PDA

View Full Version : Safe to mount a G400MAX on a i845D chipset?



Zanna
24th January 2002, 10:01
I'm planning to purchase a motherboard based on new revision of Intel 845 Chipset.

I read that this chipset have an AGP voltage of 1.5 volts.

The question is: my G400MAX (first version, only compatyible with AGP4x) is suitable for that chipset?

Or in case I slap it into a i845D motherboard can be I obtain a "fusion" version of my G400MAX ? :p

Thank to everyone can clarify this...

Tempest
24th January 2002, 10:38
There have been a whole lot of questions regarding the G400 adapters and the 1.5V AGP Pro interface on the Matrox Support Forums. Maybe this one could help you out: http://forum.matrox.com/mgaforum/Forum8/HTML/000763.html

Edit: Just in case that the above link would not work for you, the general answer to questions concerning Matrox adapters and 1.5V AGP is that any G400 or above card will work fine with both 3.3V and 1.5V AGP interfaces. They will do this automatically, the card will sense the voltage that it receives from the AGP bus.

So no G400 "Fusion" card for you :D

Zanna
24th January 2002, 15:58
Matrox forums readed,
Haig Answer readed,
Some doubts on ASUS P4B266 !

This Matrox card with this Intel chipset must work fine,
but at least 2 users (Vitaly & ariman) reports problems...

The best choice, for me, was the ASUS P4B266,
obviously before :( reading this matrox forum thread!!

I have a Old G400MAX, only 2X AGP, maybe
this version can have same problems?

If possible, I will try to mount my card on
a motherboard before I purchase them!!! :D

I am simply thinking HOW ? :confused:

Anywere, thanks :) Tempest!!

isochar
24th January 2002, 16:07
I have an old G400max 2xAGP version on a P4DCE+ without any problems.

drzaius
24th January 2002, 19:58
interesting. i remember that when the G400's came out they could handle the AGP x4 spec but wouldn't run at it, they just ran at x2, but of course this was before the i845 and i850.

then later Matrox made G400's that could do AGP x4 in all sence.
i don't know, i would think if you have one of the original G400's (like mine) it should work, but i don't know. :confused:

Rags
24th January 2002, 20:45
Originally posted by Zanna
Matrox forums readed,
Haig Answer readed,
Some doubts on ASUS P4B266 !

This Matrox card with this Intel chipset must work fine,
but at least 2 users (Vitaly & ariman) reports problems...

The best choice, for me, was the ASUS P4B266,
obviously before :( reading this matrox forum thread!!

I have a Old G400MAX, only 2X AGP, maybe
this version can have same problems?

If possible, I will try to mount my card on
a motherboard before I purchase them!!! :D

I am simply thinking HOW ? :confused:

Anywere, thanks :) Tempest!!

You have to realize that most times when you see a problem such as the one that two people in that thread reported, it is due to their own installation mistakes.

The G400 works fine in the motherboard you are looking at.

Rags

Zanna
25th January 2002, 15:16
Thanks, Rags!

I am looking on this thread on matrox forums:

P4B users post here (http://forum.matrox.com/mgaforum/Forum1/HTML/007876.html)

What do you think?
Maybe some problems on some older G400Max PCB are real? :eek:

The only thing I can do in this moment is "Sit And Wait !"
Maybe you are right and these two guys have configuration problems, maybe not.

Haig is investigating this. I think he it's doing a good, methodic, job.

I still wait the Haig verdict!

(I don't wand the "Fusion" version G400Max, and also I want to Turno ON my computer after sold old moterboard and old PIII)

Thanks to ALL. (And Thanks to HAIG :) )

IceStorm
25th January 2002, 16:53
I have an original G400 MAX (September 2, 1999). While the #TYPEDET pin on the card edge indicates AGP 2x mode, it has an AGP 4x notch and is working fine in my Asus P4T (850-based board). The #TYPEDET pin is supposed to be used only in Universal AGP slots, not in 2x-keyed or 4x-keyed slots.

The G400 MAX will be fine when paired with i845.

Rags
25th January 2002, 18:26
I have a G400 Max that is an early version that doesn't do 4X, it works fine in the P4B 266.

