I really didn't know where to put it but I wanted everyone to see the new PCI Express video card.

Here

Of course it had to be just a bridge. While the physical interface is no doubt PCIe, the actual signals being processed by the GPU are still those of AGP. The "HSI" chip as they call it in the article is just a PCIe to AGP bridge. While this is fine for now, running a native PCIe card would likely be faster as less translation would occur.

-Weaver

There is a debate on this issue between ATI and Nvidia. Ati is going with a native solution while Nvidia is going to use a bridge.

IMHO Nvidia has the right idea on utilizing the bridge chip. If you want to hear sound reasoning:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040310/pcie-10.html

Sums it up quite nicely.

-Weaver

I quit reading reviews from THG a long time ago. When the cards are released and they both get reviewed by a company a little more respected in the graphics arena I will then make a choice but never based on anything that came from THG. Sorry just my opinion. I personally think the bridge is just another place for a bottle neck to occur. They are just saving on R&D and putting a bridge on already available cards to try and get to market first. Propaganda ploy if you ask me.

Very good point robrowe. Are you an ATI fan?

I use and have used both Nvidia and ATI. I currently use ATI in my main rig and and have an NVIDIA fx5900 in my server. If ATI doesnt release some 64bit drivers soon I am swapping them out. IMO ATI has the best hardware but Nvidia has the best driver support. I dont read THG as I find them to be very biased and it is my belief the the bias is monetarily controlled, not to mention that every review of theirs that I have read appears to have been written by an middle school student and their facts are full of holes. They are VERY biased towrds intel and the last review of theirs that I read was on an AMD fx51 processor. While the review was a positve one for a change it was a very sloppy review with a lot of benchmarking left out with the excuse of "Time constraints". Then their very next review was on the P4e published on the very same day but there were no time constraints for that one. I think THG started out pretty reputable but it is my belief that the inflo of a certain green substance has changed that.

That's kind of wierd I see them as leaning towards Nvidia and AMD mainly Tom Pabst. I have read many a reviews that they say you can't go off this because it favor's HyperThreading. Do you follow Anandtech or another review site?

Anandtech reviews seem unbiased to me and is one of the ones I trust the most. There are several others like overclockers.com that I also read. Just the statement that something favors hyperthreading is a sales ploy for intel subliminal and a very smart ploy. If you constantly read that things favor hyperthreading it leads you into the direction that, well if this runs better on hyperthreading then I am getting hyperthreading. One has to merely "read between the lines". A good comparision review in my book would use a bench that does not favor one platforms abilites. You wont find any intel benches there saying this favors 3dnow+.

Sorry forgot to say that certain benchmarks favor HT. And that they say don't rely on that benchmark. Here's a quote from their latest and I can see where you draw your conclusion.

Quote:

In comparison with AMD's Athon64 3400+, the new Prescott is able to score with HyperThreading optimized and audio or video encoding applications. If that is your primary application, the chip definitely offers great performance for the buck. When it comes to games or file compression, AMD's Athlon64 still is the better choice.