AGP vs 64-Bit PCI - it's a Standards Thing : Several people wrote with links to articles regarding AGP vs PCI based on the original comments here. Here are the main points I was trying to make for those that didn't get it - performance is not the primary issue -industry standards and low cost/high performance choices are my concerns.

• My main point was one of standards - with the next Apple (sawtooth) said to have AGP the 64 bit PCI will likely be an orphan. Apple needs to make it easier for the legion of state-of-the-art graphics chip companies to support them - not harder. Want to bet there will never be another 64-Bit PCI video card other than the one Apple ships?

• Is it logical for companies to make a new hardware form factor card for one Mac model when they don't for the millions that take even std PCI Cards? It's another hurdle for companies to overcome to support the Mac. AGP cards are low cost and plentiful, a standard form factor. 64-Bit PCI cards are not. Unix boxes use them, but otherwise they are few and far between. Will having these slots suddenly appearing on one Mac model make the world suddenly start making Mac drivers and cards for it? Of course not.

• The difference in performance between the ATI Rage 128 in PCI std vs 64 bit format was very close, so performance is still likely to be limited by the chip, not the interface as I said (this came from the horse's mouth so to speak).

• AGP is not perfect, however it is the new standard. Apple needs to wake up and take a look at the world standards. My Viper V550 AGP is faster by far in 2d and literally as fast in 3D (in a PII 300/AGP) as a PCI FireGL 4000 32MB $2495 card in a dual PII 450 NT box (and leaves any card I've seen on the Mac far in the dust in 2d and 3d). At $169 for a 16MB card with that caliber of 2d/3d performance that's value! It hurts me to see these $160 screamers never see the light of day on the Mac platform. And regardless of 'experts' comments, AGP does very well thank you - see a comment from a MIM owner on how AGP Riva TNT can outperform even two Voodoo II PCI cards in SLI mode in some cases.

• Look at what USB in the iMac did for Mac support of USB devices! What a refreshing change - imagine if they offered a low cost AGP model?

I for one want choices in hardware and new state of the art products at a very low price. With new models ignoring industry standards that will never happen. Thankfully I hear sawtooth will have AGP, but at what price and when is not known.

Since Apple has made themselves the sole sources of our systems - *somebody* has to speak out when they do something that makes it harder for us to get choices from the marketplace. If you want more drooling, brainwashed PR that regurgitates the party line, there are plenty of sites out there with that drivel. I always have and always will fight for the end user, for choices and for lower cost higher performance options. If that upsets some people I'm sorry. With one source for systems Apple's designs affect the future of all of us. I'll continue to speak my mind, rather than just throw in the towel and give up on better industry support and choices for Mac owners.

[Original Post]
Since the cat was let out of the bag yesterday I guess I can comment on it now.

Some hailed the new 64-bit 66MHz PCI card (a Rage128) in the coming Apple 'Yosemite' Pro system as a great leap forward. I'm sure the Rage128 in any form will be very fast but I was disappointed Apple did not go with AGP, the new standard in *dedicated* video bus interfaces. The 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI shares bandwidth with the other PCI slots (accord to my source that has one) and what vendor makes any commercial/consumer cost cards for it? Adaptec made a SCSI controller awhile back, but the last commercial 64-Bit PCI slot system was obsoleted last year (the Micron Powerdigm NT system).

My source says there is not really a huge performance difference between the Rage128 in the 64-bit slot and a std PCI Rage128 card (the onboard video of older Macs have a 64-bit bus btw, and remember the chip itself is most often the determining factor). Here we go again with non-standard hardware while the PC world has a wide selection of high performance, lower cost options based on the world-wide standard (AGP). I realize that AGP would probably have cost a licensing fee and some up-front design costs but consider the benefits down the road. (There is a lot of profit in the current systems and with AGP Apple could have gotten similar mileage out of the new motherboard design I'll bet.) How many companies will make a card for that one slot in one Mac model? We have to make it easier for vendors to support the Mac with their latest form factor high performance offerings and AGP is one way to do that. It could certainly have helped attract some PC graphics card companies to the Mac if Apple had used a AGP bus as a standard feature in a Mac (remember the reactions to USB in the iMac?).

I'm glad Apple's trying to improve models (ultra-scsi onboard, faster video) but they should try to use highly supported industry standards (that in this case also perform better and cost less to the end user). And sharing the bandwith with the other PCI slots does nothing to address the busmastering issue and problems we already often see in existing PCI bus systems. Instead of a major leap forward and commitment to industry standards we have a small step forward in performance and two steps back in hardware standards. Please Apple - ask your customers what they want and think before the designs are set in concrete.