Rags

KevinST
26th January 2002, 15:11
I started a thread around Christmas time here about the G400 and the P4B266 and got flamed for even suggesting that my G400 wouldn't work on the P4B266, and suggesting that the TYPEDET pin was responsible for the problem.

Haig has been more willing to look at the issue and so far it appears that he's agreeing with what I have been saying from the start; the TYPEDET pin should be connected to ground on all G400's.

It appears that a single PCB serial number (906-01 Rev.: A) has a fault on it where the TYPEDET pin is not connected to GND. There are 2 of us on the Matrox forum with this early rev PCB,and with P4B266's and neither of them work on the motherboard.

I've also proven that the P4B266 is looking at the TYPEDET pin to determin if the AGP card is 1.5v compatible.

Unfortunatly, Matrox do not have a G400 with this early PCB, or a P4B266 yet. Hopefully they will receive their P4B266 this week.

Any motherboard that does not try to decide if the G400 is 1.5v complient or not (P4B266 and the latest P4B) will work fine with any G400.
G400's which do not have this faulty PCB will work without any problems in the P4B266, but if the PCB is the early one then it will not work.

SRFast
26th January 2002, 20:09
I have G400 Max (9/99) installed on a Shuttle AV40/R using a VIA P4X266 chipset and it works fine.

JL

Wombat
26th January 2002, 21:13
>the TYPEDET pin should be connected to ground on all G400's.

You know, if you want to bring that up again, the spec hasn't changed. It still says floating. If Matrox follows the spec, and the MB mfr doesn't, then it's not Matrox's fault.

KevinST
27th January 2002, 02:27
Quote from Haig:
"On brighter note, ever single rev of the G450, G550, and Marvel G400 cards will work without any problems as typedet are all grounded. Same goes for the G400 '4A' cards"
And another one:
"It's possible the 1st rev has it opened but won't confirm till I get one"

Have you actually read the P4B thread on the Matrox site???

Zanna
27th January 2002, 17:00
Yes, I readed (I am still checking it periodically) the thread and I am waiting when Haig receives the new P4B266 board.

The only right thing to do is to take note of the PCB Serial Number present on the boards that not work with P4B266 or similar chipsets and look onto our cards before thinking to change our system configuration, doing this until a final verdict not come from Matrox.

In these days, howewer, I will open my PC to look on my card.

I will get no surprise if there was a mistake on this PCB, sometimes big companies can make a mistake. :rolleyes:

For now, there is a suspected PCB S/N, from you (Thanks):

906-01 Rev.: A

... then I can say that I have also a multimeter, and the temptation to use it to check the TYPEDET# pin is very high!

Only I won't to make nothing to invalidate an ipothetic RMA.... :D

A more interesting question can be:

There is any "G400-with-this-PCB-S/N" and a "newer-than-rev-1.03-P4B266" owner that does not have any problem ???

Then I can say (to KevinST): You have made a good work!!
and to Haig: Good work searching the solution to this problem!

I am still waiting the verdict!!

KevinST
28th January 2002, 02:07
Ciao Zanna,

I don't think that you would invalidate the warranty by measuring the resistance on the TYPEDET pin to GND, but if you feel safer not doing it then wait.

Haig has said that any G400 that does not use the apparently bad PCB (906-01 Rev.: A ) will be OK and has the TYPEDET connected.

I'll also not be surprised if Matrox have made a mistake with a batch of PCB's - I've worked for many companies where this has happened - it's a development fact-of-life that it happens :(

IceStorm
1st February 2002, 17:07
Heh. Haig posted his last $0.02 just under the wire in the P4B thread (http://forum.matrox.com/mgaforum/Forum1/HTML/007876-2.html). He doesn't seem to get that the notching on the card must correspond with the appropriate TYPEDET# signal - it's part of the AGP spec. I really don't care who screwed up, Matrox or the PCB fabbers, the fault, in my opinion, is with the company that sold the card to the end-user. It looks like they're going to have an official statement on the issue next week. I hope they don't cop-out and put the onus of this problem on the buyers and Asus.

