AGP 64MB test failed in 3DMark 2000 v1.1

[dZeus]

I got hold of the info that it was a GART problem, and an error of Microsoft.

I don't know who writes these gart drivers, or who writes the specifications they should follow. Probably MS writes these drivers in cooperation with the chipset manufacturers? I am glad to hear (but not for you people of course) that this problem shows up with all the GART drivers, which convinces me to believe the above supposition even more.

I was told that the only way around this problem is that the GART driver must be updated with a version capable of addressing more than 15.8MB of RAM for AGP textures...

Let's hope MS will fix this soon... (if it is possible)

[Nuno]

Service pack 1 didn´t, AMD "Windows 2000 AGP filter driver" didn´t, DX8 beta didn´t.

Not a big deal after all, but would it be that dificult to implement it properly? Gee...

[dZeus]

Update!

I got an email from Intel after I contacted them about this issue, and I am sure you'll find this amusing:

Hello Frank,

Thank you for contacting Intel Technical Support. Intel does not provide the GART driver for the chipset. It may be provided by either the motherboard manufacturer or the video card manufacturer. Since this is a Windows* 2000 issue, you may want to contact Microsoft* for additional information.


Best Regards,

xxxxxx xxxxxxx.
Intel Technical Support Engineer

So they are denying any responsibility for this issue, and are blaming it first on The Motherboard mannufacturer??? and the videocard Manufacturer???, and later on they give a hint that it is MS' fault. So my guess is that the first two mentioned are legally? responible for correcting this issue, and in the real world, MS is responsible for writing these GART drivers (or MS in conjunction with Intel software engineers).

Wtf has happened to Intel is my question, when VIA does release updated GART drivers for their 'very good' AGP implentation, and they don't want to do anything at all?

hmmm... maybe I should contact MS now, but I feel like the email I will sent them will go to the huge pile of 'standard reaction, no further action' pile, that, as well-known with everyone is enormous at MS.

[DosFreak]

In NT5 with my G400 on an Abit BE6 rv1 (440BX). The 64m test always said that there was not enough memory.

With my new 3D Prophet 2 GTS when it runs the test it reports 0.1fps. When I replace the ddraw.dll with the ddraw.dll from DX8 Build 146 then the 64m test runs just fine and reports 51fps.

UPGRADE TO DX8 and see if it fixes your probs!

This is in NT5. Sorry I cannot test 9x I left that sorry pos long ago....

[dZeus]

NT5 ? that would be Win2k? are you running the final version or a RC ? In my original post I already stated that this problem applied to Win2k, not to Win9x.

And if you have a Geforce2 64MB, this test should run fine anyhow, since you only need a aperture size smaller than 16MB to use 64MB of textures (the Geforce2 64MB should be able to store at least 48MB textures locally).

Can you please report what PowerStrip reports for non-local AGP memory? (as shown in the picture below)

[Greebe]

DZ, Win2K=NT5, is what MS had previously called it before the release.

[dZeus]

i know... that's why I asked if he was running a Win2k RC, since in the earlier RCs for Win2k, it said NT5 all over it. Right now you can only see NT5 in a few places (some setup screens). Seems like MS forgot to replace all the NT5 words for Win2k.

[DosFreak]

Sorry for the confusion. I don't like using the name Windows 2000 because it is longer to type and it is confusing to some people. I also hate the way Microsoft is going Windows 2000 (NT5), Exchange 2000 (Exchange 6), Outlook 2000 (er...ummm....uhhh). You get the idea.


I'll report on the Powerstrip settings when I check my system at home tonight and report back pronto tommorow...I do remember that that yellow/red bar was yellow all the way to the right so it probably was 48m.

I dunno why I posted that 9x stuff. My G400 always worked in the 64m test....I guess I wanted to diss the 9x OS again! (Sorry! ).

[DosFreak]

Local=63.1
Non-Local=0.7

[dZeus]

could you set your resolution to the highest your monitor supports, and your colour-depth to 32-bits also? I would like to see what happens if you can get past the 'magical' 15.8MB limit I experience, and maybe this is the way to do that.