P2/K6 TuboGL RELEASED!!!

[TSP]

just some more Q3demoTest numbers on a celeron:

1248x1024 High(vsync, force player model & simple items off, rest on, largest texture):no-turbo 9,0 turbo 15,4 diff 41,6%

1248x1024 Fastest(vsync & force player model off, rest on):no-turbo 38,6 turbo 40,7 diff 5,4%

High(vsync, force player model & simple items off, rest on):no-turbo 35,1 turbo 42,4 diff 20,8%

fastest(vsync & force player model off, rest on):no-turbo 46,4 turbo 63,1 diff. 36%

fastest(simple items on, rest off):no-turbo 56,6 turbo 77,8 diff 37,5%

normal(vsync, force player model & simple items off, rest on):no-turbo 38 turbo 53,1 diff 39,7%

System spec:dual celeron 400@558(93MHz fsb), abit BP6 MB, 128 MB PC100 RAM, 2 ÍBM 7200 harddisk, G400 MAX, RR-G, SB live value, win98SE Danish, DX7, Matrox powerdisk 4,41.

well I am just amazed of the new TurboGl drivers. If just Matrox would make a win2k version.

[WayneHu]

In my condition, TurboGL works great on Unreal Tournament! The motion on it is almost as smooth as that in D3D, and of course, better image quality than D3D mode.

While ICD always gives me a hangup on the introduction movie at AGP 2x, Turbo GL is normal! (near the last of introduction, when entering the room... )

But the initialization of this game with TurboGL is much longer than that in D3D mode...

ps: the mode is 1024x768x32bpp


------------------
Celeron 300P@558/2.0v, P3B-F, G400DH/32MB


[This message has been edited by WayneHu (edited 14 December 1999).]

[Cmag]

Thanks Joel, it worked. I'm getting a 57% increase in frame rates. Up from 17.5 FPS to 27.5 FPS. I know that these scores are still really low, but they're the best i've seen. I don't know why I can't get it any faster, i've tried everything. I think it might have something to do with my POS motherboard. I can't even overclock the G400 32mb DH that I have. It just doesn't seem to work. The more I bump up the PLL, the slower the card goes. Weird huh?

Thanks Again

Cmag

------------------
Consequences smonsequences, as long as I’m rich

[Opus]

Hats off to Matrox for listening and supporting the older technologies (hehe).

But just one question - what about the G200?

Although I don't have a use for OpenGL myself there must be quite a large customer base that still have (and can still buy) the G200 and may want to play Quake or other OGL stuff and where hoping for a Turbo version too to run with their crappy old PII's (that includes me) or K6's.

And no Jordan this isn't a whine, just a question.

Cheers

[MaTriX]

Hey, everyone seems to be getting improvements from the new TGL that now support all processor. More like G400's "miniGL" now which will kick Voodoo series ass.

BUT... i am not getting anything from it...drats. the start up shows me coruptted screen for Q3 that i can't close or do anything about it so i have to force shutdown the computer.

So anybody tried switching back the driver to 5.30 and then the TGL works. My system is K6-3/400 with 64MB ram.

[MoleDK]

A TurboGL to G200 would be cool

I would give Matrox my firstborn for it



------------------
Cya,
J.

"Unix can be a cynical Operating System for a person whos mind is limited to a Windows user interface"

System specs:
AMD Athlon 600mhz, 256MB RAM, Matrox Millenium G200 (PD5.41), Nothing O/C.
Running Windows 98SE & Redhat Linux 6.1

[franksch3]

Nuno,

no card currently supports 32 bit Z-buffer and a 8 bit stencil buffer at the same time. The configurations you can have are:

- 16 bit Z, 0 bit stencil (combined in 16 bit for each pixel)
- 32 bit Z, 0 bit stencil (combined in 32 bit for each pixel)
- 24 bit Z, 8 bit stencil (combined in 32 bit for each pixel)

Frank

[Maggi]

Hi Frank,

the full ICD does on your G400 ...

32bit Zbuffer + 8bit stencil buffer

At least that's what Q3 reports.