Anywho, the P4B266 will not power up if the card inserted has TYPEDET# left open. Since the early G400 MAXes left TYPEDET# open, the board shouldn't power up. If you want to use an early G400 MAX (or any other early G400 that wasn't wired up properly), don't use a 1.5v board that supports TYPEDET# detection.

Haig
1st February 2002, 21:37
He doesn't seem to get that the notching on the card must correspond with the appropriate TYPEDET# signal - it's part of the AGP spec.

Follow me here:) The 4x indication notch will allow the card to fit in a 4x or a universal agp slotted motherboard. Typedet has nothing to do with this.

The poster wants us to remove the notch for the 4x indication. I am telling you that removing the 4x notch would not allow the 2x version of our card to work in a 4x only motherboard.

Haig

Kruzin
1st February 2002, 21:42
And how do you remove the notch from a card that's no longer in production? Drive to every early G400 owner's house, and epoxy the slot closed?
:D

Greebe
1st February 2002, 21:53
Naw... just use some scotch tape :D

Kruzin
1st February 2002, 21:58
Or perhaps bubble gum? :p

IceStorm
1st February 2002, 22:43
The poster wants us to remove the notch for the 4x indication. I am telling you that removing the 4x notch would not allow the 2x version of our card to work in a 4x only motherboard.
He did not say he wants Matrox to remove the notch. What he said was:

If Matrox didn't want the G400 cards to go into 1.5volt AGP slots they should have written AGP2x on the box and keyed the bottom of the card to prohibit it.
He's not refering to the present, he's saying that before Matrox made the cards they should have properly keyed the G400 MAX cards to match TYPEDET# (in this case 3.3v). That would have meant a single notch, like the G200 has.

Follow me here The 4x indication notch will allow the card to fit in a 4x or a universal agp slotted motherboard. Typedet has nothing to do with this.
First, the notches have absolutely nothing to do with the way Universal slots determine AGP signaling level. Universal slots have no dividers. They rely exclusively on TYPEDET# to determine signaling level.

Second, TYPEDET# has everything to do with this, both with what JohnK is talking about and the larger issue, that the older G400 MAX doesn't work with the P4B266 line.

The notches and TYPEDET# are supposed to be one in the same. The notch on the card has to match the TYPEDET# level from the board - either ground or open. I've already made explanation of the only "violation" of that rule which works with the spec. The only slot that doesn't have explicit TYPEDET# checking is the 3.3v one. Universal and 1.5v slots support checking of the TYPEDET# signal as per AGP spec. And yes, I realize that the slot isnt't doing the checking - the AGP Master or an external circuit wired to those slots is doing the checking. I'm assuming the Master and circuitry are wired to the appropriate slot.

There's a notch on my two G400 MAX cards indicating 1.5v support. There's a TYPEDET# signal on both indicating 3.3v support. The two are NOT mutually exclusive - they're supposed to match. JohnK was stating that since the first-run G400 MAX cards are wired up with TYPEDET# open, they shouldn't have a 1.5v notch. He's right. They shouldn't, as per spec. I've already stated that there aren't any card vendors that I know of who actually followed the spec when they moved to 1.5v AGP signaling support (dual mode cards aren't part of the spec). But the majority seem to have wired their cards with TYPEDET# grounded. My G550 cards do, and they violate spec. My GF2U does, it violates spec. My GF2MX-400 does, it violates spec. They all have TYPEDET# wired to ground. My G400 MAXes left it open, they violate spec. The difference is the G400 MAX violates spec in the "wrong" way.

Matrox is getting bit in the ass for promoting their G400 parts as "AGP 4x compatible" at lauch over two years ago - You remember, when we found out later that all it meant was that the card would work at 1.5v AGP signaling instead of actually supporting the bulk of AGP 4x features. The chipset might support 1.5v signaling, but a chipset is not the only thing which determines if the card meets AGP spec. Certain revisions don't meet spec, even in the "wrong" way. I look forward to seeing how Matrox is going to deal with this situation.

Wombat
2nd February 2002, 00:37
The real problem here is one of timing. Intel was short-sighted when they didn't spec out a "universal add-on component." It looks like they just did a copy-pasted-edit with the 5v/3.3v part of the PCI spec (see page 119-121).