The AGP design is a dedicated video bus (32-bit, 66Mhz in 1x variant, 2x is now common and 4x is planned) directly connected to memory. Literally every new graphics chip made supports it, it is a standard card form factor, etc.. In my opinion this is another big mistake Apple. Saved a few bucks up front I'm sure but we'll end up paying the price in the end. No flames please from the 'Apple can do no wrong' crowd, someone has to point out the truth - it may wake up someone eventually. If I didn't care about Apple's future or increasing their sales I'd not bother to comment (and wouldn't be working this site and answering email 7 days a week to support their customers). Come on Apple - use standards that are widely supported in the industry! (you started that with the iMac and USB). [Sawtooth - a later Mac design will have AGP a insider tells me.]

Several readers replied to my comments above. The overwhelming response so far is that AGP should have been used. Although AGP does not show a gain in many games, those optimized for it do show a benefit. AGP is much faster in graphics performance (when applications take advantage of it) than PCI (17.x fps vs 1.x fps in one test of identical ATI chips posted awhile back) - why not use the better designed (and supported) format when you're making a new design? The main point of the comments was why not use the industry standard for new graphics cards rather than a format that is not generally produced? Why make it harder for the industry graphics card leaders to support your platform? Here's a comment from a MIM on how games optimized for AGP can make a difference:

" Hi Mike,
I agree with you that Apple is doing the wrong thing by not including AGP in their systems. I finally got the RIVA TNT AGP for my computer and I can see now that AGP makes the difference. While the card is slower than two Voodoo2 boards in SLI mode in most cases, it leaves V2 SLI in dust when running a game optimized for DX6 and AGP. Shogo runs at 1280x1024 with everything maxed out smoother than at 1024x768 and medium detail on V2SLI.

AGP is good and Apple is making another mistake. BTW, I paid $169 for the 16 MB Creative TNT board. When will this finally start happening on the Mac side?
Cheers,
Adam Dluzniewski (MiM) "

If you want to see Creative Labs make cards for the Mac, please sign the Petition. In the forseeable future I've got great hopes that the VillageTronic Banshee for the Mac (due in December) performs well. At $199 if it is as fast as the PC version it will be a godsend, combining fast 2D and 3D with 3Dfx game compatibility (assuming their glidelib will work with existing games, I feel certain they will make sure it will).

For more info on AGP - see Intel's AGP technology page (I know - it's Intel but there is some information of interest there). Here is a quote from their page on the advantages possible with AGP over PCI:

• Texture maps of unlimited size, detail, and realism can be employed-see the AGP Demo for an example of how much better 3D graphics get with AGP. Here are the two image samples from the Demo page - granted they are small and at actual size the differences would be far more striking but even at these thumbnail sizes the AGP advantage is visible:
  
  Without AGP (note plane's detail)

  [Quotes from the Intel Page on the above image]
  " The first scene shows a Harrier jet rendered on a system that does not have AGP. Look closely at the Harrier's paint job, it decals, the beacons on the top deck, and the missles hanging under the wings. They're fuzzy. The details are hard to make out. It's like wearing someone else's glasses. And, things would get worse if we got closer! Its because the system used to render this scene was limited to 220 polygon for the jet. What's more, the texture map for the jet's skin was constrained to be 256 x 256 bits and 16-bit color."

  
  With AGP optimized textures/polygon count

  [Quotes from the Intel Page on the above image]
  " See the dramatic improvement in the jet's details. Decals are now readable. There is all sorts of interesting stuff on the top deck. The missiles actually look menacing. And, overall, the fuzziness has been lifted. The improvement is due to AGP, which allowed the game to use 850 polygons for the jet's body, and 1024x1024-bit texture map for the jet's skin. The difference is astounding. "

  Again if these were actual size the differences would be more visible but you get the picture. AGP makes higher resolution textures and models possible *and* gets the video off the PCI bus which is often filled with other busmasters fighting for bandwidth (like SCSI cards, capture cards, etc.)

• 3D applications will also run faster when the need to pre-fetch and cache textures in local video memory is eliminated. How much faster? Up to 12.6 times more frames per second, according to the latest Ziff-Davis 3D WinBench* 97 performance comparisons.
• By minimizing the need for video memory, AGP helps OEMs control the costs of new PC designs.
• Systems will have more stability when bandwidth-intensive graphics and video traffic is removed from the PCI bus.

Bottom line is if you're making a hardware change why not go with the standard, potentially much faster design that far better supported in the graphics card industry?

Granted the Pro's ATI Rage128 card will provide performance levels that will more than satisfy most owners but the real issue here was one of standards in new hardware and making it easier for companies to support the Mac.

Other AGP Links at Intel:

• AGP and 3D graphics
• AGP Tutorial
• AGP Application Notes
• AGP Design Guide