AGP speed question

[alessandro]

Guys ,
I've got an Asus P2B with bios rev.1010.
HOW i can look or even change the AGP port devider(i'm running in 112FSB)?
Thanx

------------------
Pentium II -450Mhz@504,Asus P2B rev.1010,17" Sony Multiscan 200PST,128MB PC100 ram,Matrox Millenium G400 MAX 32MB 5ns SGRAM,Quantum Firebal 10.2Gb,Epson Stylus Color 740,Sound blaster Live!,Cambrige Soundworks 5.1,Creative PC-DVD 5X,Ricoh MP7040S,Adaptec SCSI 2920C,Diamond SupraExpress 56e PRO.

[motub]

It's in your BIOS... 'Chipset features', I believe, but someone who has that actual board could tell you more directly... or of course you could RTDM (read the dam... doggone manual)

------------------
Holly

[Kruzin]

On the P2B series boards (except maybe the P2B-F), you have no choice on the AGP divider. It will autodetect your FSB, and set the divider accordingly.

[troop]

Me--call someone names ??
Like , erm :

"ArseHole"
"ignorant"
"ignorant or picky or whatever"
"you mindless little brat"-[that's the best]

The various pleasant members who used these words is not me in some sort of disguise.

Nevertheless, the upshot appears to be that Matrox had the x4 interface but not the protocol for the the electrical design ? Some members here appear to think that x2 is "the max" , others that "x4 may work." Nobody appears to know for sure.

And I can understand that because no one has a real knowledge of the history of x4 AGP which I might add was set as the AGP 2.0 specification in March 1998 . The G400 was announced , watch for this , on
March 16, 1999.
Hehe, which kinda , you know , brings up the question I ASKED BEFORE DOESN'T IT .

------------------
In Harm's Way


[This message has been edited by troop (edited 17 October 1999).]

[Rags]

Well, if you could read, you would see that your question was answered in the first place by Kruzin.

Any how, on to your mindless dribble. I know the AGP 2.0 specification pretty damned well. If you would read my post I simplified it for you. The G400 fits and runs in AGP 4X systems (yes, it is electrically compatible as well, read my first post again). The G400, as it currently sits, will provide the maximum of 512mb/s transfer or, in terms you can understand, AGP 2x, even in an AGP 4X system. AGP 2.0 had been penned for some time, as I said before (Again, read before you shoot your mouth off), but there were no actual prototypes for AGP 4X boards out or even started when the G400 was built, as I had said before (again, read!!!!).

What can you not understand about this????

Rags


BTW, in my 2nd post I never called you a name, I was describing how you were acting. You have been officially upgraded from acting to being.

[Jorden]

Matt, don't bother...

He's not been reading that well, so: "Some people are just ignorant, others just don't get it." ....

I'm firing up the BBQ... who wants a leg, arm?? The torso is for motub...

Oh, btw troop, you started the namecalling, Bags I think....

Bags only thought you were an Arsehole, and to be honest, so do I... it's so difficult to read between any lines, or on the lines, so maybe English isn't your first language...

Jorden, Arsehole nr 2.

[troop]

Bags,

Kruzin has no reply here to my question.Perhaps the question made sense to him.

You seem a little hot under the collar.

Go for a walk.

Nevertheless, to continue ,

"AGP 2x,even in an AGP 4X system."

Well we know the spec was out a full year before the board.

And ,even then, with no mainbord port to test(like you say is necessary ), Matrox designed the G400 to have the x4 interface,
but not the protocol, which was just as available , and testable, as the interface.

Right ?

Don't think so .

Why leave it at that ? Makes no sense at all
on the basis that you have been using.

There must be more to it than the availability of the draft ports. More perhaps along the lines of :

" Products have a half-life of 1 year. No x4 AGP mainboard will have market penetration for the life of this product so leave it at x2 .Saves money in development. The next one can do x4 , due out in the fall of 2000,when x4 ports are widely available . "


------------------
In Harm's Way

[Kruzin]

What part do you not understand?

When the G400 was in development, regardless of if the specs where written or not, THERE WHERE NO 4x MOTHERBOARDS. How can anyone build a board that exploits features that where not a reality at the time of design/development?