But it looks like intel didn't have enough coffee the morning they wrote this, trying to leverage the PCI methodologies. The PCI spec says that 5V motherboards supply 5V, and +/-12V, with 3.3V optional; 3.3V motherboards supply <B>all four</B> rails (page 142). With PCI, it is the <I>card</I>, not the motherboard, that has the "universal" capabilities. It seems that intel took a working protocol, changed a few subtle but critical aspects, and didn't realize they had opened a new hole with this new way of doing things. Short (G-rated) answer: "Whoops!"

So, Matrox and everybody else found some way of showing the card as the motherboard needed it. Matrox's method would seem to emulate the "universal" style PCI boards. Not everyone took that approach, but they had to do something. So, any video card that supports both voltage levels does not meet the spec.

I just read the AGP spec cover-to-cover (again). There's not a whole lot about the initialization sequence. Matrox determines TYPEDET one way, and this MB is trying to detect it in a different way. There's no spec for this part or the process. It would be nice if it were in section 5.4.5 or 6.1.2.4, but it's not.

As far as I'm concerned, both Matrox and the P4B are working as well as the AGP spec allows them. Unfortunately, they handle the gray area differently.

I am with Ice that Haig has part of things wrong. There are no "2x/4x" keyings. What there are are "1.5V/3.3V" keyings. 4x transfers can only be run at 1.5V, but I saw nothing in the specs that says that a 1.5V motherboard <I>must</I>support 4x, even if it is about the only reason to go through the effort of supporting that signalling level.

Greebe
2nd February 2002, 03:08
I've read the AGP 2.0 spec over several times now and have a few chronological clairifications to what both IceStorm and Wombat have said... there is a "2x and 4x" versions of the AGP slot. Follow me on this (just like Haig said:)
Back prior to the AGP 2.0 spec there was only a 2x slot MB's as it was known to the average Joe. These operated at 3.3v. When the AGP 2.0 spec was released it was all about AGP 4x operation and the average Joe saw that the AGP connector had been reversed. Why, because they didn't reverse the slot until AGP 4x capable MB's were produced (ie 1.5v signaling which only 4x boards needed to support the differential inputs that were neccessary to insure low noise operation/signal integrity that operation demanded). When the G400 was designed there wasn't a finalized AGP 2.0 spec. It came shortly afterward (May of '98) and back then we were still using the AGP 1.2 spec as a guideline and a unfinished spec for what nobody honestly knew was truely going to be fully unvailed until these Intel 'AGP4x' MB's actually became reality for them to test on... and that was still many months away. Besides you could only build in what you could foresee and Miss Cleo wasn't around back then.

So now while the G400 in it's various forms has had a wonderful success in the marketplace it is only now with the latest incarnation of Intels interpretation of the spec that's causing problems for the early revision of the card. Too much grey area in that section of the spec and not enough grey matter... or was it?! Why was this done possibly... because Intel sees Matrox (and all other Gcard manufactures) as competition. Especially when you write the spec, anyone you can snub makes perfect business sense.

Naw ;)

Now wether that is true or not isn't the issue. What has happened is just too loose of terms in the spec. Besides... who wanted to wait even longer for G400 back then?! It would have upped the developement cost even more... and delayed the card that much longer... for an early version of the G400 with nothing to test it on that would challenge it's design for nearly ~4 years (<3.5 for most of us)

I don't think so! :)

IceStorm
2nd February 2002, 04:30
Follow me on this (just like Haig saidExcept Haig got his tenses wrong and started this whole thing. You and Kruzin just followed along without actually reading what was posted.... "Do as I say, not as I do," as it were.

When the G400 was designed there wasn't a finalized AGP 2.0 spec. It came shortly afterward (May of '98) You're suggesting that Matrox designed the G400, then sat on the chip for a year? The G400 card was released around May/June 1999, not 1998. The G400 chips were done and sitting around doing nothing in April of 1998? Besides, this problem certaintly doesn't look like a chip-level issue. It looks like a PCB-level issue.

