Have I reached a hardware limit?

[Agent31]

OK, folks, I know most of you don't use G200's any more, but I've run into a barrier with mine which is frustrating me somewhat.

I can't get 1600x1200@32bit any a refresh higher than 65Hz... is this the limit of the card? coz my monitor can do 75Hz at this res...

PLUS, can one of you geeky beeta boiz tell me what version of the ICD is currently shipping with Win2K?

Dave

<img src="http://www.movies.net/stars/files/HWLimit.jpg" alt="A Screenie of my Desktop" width="937" height="605">

[Agent31]

Anyone?

[WayneHu]

That's because the default maximum RAMDAC frequency of G200 with 32bpp is 152 or 176 MHz.

If you want higher RAMDAC dot clock, you have to modify the pin parameters of G200... or use PowerStrip ...



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

[Randy Simons]

Yup, it's a hardwarelimit. But why not using 24 bit color? 32 bit does NOT give you more colors, and besides it's slower than 24 bit. The only reason to use 32 bit instead of 24 is that the G200 can't do 3D hardware acceleration in 24 bit mode (?? why not ??)

So, switch back to 1600x1200 @ 24 bit, and you can do 75Hz, if you have SGRAM on your card.

Ps: why aren't you using Matrox's drivers instead of the windows drivers you seem to be using now?

[paul]

My g200 wont do 1600x1200@32 at all. It max's @24bpp @70hz refresh. Non-integrated, I might add

------------------
k6-3 450 @500 - tyan 1590s bios 1.16 - wdac310100 - g200 mill sgram w/8mb upgrade & bios 2.6-20 PD 5.25 - AGP1x - 128MB 10ns sdram - sblive value 2.1 - 3com 3c905b-tx - cable access (28.8k for emergencies) - win98 service pack 1 + 2
dx7

[gbm]

Get MXINFO from my website (as MXUTILS.ZIP file) and run it to see the actual limits of your card.

[paulcs]

I think he's using Windows 2000, and that's why he's using Microsoft's drivers.

I like Randy's suggestion about using 24-bit.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Joel]

Why don't we wait til WIN'2000 is an offically released product and Matrox has released the offical drivers for WIN'2000.

Joel

[Nuno]

Randy - Just a note: 32 bit color depth IS faster than 24 bit. That´s why 32 bit color mode was created, anyway. 32 bit color has the same 24 bit true color data plus 8 bit zeros, and it´s faster than 24 bit mode because memory acess must be done in 32 bit (or multiple of that) chuncks, and acessing only 24 bit at a time involved some major calculations. I´m not an expert in the matter, someone please correct me if I´m wrong, but that´s something like that, for sure. The downside is that more video memory is needeed, of course...

gbm: Haven´t you got some pin files that could overclock the G200 RAMDAC? I remember something like that and it could be usefull to Agent31 (if he can live with a bit of overclocking )


[This message has been edited by Nuno (edited 06 November 1999).]

[anid]

It's just a matter of modifying Pin #14 isn't it? Say to a value of 75? Or am I way off?

------------------
I say "Here's a monkey wrench... If you bop me over the head with it long enough I might wake up for a second."

[paulcs]

I could be wrong about this, but I'm not sure any of the enhancements 32-bit color brings to the table are relevant for his current configuration.

I've tested a G200 with Windows 2000 and none of the API's we've come to know and love were supported. The board worked well enough, but I saw no evidence of D3D or OpenGL support with the drivers that loaded with the OS.

A dual boot setup, I think, is the way to go with Windows 2000 at this point. So many things are unsupported at this point, that using Win2K as your primary OS is just going to cause headaches.

I just added a second processor to the machine I use for "scientific experiments," and things got a little nutty. (I guess the new CPU isn't plug 'n play.) I'm reinstalling Windows 98 right now, and will install Windows 2000 on to an extended partition later on today. The fact that Win2K supports FAT32 *should* make things a lot easier.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Randy Simons]

In my own tests I found 24 bit faster than 32 bit. Matrox optimized their cards to work fast with 16, 24 and 32 bit, leaving the bandwith a more important factor. Since 24 is 8 bit less than 32 bit (he), less data has to be read from the RAM, hence it is faster.

However, you're right that on many cards 32 bit is faster than 24 bit, but I believe it's lazyness of the designers

Do a simple test: set the highest possible resolution and select 32 bit. Now scoll a window, the one you're looking at now for example
Then select 24 bit, and do the same thing. If it is faster: use 24 bit. If it doesn't matter: use 24. If in the unlikely case it is slower, use 32 bit. But then you'll have low refresh rates.

[This message has been edited by Randy Simons (edited 06 November 1999).]

[Nuno]

Randy, I´ve tried what you sugested and frankly speaking I couldn´t see a difference. But that was at 1280x1024, that´s the max my monitor suports.

That 24/32 bit issue should be a minor thing nowadays with the stellar 2D performance of current video cards. But that 32*x bit memory acess seems right to me. If it wasn´t so, why 32 bit color mode was created? (ok, ok I guess that spare 8 bit can be used to alpha channel or something like that...)

[Vic]

Are you SURE your monitor can do 75Hz at this res? Your monitor information is set (through Plug & play I beleive) in order to prevent you overdriving the monitor & damaging it.

You could try using a customised monitor set up in the 'Monitor Settings' tab of Matrox powerdesk. Select 'customisations from the Matrox list' then from the 'standard monitor types' listing select a res & refresh rate that you require.

Vic

[paulcs]

He's using Windows 2000: no 3D, no PowerDesk, unless Matrox has released a driver I'm not familiar with.

If you're absolutely sure your monitor can handle it:

Display>Properties>Advanced.

Click the *Monitor* tab.

Under *Refresh Frequencies*, there is a box checked and marked, "Hide modes this monitor cannot display." Uncheck it.

Using *Refresh Frequencies*, you should be able to select a refresh rate Windows 2000 believes is unsupported by your monitor.

If Windows 2000 is right, and it frequently isn't, you can damage your monitor. I think you should proceed with caution and check your monitor specs before trying this.

At 1024x768, I know my monitor supports 85 Hz. However, Windows 2000 only gave me choices up to 75 Hz. I got to 85 Hz by using this method.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net