G400MAX not installed as a G400MAX

[D0ug]

Hi i have a G400 MAX with a subsys id of 2179102 Ive noticed that with the 5.84, 5.82, and 5.72 that this card is installed as a normal G400 not a G400MAX. Ive looked though the 5.84 driver INF file and it seems that the line

%Str02%%ENG%=IN01.ENG,PCI\VEN_102B&DEV_0525&SUBSYS _2179102B

needs to be changed to

%Str01%%ENG%=IN01.ENG,PCI\VEN_102B&DEV_0525&SUBSYS _2179102B

I assume there are people from matrox that visit these forums, and will be able to update the drivers to support this revision of the G400MAX. The G400MAX i have is the original one that only supports AGP2x, not the newer 4x revision.

[Protege]

Does not matter if it says G400 max or G400 scrap. That is just for the driver to get installed and place a name in the registry.; What makes it a Max is the actual clocks being higher so you will not lose anything no matter what it is called.

[D0ug]

I know, but it would be nice if my card was identified correctly without me needing to mod the INF files. This may also confuse some users who have a G400MAX, but it is only identified as a normal G400.

[Tomasz]

This is a known, albeit benign, issue with some of the early g400 max graphics cards. Basically, their BIOS was programmed with a subsys id of 2179102B instead of 217D102B. The safest way to fix this is to edit the .inf file, as you have pointed out. Alternatively, you could try to reprogram the subsys id in the bios, however this poses some risk.

Tomasz

[Reckless]

I've had (and obviously still continue to have) this 'problem' - same card as you. At the time Matrox handled the situation badly - tech support response was along the lines of "so what". Now it doesn't make any difference to the speed of the item but it does make a difference to the marketing of it. As a 'special' editon of the standard G400 you'd have thought Matrox would have carefully marketed the card for all to see.

Just anyone who disagrees consider what you'd think if you could buy an Athlon 2200XP that reports itself as an Athlon 2000XP?! You wouldn't find that very funny having spent an extra few $'s getting the next model up. (no offence to AMD - just trying to use an example that may highlight the issue in a way that is more meaningful)

I guess you could also reprogram the pins on the card and change the PCI device identification string to match the drivers. After 3 years of ownership I'm not bothered enough to do so.

[D0ug]

I dont think ill bother messing with my subsys id. Afterall it is a correct subsys id for the original G400MAX cards. Editing the INF is easier for me, and also allows me to change the name from "Matrox Millennium G400 DualHead MAX - English" to "Matrox Millennium G400 MAX DualHead" which i think sounds better. I think a better analogy with AMD CPUs might be an athlon reporting itself as a duron.

Originally posted by Reckless
I've had (and obviously still continue to have) this 'problem' - same card as you. At the time Matrox handled the situation badly - tech support response was along the lines of "so what". Now it doesn't make any difference to the speed of the item but it does make a difference to the marketing of it. As a 'special' editon of the standard G400 you'd have thought Matrox would have carefully marketed the card for all to see.

Just anyone who disagrees consider what you'd think if you could buy an Athlon 2200XP that reports itself as an Athlon 2000XP?! You wouldn't find that very funny having spent an extra few $'s getting the next model up. (no offence to AMD - just trying to use an example that may highlight the issue in a way that is more meaningful)

I guess you could also reprogram the pins on the card and change the PCI device identification string to match the drivers. After 3 years of ownership I'm not bothered enough to do so.

[xortam]

I'll have to agree with the "so what" attitude. I don't care if it qualifies with a "Max" description as long as it performs as it should. It is a little sloppy code maintenance in that they had distinguished the Max in earlier drivers.

[Reckless]

Originally posted by xortam
I'll have to agree with the "so what" attitude. I don't care if it qualifies with a "Max" description as long as it performs as it should. It is a little sloppy code maintenance in that they had distinguished the Max in earlier drivers.

In fact none of the drivers ever identified my card as a Max. I doubt you had a Max with the problem to care either way - 1st question was: do I really have a Max? Anyways, all water under the bridge. Matrox have noe got plenty of scope to lash up some Parhelia id's

[Wombat]

If you have a MAX, it has a fan. If it only works on passive cooling, than it's a vanilla G400.

[xortam]

Originally posted by Reckless
... I doubt you had a Max with the problem to care either way ...

Why would you say that? Yes, I have a Max and have been running it since the product's release. I don't recall at which times the distinction has or hasn't been made nor do I care at this point. I did notice that it wasn't qualified as a Max when I installed the 5.84 W2K drivers. I now see that the information panel in PD does call out the Max though device manager doesn't further qualify the G400.

[D0ug]

I do have a MAX. There were 2 versions of the MAX. The original which i have. The original only supported AGP2x. The newer supported AGP4x. Below are pictures of the 2 cards

Original 2x AGP


Newer 4x AGP


Youll notice the places ive circled in the pics. on the original the matrox label was on the top of the card. On the newer one the label was on the right side. The original one also has solder pads between the 2 VGA connectors for a composite video port. For whatever reason the composite video port was decided not to be included on the final board. The newer board does not have these solder pads, however it cannot be seen in this picture of the newer one. You may also notice the difference in the fans, however this is not a way to identify the difference in cards. My original has the same type of fan as the newer version. It appears the newer fan has RPM monitoring, while the original fan used does not.

Originally posted by Wombat
If you have a MAX, it has a fan. If it only works on passive cooling, than it's a vanilla G400.

[xortam]

The original AGP 2x version of the Max had both two and three wire fans (of different construction) depending on if it was manufactured in Canada or Ireland. My original Canadian Max was RMA'ed for an Irish Max. The memory chips are also faster on the Max yet some "vanilla" G400s that didn't qualify as a Max were shipped with the faster memory but without a fan. There should also be a part number on the board identifying it as a Max. Benchmarks will also help identify if you have a Max or a "vanilla". But what's the point of all this? If you already know you have a Max then why do you care about some id string? Is it for some petty bravado or something?

[diewlei]

i guess it's just the uncomfortable niggling feeling that SOMETHING is just not all that right.

if i were to have this problem, i would feel disturbed too.
some of us are just more particular about such minutiae than others.

[juizzi]

Some MAXs' don't even have a fan.. mine is bought at september '99 and there's no fan at all. The primary DAC is 360MHz not 300MHz, that's the one main difference between a MAX and a basic G400 (retail cards).

[Wombat]

No, the main difference is the core & memory speed. If it doesn't have a fan, it's not a MAX. Where did you buy this? It's possible (but mostly useless) to reprogram the BIOS to overclock the DACs.