Besides you could only build in what you could foresee and Miss Cleo wasn't around back then. It's taken me about an hour to wrap my head around the mechanical section of the spec well enough to understand that the only loophole is to set up any dual mode cards with TYPEDET# tied to ground. Matrox couldn't do the same in 12 months time?

The real problem here is one of timing. Intel was short-sighted when they didn't spec out a "universal add-on component."You don't always get what you want, although I can see why Intel would prefer to spec a universal slot over a universal card.

Now wether that is true or not isn't the issue. What has happened is just too loose of terms in the spec. Besides... who wanted to wait even longer for G400 back then?! It wasn't the most straightforward spec ever written, but it's not entirely ambigious.

I don't have a problem with Matrox screwing up, provided they do the right thing in the end. What I have a problem with is when people tell me I'm wrong for saying so without providing any proof to back up their assertions. Saying that the card notching and TYPEDET# aren't related is false. If you want me to believe otherwise, you're going to have to prove it.

KevinST
2nd February 2002, 07:20
Simple question...... did Matrox intentionaly not connect the TYPEDET to ground on the very first revision of the G400, or was it a small design / manufacturing mistake???

All subsequent G400's have had TYPEDET tied down to ground, and even Haig has said the TYPEDET should be grounded, so I assume there's no question as to "if" the TYPEDET pin should be grounded (like there was back at Christmas when I raised this issue, or even at the beginning of this thread).

Greebe
2nd February 2002, 12:58
Kruzin nor I misunderstood what Haig said... and I don't believe he did get his tenses wrong either... it's just the difference between talking to Joe Schmoe off the street 24/7 and Engineers 24/7... if you have to address one predominately more often than another (especially in forums like this) then you typically do the same always... unless it's neccessary to clairify in further detail.

Besides Ken and I were only havin fun... can you not see that? (it was late on a Friday night... geesh)

OK I was off by a year... big flyin monkey poop! I knew that didn't sound right when I posted it but it was late and said what the heck and posted anyway, then crashed.


I don't have a problem with Matrox screwing up, provided they do the right thing in the end.

Did they not make the neccessary change once they could test it on the very first AGP 2.0 slot mb's?

YES... to TYPEDET#


What I have a problem with is when people tell me I'm wrong for saying so without providing any proof to back up their assertions. Saying that the card notching and TYPEDET# aren't related is false. If you want me to believe otherwise, you're going to have to prove it.


The keying has nothing todo with it in the real world. Do the keyings actually signal anything, provide some form of feedback or the like? No not at all. Back then there weren't universal slots, they were all keyed one way or another. Sure the spec says somewhat differently in what todo, but then Matrox's solution was completely different that what others had done and that's called innovation. Make it FIT in whatever AGP slot which will ensure it'll work with all MB's available so maximum compatability (and sales) is insured. This is business ie the REAL world... which is something that the spec does not take into concideration.


When you have a company like Intel which writes a spec with as many loopholes and grey area as this spec has init and has a history of making agonizing changes to how they implement a spec... well you should see how that's a major problem, NO?!

Besides the bottem line is this... there still wasn't a single mb on the market which had an AGP 1.5v slot til well after the G400 was introduced and it's only now there's a problem with how Intel decided to implement the spec differently yet again. It's much easier to further clairify a spec which has been around for better than 3.7 years on paper than to address what would have been done in the REAL WORLD at the very beginning of it's conception in hardware. I know I've been there when designing electronics... it's a real PITA... especially when your waiting for multiple entities to actually cement the standard which affects what you're all trying to achieve.

IceStorm
2nd February 2002, 14:39
Kruzin nor I misunderstood what Haig said... and I don't believe he did get his tenses wrong either... So you three joking that JohnK wants Matrox to go around removing the notch on old Matrox cards was something that came out of JohnK stating Matrox shouldn't have put the notch there in the first place?

No, you two and Haig misread what JohnK said in the first place. JohnK pointed out that the notch shouldn't be there, not that it should be removed after the fact. You all got the tense of his argument wrong. I can see you and Kruzin not bothering to read the Matrox forum thread I linked to, but ignorance is a poor excuse.

Besides Ken and I were only havin fun... can you not see that? (it was late on a Friday night... geesh) Sure, except that you're doing it at the expense of an end-user, and that end-user didn't say what you three think he said.

