2D perf: G200 AGP vs. G450 PCI?

[Steve Snyder]

For 2D video, which card would be faster: a G200 on the (2x) AGP bus or a G450 on the PCI bus?

I have both cards, have both bus type slots available and will be running a single monitor at 1024x768x16bpp.

I know that neither of these cards are stellar performers by contemporary standards, but this is an older secondary machine which will never run 3D applications. The G200 has only half the G450's 16MB of onboard RAM, but given that I will always run at the above resolution, I don't think this will be a factor in performance.

All I care about is how quickly the 2D display can be updated.

Any opinions? Thanks.

[DirtFarmer]

I don't think you will notice the difference, but personally I would be saving the G450 PCI for a second monitor someplace instead of wasting it as a primary display.

[spadnos]

I know for sure that the G450 AGP is significantly faster than the G200 (it's actually fast enough to play Black&White quite nicely). For 2D, it's also snappier - there is a lot less shearing on an Athlon1800/G450 AGP system than on an Athlon 2500/G200 AGP system.

- Steve

[Greebe]

cept he said G450 PCI, not AGP

[spadnos]

True, but as I recall, the actual speed improvements with AGP vs. PCI were much less than the theroetical.

Since most window movement is done with BITBLTs, the bus speed isn't that important for 2D. Also, it's 1024x768@16bpp - only 1.5M for the entire display. Even PCI could transfer 80frames/s (or 40-ish, if you had to read the entire screen, then write it again).

- Steve

[Wombat]

Yeah, but remember that G450/550 PCI cards have a lot of performance disabled on non-Intel chipsets.