AGP 4x HOAX, TRUTH OR NOT! I WANT ANSWERS

[norcimo]

Have we been scammed? or not?

Hopefully I will get some response. My company will seek legal action if they don't.
I hope its just a software glich and not Matrox sticking it up a place were the sun doesn't shine.

I have send this to Matrox:

begin:

I'm very upset with the latest
reports online on wether your product is
AGP 4x compatible, refering to the Matrox Millenium G400
32 megs DualHead.

Reading the reports, I came to the conclusion:

I purchased the TYAN TRINITY 400 MB S1854.
This MB has a AGP4x slot.

Im running it with PC133 memory and the BIOS on the MB
set to "AGP 4x enable"
I used Windows 2000 professional with your latest Beta dirvers
AND I also used Windows 98 SE with the latest official drivers.

In both cases:
Using Powerstrip Ver 2.54 to get details on what does my
AGP speed was, It informed me that the card is running at AGP2x mode
and not AGP 4x. Your specs on this card (g400Dual Head 32megs)
indicates
that it is an AGP 4x compatible, according to my test results it is not.

I'm very upset with this outcome, I feal that I have been cheated and I
want this problem
resolved ASAP.

Maybe its a program fluke or then again maybe its not.

GRAPCHIS INFORMATION

Model: Matrox Millennuim G400 AGP
Graphics chip: Matrox G400
Memory: 32 MB
Memory type: SGRAM
RAMDAC: 300 MHz
Serial number: LAA12354

Extra
hardware: DualHead (built-in)

Graphics BIOS: 1.5-22



[This message has been edited by norcimo (edited 22 December 1999).]

[agallag]

The specs for the original g400 says that it's compatible with agp 4x, not that it will do 4x transfers. It specifically states that it can do transfers at 2x but it will work in 4x motherboards.

If you've got it in a 4x capable motherboard, and you've got pictures on your screen, then you don't have a legal leg to stand on. Sorry

[norcimo]

For you guys: Here's some proof..
http://www.matrox.com/mga/press_room...f/chipspec.pdf

more proof from an an awared source: http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/hardware/g400/

look at this, this was in October: http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/pc/oem/ibm.htm

look at this, this was in NOV: http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/pc/oem/compaq.htm

[This message has been edited by norcimo (edited 22 December 1999).]

[This message has been edited by norcimo (edited 22 December 1999).]

[Joel]

Just remember that compatible and capable are two different words and have two different meanings. The G400s are 4X AGP slot compatible but are not necessarily 4X AGP transfer capable.

Joel

[norcimo]

Look, i dont want to put Matrox in a boat and sink it, but:

You must be able to see that something funny is going on, something that we were not informed about.

at least...... geezz

[kelin]

Yeah...compatable and capable aren't the same thing...BUT, when I read the ads, and got my Max...and saw all the BIG lettering saying AGP4X!!! I SURE thought that it would actually do 4X...and no matter what you guyz say re: the legalities...I an not thinking of sueing....I just have reason to be suspicious of Matrox and ALL the other Hardware manufacturers....I really love my Max...but, I still feel like a moron who fell for the Brooklyn (sp?) Bridge...
I am currenly waiting for the KX133 chipset mobos to come out, to put my K7 on and get some use from my HSDRAM PC133...and I certainly expected my Max to be 4X capable...I guess when you come down to it its still buyer BEWARE!!! And my fault for figuring a company could be on the up and up...AND FOR YOU GUYS OUT THERE THAT WILL PUT ME DOWN, ETC...FOR BEING ANNOYED AT MATROX...I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RESORT TO LEGALIESE TO RECEIVE WHAT IT ADVERTISED!!! If it only ran 2X...they should have said it...in BIG letterz....while they certainly didn't lie, or even legally misrepresent the g400...they did mislead me (and maybe other out there)...
I feel that they (Matrox) have been support the G400s well, updating the drivers, etc...but, sorry, I still feel slightly cheated...
Kelin

[This message has been edited by kelin (edited 22 December 1999).]

[agallag]

Regardless, you would never notice a difference between 2x and 4x. The g400 (or any other card) doesn't have the memory bandwidth to fully use 4x. Todays games don't even fully utilize 2x, and won't for at least another 6-12 months. Most people can't tell the difference between 1x and 2x, so I'm sure 4x will make no difference whatsoever.

[norcimo]

ALthough you could be write , you are missing the point.
The Matrox handed out misleading information.
That's the fact.
Cuase of them I went purchased a motherboard so that I can use AGP 4x, to find out it doens't work.
So why did thousands of consumers went out and purchased this card? MAtrox released the card with the catch of getting consumers hooked on, this "AGP4x wagon" and you would be ahead of the competition when APG4x motherboards come out, your compliant.

Hey compliant means: Working within the established paramaters set for a particular application. Putting a AGP2x card on a AGP4x port then having succesfully function the board at 1/2 speed of the AGp4x spec, does in no way mean its compliant or capable to that spec.


[This message has been edited by norcimo (edited 22 December 1999).]

[andrei]

I do not ****ing care if the g400 really does 4x AGP, I have no intention to pay about 1000$ for an 128 RIMM just to have it work, and then realize I have nothing to use it with.

The 4x AGP feature was something to attract customers, and the hoax was pulled by almost every video card manufacturer.

Now don't bother your heads with it anymore, by the time DRDRAM prices dropp, the Camino mobos become more stable, and programs really support 4x AGP, the GeForce, the g400, the Savage 2000 and the ATI Rage Furry MAX will be at least 2 generations behind.

A 4x AGP MAX is sure to come in Spring, we had rummors about the g450, what more could you want.

[carlmeister]

norcimo, want some cheese with that whine? I thought this was all over with the "my g200 only does x1 and I'm pissed" posts. It is called, making a knowledgable and informed choice. Nobody else will do the research for you. If you can show me a real world application that will actually benefit from agp x4 (exception being a AGP bench mark program!), I will bust my trusty G400 in a thousand pieces and become a rabid Nivida or ATI fan (ugh!). Kruzin, I really think this belongs in the soapbox.

[Rags]

norcimo,

Hey compliant means: Working within the established paramaters set for a particular application. Putting a AGP2x card on a AGP4x port then having succesfully function the board at 1/2 speed of the AGp4x spec, does in no way mean its compliant or capable to that spec.

Actually you are very incorrect. Not all 2X cards will even work or fit in all 4X ports. AGP 2.0 spec slots that run low voltage only WILL NOT accept any AGP 1.0 (older 1X and 2X cards. Matrox have always claimed that the G400 card is compatible with ALL AGP 2.0 and AGP 4X slots, but max transfer is 512MB/s which is 2X transfers. The G400 chip has always been capable of 4X, it was just a matter of getting 4X motherboards, testing and tweaking the PCB to ensure 4X stability. I even venture to say that Matrox's 2X overall transfer rate is even higher than the 4X transfers of other company's cards. Go and look at the box of a VooDoo3 3000 and it says "bus type: AGP 1X and 2X". Does that mean the V3 works in any AGP mode??? Absolutely not, NO VooDoos support AGP texturing at all.

Rags

[Kruzin]

Geez.
I go away for a little while, and they come crawling out of the woodwork.

norcimo-
You are obviously very uninformed on this topic. I suggest you leave techno talk to those who understand what they are dealing with. If you want to better understand how things work, I suggest you try a better approach than coming in here, flame thrower a-blazing.

This topic is closed.