G400 Max and AGP 4x

[harkpabst_meliantrop]

Originally posted by Venturer
I hope that a future BIOS update will solve this!

And remember to keep up with VIAs beloved 4 in 1 drivers!! Installing the latest release (4.32v, install AGP driver in Turbo mode!) is more likely to me to fix it than a future BIOS release.

By the way try to disable busmatering! It should became a little more stable at 4x!

Appologies if I didn't get the joke, but why would you wan't AGP 4x without busmastering (== no hardware 3D acceleration, either in DirectX or OpenGL)?

[B]waldo22:[B] The AGP 2x vs 4x debate is probably one of the most stressed topics in all matrox related discussion boards on this planet. Apart from the fact that it really doesn't make any noteworthy difference (and that AGP 2x mode is exactly what up-to-date cards like the KyroII boards can handle), Matrox always said that the G400 cards would be 4x compliant (and thats what all boards are, they can operate at 1,5V AGP voltage as well as 3,3V).

The chip itself was said to be capeable of operating in 4x mode from the very beginning, but this was not a garanteed feature for the boards.

However, it shouldn't crash in AGP 4x mode anyway..

--E<:|

[waldo22]

kx133

Actually,

I use the ABIT KA7. I thought the old "VIA doesn't work with G400" thingy was a myth. I guess not.

I'm not really worried about it, just curious. If it says it will work at 4x, it should work at 4x, you know that sort of thing.

On another note, does anyone know why the newest Video Tools for win2K don't display ANY capture options, still or motion, or even a record button?

[waldo22]

ps

already installed latest 4-in-one actually just before I tried agp4x

[Venturer]

My G400MAX works perfectly at AGP 2x!

-VIA 4in1 4.32v installed in Turbo Mode
-Lastest KA7 BIOS: TY version
-Windows ME and W2k installed (2 partition)
-Lastest Matrox drivers
-Lastest Matrox BIOS

Tried "E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G" (all Matrox drivers; changed BIOS settings [sdram timings, Interleaving, FSB freq,.......) for have AGP 4x stable but was all useless!

Try to make a search on Matrox ufficial forum:
"Abit KA7 and G400" or
"AGP 4x and G400"

[Bursar]

You've all overlooked the obvious thing (and the one that fixed the problem for me).

The card, although apparently seated in the AGP slot properly, probably isn't.

I found I really had to wiggle the card and push quite firmly to get to sit all the way down. Once I had done that, mine worked in 4x without problem.

At the bottom of the metal plate, it narrows a bit, and this is meant to stick through the bottom of the motherboard tray. If the narrow bit is slightly bent or your motherboard is just out of alignment, it won't go through. The card is still seated firmly and feels like it is in correctly, but it isn't.

I put this down to 'having an incompatible case'

[Venturer]

Hmmm that it s possible!
I ll try now; the last chance!
THX a lot for your advice!
What CPU/Motherboard do you have?

[Venturer]

It was useless; it s the same!

[harkpabst_meliantrop]

Re: kx133

Originally posted by waldo22
I'm not really worried about it, just curious. If it says it will work at 4x, it should work at 4x, you know that sort of thing.

So, your card is an AGP 4x type (you didn't post yet, I think)? If so, it shurely should work in 4x mode, wether it makes a difference or not. I get the point.

But I'd like to stress the 4x compatibility issue once more: AGP 4x is stricty coupled to 1.5 V AGP voltage as opposed to 3.3 V in all lower modes. Intels current I850 P4 chipset supports AGP 4x only and the connector is hard coded accordingly.

As a result, you cannot run a Voodoo 5 on one of these boards, while even the oldest G400 boards do run just fine.

Hey, heads up, it could have come even worse!

--E<:|

[Greebe]

Just in case... (compliments of ALBPM)


The fix...


BTW you won't be loosing anything by switching down to AGP 1 or 2x anywho

[waldo22]

sure enough

Sure enough, my G400 MAX card is the MMDH4A, supposed to do AGP 4x but doesn't. (yes, it's seated properly)

So,

- My Rainbow Runner-G will no longer let me capture if I want to use the newest version without 3rd party apps

- My hardware DVD module that I paid $100 for isn't supported in Win2K

- My G400Max is supposed to be a 4x AGP card, but isn't.

a pattern seems to be forming...

What irritates me most is that matrox acts like it's the user's fault for upgrading their OS to win2K when the cards were "designed" for win98.

Sounds like they need a new driver team.

[Maggi]

Re: sure enough

Originally posted by waldo22
...
What irritates me most is that matrox acts like it's the user's fault for upgrading their OS to win2K when the cards were "designed" for win98.
...

I'm not sure, but I seem to recall having seen a lot of promises from Microsoft, Win2k would merge NT stability with W98 features, but as we all know, there are still some differences

One for example caused the stop of hardware MJPEG support for RR-G and Marvel G200/400.
Another one hinders the competition still from using independant resolutions and refresh rates in a dualhead setup under Win2k.

I think, it's not Matrox to blame on all issues.

[Maggi]

Sorry, I forgot to say something about your G400 AGP4x issue, Waldo ...

For one, all Matrox G-series cards use a superior AGP transfer mode (DiME), which is (sadly) a bit more picky about clean signals and proper voltages.
Some mainboards are known to generate a lot of electric noise that just interferes with the actual data transfer, causing system instability.
As far as I understood their driver concept, upon bootup they run a test phase that somewhat tries to find out which AGP transfer speed can be chosen safely and thus will switch the card to that mode.
Further, they offered a tweak util that let's the end user fiddle with those settings, giving him an option to observe what funky phenomenons an instable gfx subsystem can cause ...

Seriously though, do yourself a favor and run a row of texture intense benchmarks (3D Mark, UT & Q3 big levels), compare 1x vs 2x vs 4x and post your results.

[DGhost]

About the modem thing, it is possible to do that if the data files are highly uncompressed and your connection applies data compression (which almost all do)

I once sustained 10k/second on a 14.4 modem (using a Linux FTP client to verify), but the files were hardly compressed.

AGP 4x stability varies from motherboard to motherboard and chipset to chipset... i could not get my G400MAX to run stable at 4x on a Apollo Pro 133A MB, but i have it running quite nice and stable on a KT133A motherboard now. Different components have different mechanical and electrical tolerances... they may just not like each other at 4x

edit: i just saw that you are using an Abit KA7. I would suggest giving up on getting AGP 4x to run on it - VIA chipsets before the KT133A were hardly stable at AGP 4x. The KT133 could be made to work if you fiddled with it, and the KX133 chipset was a really buggy chipset in general, let alone AGP 4x

It is most likely not the video card doing it.... try dropping it in a KT133A or AMD 760 board and see if it runs at 4x stable.

[waldo22]

sorry

Sorry, I know it's not completely Matrox' fault, I was just venting.

I should have posted that one in the soap box

Thank you all for all of your help. I am most frustrated now that I can't get any support for my hardware DVD.

Oh, well.

I would post benchies, but don't know any good texture proggies.

Please let me know if you have any in mind.

I won't be able to post 4x, it locks up too quickly.

Wes

[Clevor]

Not a big deal

Getting 4X enabled is just for bragging rights, although I imagine it can be pretty annoying. I was able to find one of the last retail-boxed G400 MAXs 3 months ago and bought it. I found out about the code on the model number afterwards, but thankfully, I checked and it was the 4X AGP version.

I also picked up a used G400 32 DH recently for $79, mainly because I could see from the code it was a 4X version. It is working fine in my A7V motherboard at that speed.

But other than for bragging rights, you won't see any performance increase.