[Aelemar]

Hmm, that is not a bad suggestion at all. And RAM being as cheap as it is nowadays.... should be really easy.

 

[DefQon]

Quote:

Have you seen performance numbers and lane status on GTX 680 GPUs on native PCIe 3.0 chipsets? The information is correct. The performance loss from using a GTX 680 on PCIe 2.0 as opposed to running on PCIe 3.0 incurs 5fps on a worst case scenario, but the fact is that by running on PCIe 2.0, that's performance lost due to bus limitations.

PCIe 3.0 or not the difference will be really negligible as you said 5fps absolute worse case scenario and it directs back to my original question of what you meant by saturation I was talking about whether the lanes bandwidth is fully used or not, not the difference between PCIe 2.0 to 3.0 for a current gen gfx card. It's the same boat as going from SATA2 to SATA3, depending on the controller used, JMicron, Marvell or the Intel onboard the difference is sometimes really small, sometimes can be big.

 

[Roller]

Quote:

PCIe 3.0 or not the difference will be really negligible as you said 5fps absolute worse case scenario and it directs back to my original question of what you meant by saturation I was talking about whether the lanes bandwidth is fully used or not, not the difference between PCIe 2.0 to 3.0 for a current gen gfx card. It's the same boat as going from SATA2 to SATA3, depending on the controller used, JMicron, Marvell or the Intel onboard the difference is sometimes really small, sometimes can be big.

 
Ok, let's grab the SATA example then. Imagine a SATA3 drive that is capable of 320MB/s but is connected to a SATA2 port, the drive is saturating SATA2, and the extra performance is simply being thrown out due to the lack of SATA3 support.
 
I really don't see what you're not getting about what I said, given that current gen cards are PCIe 3.0 compliant, and when connected to a PCIe 2.0 slot, such cards are limit to the PCIe 2.0 ceiling.

 

[DefQon]

Quote:

given that current gen cards are PCIe 3.0 compliant, and when connected to a PCIe 2.0 slot, such cards are limit to the PCIe 2.0 ceiling.

If you had said it this way, it would've been easily understood from the start, that a PCIe 3.0 capable card will be hitting the 2.0 wall, not this saturated term lol.

 

[Roller]

Quote:

If you had said it this way, it would've been easily understood from the start, that a PCIe 3.0 capable card will be hitting the 2.0 wall, not this saturated term lol.

 
Well, saturated is the correct term
 
But I'm curious, what exactly did you originally understand?

 

[DefQon]

Quote:

 
Well, saturated is the correct term
 
But I'm curious, what exactly did you originally understand?

 
Well to be honest the first thing that came to my mind was a paper towel soaking up water slowly on a flat bench. But then I had a slight impression that you were talking about the PCIe 2.0 wall limitation if you installed a PCIe 3.0 card but my understanding went directly to the idea of you guys talking about the changing bandwidth between 8x in IDLE to 16x when their is a slight bit of load, which is what my first reply was about lol.

 

[zepp]

A friend just recently bought the Sennheiser PC 350's and I am trying to help him make a decision on what he should get to boost the headphones... It seems that a headphone amp and soundcard can really make these or any pair of headphones sound great... I would really appreciate some suggestions on soundcards and/or headphone amps or both.. 
 
Thanks in advance,