cards into 2.0 slots, and you get all 2.0 performance, IF the card knows the deal. Not all cards know the deal, and in this case you get lower performance. Worst case you get 1.0a performance (for some cards, you always get lower performance, because that is what the "other side" knows, only). The fun is that you even can put shorter cards in longer slots. The x1 cards end at pin 18, the x4 cards end at pin 32, and the x8 cards end at pin 50, but the x16 cards continue up to pin 82 (you have to check these numbers for yourself, I am not sure), but they are pin-to-pin compatible, and if you take care about the right alignment (the key-notches will help you in this direction) then yes, you can put any card in any slot, if it physically fits. Also, the PCIe 4.0 which is yet to appear, featuring another increase in the transfer rate (doubling it again, from 8GT to 16GT - giga-transfers-per-second) will use the same slot, what it will bring new is some "scrambling" algorithm for the data, to avoid the high-frequency interferences between the parallel lines. The limitation is not the connector, but the tracks on the PCB (very fine wires of copper running parallel there and working like antennas relative to each other). edit: Wikipedia is quite nice in explaining the 2.0/3.0/4.0 differences, and in showing that the bottleneck is in fact the manufacturing process of the silicon, and not the slot/connector. Also IBM says that "PCI Express uses an embedded clocking technique using 8b/10b encoding. The clock information is encoded directly into the data stream, rather than having the clock as a separate signal" which is why the card and the mobo negotiate the clock and the encoding "down" until they can understand each other. So, having different cards into different slots will always work at the performance of the "weakest link in the chain" ("no chain is stronger than its weakest link") or worse, but it will work. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-03-23 at 06:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
1101010002 Posts |
That sounds like a great wikipedia entry, but I have actual experience in the matter. We took a pci 3.0 video card and put it in a gaming motherboard with 2.0 slots (that we'd been using for about a year), and it wouldn't work. At all. We put the card in a friend's 3.0 board and it worked fine. We got the best 2.0 card we could and put it in the 2.0 board and it worked fine. Gave the 3.0 card to the friend for christmas.
By the standards, it should be exactly as you said. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers exactly meet spec. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
100101101001012 Posts |
That is exactly why I said "IF the card knows the deal" in the post above, stressing the IF. Your card would most probably worked in some old compatibility mode, if you set it to SVGA
mode or something like that, hehe, or with the right drivers, or... etc. They still have to negotiate those clocks.edit: my boss use to make fun of us every time when he can, crying one of his favorite sentences aloud: "the plug and play devices are not plug and play" (well, he says it more plastic) Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-03-23 at 17:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Sep 2002
Austin, TX
3·11·17 Posts |
My observations concerning PCIe bandwidth and GPU throughput (though it's an antidote and the GPUs are very weak).
a) 1 GeForce 8600GT PCIe 16x -> 8.8GHz-d/day /w CPU Sieve b) 1 GeForce 8600GT PCIe 8x -> 8.8GHz-d/day /w CPU Sieve c) 2 GeForce 8600GT PCIe 8x in SLi -> each realize 8.6GHz-d/day /w CPU Sieve I then took one of these cards and put it in a motherboard /w a 16x slot electrically limited to 4x communications: d) 1 GeForce 8600GT PCIe 4x -> 8.8GHz-d/day /w CPU Sieve These cards support CUDA 1.1 and are the oldest architecture supported by mfactc. A faster card may be limited by PCIe bandwidth, but these cards seem to be okay with almost any PCIe bus. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
16F916 Posts |
Currently on a 8600 GTS. I know how slow they are
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
5,881 Posts |
Quote:
Got a 750 Ti for Christmas. It is working quite happily in my PCIe 1.1 motherboard. Once I get all the programs compiled and working I will do some benchmarks. If someone has a 750 Ti which is in a PCIe 3.0 socket it would be interesting to compare. Does the speed of the cpu make any difference at all for gpu-sieving or cudalucas? If it does my Q6600 probably won't match a more recent cpu. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
"Jerry"
Nov 2011
Vancouver, WA
1,123 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - PCIe 2.0 vs. 3.0 | chaoz23 | GPU Computing | 7 | 2017-08-03 08:40 |
| (patch) IniWriteFloat should limit its field width | Explorer09 | Software | 0 | 2015-09-23 01:02 |
| mfaktc on a Mac | bayanne | GPU Computing | 0 | 2013-10-18 09:59 |
| mfaktc (0.20) | fairsky | Software | 9 | 2013-09-24 12:58 |
| mfaktc | tichy | GPU Computing | 4 | 2010-12-03 21:51 |