The best they could do at the time was make sure the card met slot/voltage specs, and leave it at 2x, which is the only thing they could possibly gaurantee to achieve (not having a 4x mobo to test/develop on). So, that is where we are. The G400 is a 2x card, compatible with 4x operating specs. Perhaps a future G400 incarnation will be capable of 4x transfers...

[troop]

I understand this :

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/agp/downloads/agp20.pdf

Have you read this at all ?

Tell me exactly what you cannot do from this spec if you had x2 in hand already. [No one can test the pin-outs or the 66MHz charges now yet they are part of the G400 already.]

It is ambiguous to say it is a " 2x card, compatible with 4x operating specs." Perhaps you mean the 2.0 spec is backwards compatible .

------------------
In Harm's Way

[Rags]

Are you like sitting in front of your keyboard jacking off to the fact that you are making fun of my name??? Do you get off on that Shit???

I know Kruzin hasn't answered any post, that is my point, if you would read other's posts before you post, you will find answers. Instead you scan a thread and then open your big mouth, as straining as it is for your last two brain cells (BTW don't drink any alcoholic beverages, you may be in danger of depleting what is left), and let your ignorance shine.

Matrox is not claiming 4X transfers. Matrox did not have any boards to test 4X transfers with when they developed their G400. It is clear that you have no idea at all how hardware development works. I hate to tell you, but having specs on paper and having actual hardware are two very different things, look at the i820 chipset from intel, on paper, it should have worked as penned, but in the real world (where we all leave, and you should be bringing you wandering mind back to), shit happens, modifications have to be made, and there were modifications. If you don't believe it look at the AGP 2.0 specification and then look at the i820's specification for their AGP slot, you will see some major differences.

Rags

[Rags]

Oh, and the AGP 2.0 spec is MUCH more than AGP 4X. It is all about a new low voltage model for interfacing your AGP video cards, which, in turn allow more steady and reliable signals (enhancing thoroughput), in all modes 1X, 2X, and 4X. It is just that, without this new spec, AGP 4X would not be possible.

Rags

[Kruzin]

But Wags.....Matrox should have built the G400 and plugged it into the AGP 2.0 Spec book to see if it would work! Why would they need an actual running product to test theories on? Nah.....just put it out, say it works, then when it doesn't, move to Brazil...

[Jorden]

Maybe we should divert him to a thread that is in this thread: http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001474.html

Read about that troop (pronounced as troep = garbage in my language anyway ), and then try to get an answer again that you do like... !!!

In the mean time, Holly wants the torso, so we should start fighting over his legs & arms... the BBQ is ready & hot now

Jorden.

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 17 October 1999).]

[Cyber]

Hate to jump in here late.... but the chipset designed to work with AGP 4X, the 820 (Camino), is a massive disaster for Intel.

Does the word "Rambus" mean anything to anyone here?

Right up until the day of release of Camino, Chipzilla hadn't figured out how to resolve a problem in that the Rambus memory design of the 820 chipset causes memory errors.

Anyone wanting to rant about Matrox not supporting a AGP 4x protocol on the G400 ought to do some reading on what's going on in the industry before they criticise Matrox.

If Chipzilla can't get their own memory design right on the 820, why would a logical person expect Matrox or any other OEM to take a huge gamble in designing and selling components guaranteed to be compatible on a "still evolving" motherboard chipset design?

When Intel figures out the 820 design, then we can expect a card from Matrox capable of operating at AGP 4X. The G400 will physically slot into an AGP 4X slot but will only run at AGP 2X.

------------------
Bob Doran
Intel-AMD Products Dealer
Cyberdyne Systems




[This message has been edited by Cyber (edited 17 October 1999).]

[Jorden]

"a logical person" yes, but since troop isn't, and doesn't read the replies to his question too well, only busy with starting a flame, why do we care???

Jorden.

------------------
Official MURC-police
-------------------
the way you're bathed in light
reminds me of that night
god laid me down into your rose garden of trust
and I was swept away
with nothin' left to say
some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace
you're all I need to find
so when the time is right
come to me sweetly, come to me
come to me
------------
Holly's Love Rules !!
------------