Come on , NOBODY DARED TO OVERCLOCK A g400MAX ?? I can´t believe it !!!!

[tombman]

Never trust junior members BUT always trust the tombman !!!!

Shouldn´t you lay down on your knees in front of me and thank me for the numbers i gave you instead saying such a shit as : never trust a junior member ?

[Buuri]

Oh, you bet I am! My knees have been hurt for an hour now, but it wasn't until now that I stood up to reply.

BTW. I'm kissing my Thrustmaster pedal while your foot isn't at my range. Yet.


B

[franksch4]

Mr. Tombman,

nothing is simply proved by suppling numbers. Could you check what scores you get when you turn the texture size one notch down. These scores are slow even in comparison with my Voodoo2 which has almost twice the fps.

It could be the TNT2 having problems again in OpenGL with texture trashing, or again the drivers don't multitexture in 32 bit.

A few months ago I opted for the TNT2 since the TNT seemed to have much better drivers than my Voodoo2. But since all those 'leaks' and official releases which have all kinds of real stupid errors, I choose for the G400 MAX.

Greetings
Frank

[mikehdft]

I believe the TNT2U is fill limited, and will not gain any frames no matter how fast a CPU you have. The G-400 isn't, so the faster the cpu the more frames you get(to a certain point I'm sure).

So you were right about the bus speed. when you O/C the CPU you also O/C the TNT2U.

Bottomline

TNT2U - Speed increase only by O/Cing the card.

G-400 - Speed increase by O/Cing CPU and/or card.

Just my two cents



------------------
Mike H. Watercooled K6-2 @ 500mhz Epox EP-MVP3G Rev. 1.0 128mb PC100 Marvel G-200 16mb SDRAM

[Flav]

Well, usefull or not to overclock the G400 MAX ?
I don't care. As tombman, I just wonder if the MAX overclocks well.
So people who own G400 MAX, give it a try and let us know please please please !

[tombman]

franksch4 : you talk shit again

Your voodoo2 can´t do 32 bit rendering , so why do you compare my 32 bit numbers to it ??
I have V2sli too and the tnt2ultra is clearly faster in 16 bit than the SLIs!!

And lowering the texture setting one notch will get me nearly nothing , because MY tnt2ultra has no problem with it , BUT I KNOW that for a good speed you need to lower it FOR THE V2 !

Would you please explain to me why numbers prove nothing ?
(i guess you can´t)

How about just admitting that you made a mistake and all is good then ?

p.s.: i hope that the g400max´s higher fill rate will get higher scores at 1024*768*32 and above , especially with newer drivers !!

[Buuri]

"In the near future Matrox is planning to release ICD OpenGL driver version 5.13.021 for G400. ...Matrox Millennium G400 32MB in the system on Intel Pentium III 500MHz processor."

"G400 performed with the new drivers at the same level as with the old ones. We were really surprised at the fact that the performance gain we saw in Quake 2 is totally absent in Quake 3."

Sound to me that P3 500 is holding that G400 back in Q3 if the results don't go up with a lot faster drivers. Of course dumbman will present his opinion soon.


B

[Buuri]

Could be the fill-rate tho. Since is not MAX..

B

[franksch4]

Somebody has a strange urge to prove himself. ;-) Is it that hard to simply stay polite and try to prove your point?

What I don't understand is why everyone agrees on the fact that Quake II - crusher.dm2 is CPU limited and has even much higher scores than you have with your system.

That's the same thing. Try to explain that. Why don't you simply benchmark the way I suggested and then we can see wheter it is indeed fillrate limited or simply texture thrashing.

With REGARDS
Frank

[surferpop]

Will somebody answer the original question?
How high can the max be overclocked? Why do
some feel that 200/150 are the magic numbers
and there is no reason to go higher?

[tombman]

Franksch4 : i tested it the way you liked it and got only 1~2 FPS more . There is no error with the drivers !

Q2 crusher is a different thing , because
with that many poligons that are in crusher (many player entities !) it is the cpu that is holding back the graphic card ! So better cpu --> better crusher score (of course at >1600*1200 a better cpu will bring you nothing because THEN it is again the graphic card that is limiting the FPS). The graphics in q2 are by far not so demanding as in q3 !
So the situation is NOT the same in q2 and q3 !

Buuri : i think that the g400max (maybe overclocked) has much better fill rate than the tnt2ultra and so it is POSSIBLE that a g400max WILL profit
from a faster cpu in q3a at 1024*768*32 and maybe even 1280*1024*32 !

And that is why i want to know how high a g400max can be clocked , BECAUSE I WANT THE FASTEST SPEED IN Q3A at 1024*768*32 !!!!!!!

Cu...

[franksch4]

Some little benchmarks of my own:

PII 350MHz @ 450MHz, VoodooII 8 MB @ 96MHz:

In both tests all effects were on, except high quality sky because somehow that EATS fillrate.

Q3TestDemo1
640x480 45.5
800x600 37.1

Now going from 640x480 to 800x600 takes 50% more fillrate for the frame. However the difference is only 22.6%.

Q3TestDemo2
640x480 47.3
800x600 39.5

This is only a 19.74% performance hit.

Conclusion: Quake 3 does really seem to be CPU limited.

The reason why Quake 3 scores so low fps is because it uses more polygons than Quake II did. It's comparable to crusher.

[tombman]

Oh man , you understand nothing , right ?

OF COURSE you are cpu limited at 640*480*16 !! (no matter q2 or q3 )

I am talking here of 1024*768*32BIT and above !!!!!!!

It is a shame that you don´t even know how to do a test where we can see if YOU are Cpu limited , because then YOU have to run the tests with DIFFERENT cpu speeds !!

BTW : nobody here at the matrox user forum is interested in 640*480 and 16 Bit !
(we are here because we want high res AND 32 BIT)
Your test is one of the most unprofessional ones i have ever seen

I get 56 FPS at 800*600*16 and sky off with a PIII527 and tnt2ultra (170/210) and I am REALLY cpu limited at this res , because the tnt2ultra could go MUCH higher with a 700Mhz CPU !!

Once and for all :

low res and low bit depth --> cpu limited

high res and bit depth --> graphic card limited

And 1024*768*32 is considered "high" , so logical conclusion --> graphic card limited !

[lifeguard407]

I completely agree with the tombman, 640 x480 is definately limited by the CPU (you hear that, 640x480) on a 350mhz processor in Q3test on even a second generation video card (ie. voodoo2). People, just listen to him and answer the question!! How much will the G400Max overclock and how much benefit do you see from it!? please

Try at 1600x1200 if you think the game is cpu limited!, or turn off the sound!, or i dunno... I better get off-line before I kill someone

[Buuri]

Tell me this. If that game starts to be limited by graphics adapter speed after resolution, say 800x600, what's the point going any higher?
Only the score will matter in that game and it will not normalize the points by the resolution in use.
That's the maximum speed you will get and what matters more that that? Or are you going to buy it [speedy adapter] just to show off with it?

Just for the record I play Q2 with a resolution of one step down from 640, no particles, no dynamic lighting, textures at mediocre detail.

And I am good.


B