------------------
Cheers,
Maggi
________________________

Working Rig:
Asus P2B-DS @ 103MHz FSB
Double Pentium III-450 @ 464 MHz
4 x 128MB CAS2 SDRAM
Matrox Millennium G400 32MB DualHead
Eye-Q 777 (22" with 127kHz) on primary VGA
Nokia 445Xi (21") on secondary VGA


Home Rig:
Asus P2B-S Bios 1010 @ 100MHz FSB
Celeron 333A @ 500MHz
2 x 128MB CAS2 SDRAM
Matrox Millennium G400 32MB DualHead @ 150/200MHz
CTX VL710T (17")
and a brand new Pioneer 303S SCSI-DVD

[Nuno]

Yes Frank, as Maggi said, that´s what I was talking about - the ICD reports 32 bit z 8 bit stencil while the TGL reports 24 bit z...

I was under the impression that the G400 supported a full 32 bit z-buffer AND 8-bit stencil. But I can´t really tell the difference between 32 bit and 24 bit... I guess 24 bit is more than acurate...

[HedsSpaz]

Since no one else has actually whined about the G200, I'll do it for everyone.

WWWWHHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNNEEEE!!!!!!!!
Can we have one to? Please!!!!

Ok, now that that's over with. I'm glad that Matrox is doing a wonderful job supporting the G400. This is just one of the reasons that I plan on buying a Matrox card when I build my new system sometime next year. However, I have a G200 right now and I'm to damn poor at the moment to be able to afford to get a G400 or suitable hardware to pair it with.
So, if anyone from Matrox is reading this I hope you remember that some of us are poor and can't afford to get a G400 and would very much appreciate a TGL for the G200.

HedsSpaz
(See now, that wasn't much of a whine.)

------------------
"I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure." --Me

[Stil]

Just to clear things up:

The G400 supports the following Stencil and Z buffers in hardware:

15bit Z + 1bit stencil
16bit Z + no stencil
24bit Z + 8bit stencil
32bit Z + no stencil

The ICD reports an entirely different set in order to be compatible with more applications. ICD's from all companies (not just Matrox) typically implement much MUCH more than the hardware actually supports.

Unfortunately the G400 ICD currently does not do any stenciling in hardware, even though it reports a stencil buffer. Any applications that use a stencil buffer are still supported but with software.

[Bandy]

Yeah, this kicks ass for q2 and q3.

WayneHu, what do you mean when you say: "Unreal Tournament! The motion on it is almost as smooth as that in D3D, and of course, better image quality than D3D mode."

I can't see any better image quality with OpenGL, and I don't see the detailed textures in Unreal & UT (not with the normal ICD either).
The TurboGL performance with my cel266@400 128MbRAM g400MAX in Unreal & UT, is much better than the ICD. But still slower than D3D, and lower texture detail than D3D.
--
Bandy

[LrngToFly]

Okay, so there are three votes for a TurboGL for the G200. How 'bout a Win2K version of TurboGL ready for Feb. 17th for both G200 & G400???

Okay, I'll shutup before someone tells me to take it to the soapbox...

ps- Matrox Santa, if you're listening: TurboGL for Win2K, P2 & G200. Please put it in my Christmas stocking. Thanks!

[This message has been edited by LrngToFly (edited 14 December 1999).]

[WayneHu]

Bandy,

Don't you see the fog effect in OpenGL mode is better than that in D3D mode ? I mean the fog in OGL mode is smooth, continuous...



------------------
Celeron 300P@558/2.0v, P3B-F, G400DH/32MB

[obba]

ok.. cool.. my 3d post i believe.. anyways, I got a p2-350 with only 64 meggs ram. my AGP aperture or however its called is set to 64 i believe. i also check on powerdesk and it says:

Matrox Powerdesk: 5.30.007

and i read at the page Kruzin linked to at the top of the page on matrox site that:

"This is only for use with 5.30.008 display driver release and above."

that a typo or do i need to upgrade?

Everything works pretty good.. win98 crashes like an airbus over switzerland but its managable. Mostly in games anyway. But should i get the latest driver and/or latest turbo icd..?

specs:

MSI 6119
P2-350
64 meggs pc100 ram
g400 32 meggs single head
borrowed nokia 17 inch monitor right now

Thanks!

//obba