Did they not make the neccessary change once they could test it on the very first AGP 2.0 slot mb's?

YES... to TYPEDET#

But this isn't relevant. The specification didn't change between the time the card was designed and the first AGP 4x cards hit the market (unless we're going with the PCB-built-in April, 1998 theory). The cards should have been built properly in the first place.

The keying has nothing todo with it in the real world.I'd call keeping the card OUT of slots it doesn't belong in a "real-world" use for keying.
Do the keyings actually signal anything, provide some form of feedback or the like?No, but the TYPEDET# signal which is supposed to match the keying is used in two out of the three slot types in the spec. Keying should tell you what TYPEDET# is set to.
Make it FIT in whatever AGP slot which will ensure it'll work with all MB's available so maximum compatability (and sales) is insured.Making it fit while violating spec in the "wrong" way is not ethical.

Besides the bottem line is this... there still wasn't a single mb on the market which had an AGP 1.5v slot til well after the G400 was introduced and it's only now there's a problem with how Intel decided to implement the spec differently yet again. This is not the first time that I've heard comments about how Intel is implementing their own spec "differently". The spec hasn't changed since May, 1998. Exactly how is Intel implementing it differently? Tell me when/where the spec was appended between now and May, 1998, to cause this situation. I get tired of people saying Intel changed something, yet never pointing out what it is.

The "bottom line" is that Matrox read the spec, didn't fully understand the ramifications of leaving TYPEDET# open, and built PCBs that not only violate spec, but violate it in the "wrong" way. Now there are people left with cards that won't work in the P4B266 because Asus added a feature to prevent non-1.5v compliant cards from destroying the motherboard.

Greebe
2nd February 2002, 15:58
drop back two steps and PUNT!

Ice do you have a clue as to how any electronics design and specs apply to reality... I honestly don't think so.

xortam
2nd February 2002, 17:10
Much to do about nothing. How many people are affected by this? Matrox might even exchange their cards for the few customers that run into this.

How about all the HW that is now useless because the manufacturers don't see a business case for delivering new drivers for new OSes? That's the biz.

Wombat
2nd February 2002, 17:32
But this isn't relevant. The specification didn't change between the time the card was designed and the first AGP 4x cards hit the market (unless we're going with the PCB-built-in April, 1998 theory). The cards should have been built properly in the first place.

The spec formed while the G400 was in late stages of development. It's not a "theory we're going with." If Intel had really cared, they would have taken outside input or something. And then every video card maker out there would have had something to say to fix the gap in the specs.




Making it fit while violating spec in the "wrong" way is not ethical.

This was not a choice about ethics. It's a quality card, with an admitted kludge to overcome a hurtle all video card mfrs encountered. I also don't know how you deemed Matrox's implementation "violating the wrong way." I checked, there's no appendix to the spec on "How to Correctly Violate the Spec."


but ignorance is a poor excuse. And being smart enough to read a spec doesn't excuse a combatant, shitty, arrogant, personality, but you keep going anyway.

Haig
2nd February 2002, 19:54
John suggested that we shouldn't have included the 4x notch on our 2x boards.

In turn, I said if we did that, we would not work in 4x only motherboards, which we do.

There's a difference between fitting the card in the slot based on the notch(key) and what voltage is applied to the card depending on a pin that's depending on what connector type the motherboard is going to use. That's why I said these are 2 different issues.

First, the notches have absolutely nothing to do with the way Universal slots determine AGP signaling level.

Who's talking about a universal slot? This asus motherboard doesn't even have a universal slot becuase if it did, then there would be no problem since a universal slot is supposed to accept both signals and will supply the voltage accordingly depending on typedet.

They rely exclusively on TYPEDET# to determine signaling level.

Agreed, but we're not talking about a motherboard with a universal slot.

JohnK was stating that since the first-run G400 MAX cards are wired up with TYPEDET# open, they shouldn't have a 1.5v notch. He's right.

Yes he is and I never said otherwise. Not that it means anything but using the same pcb on a 1.5v ONLY motherboard that doesn't have this typedet validation works. I've listed a few of the motherboards on the thread in our forum.

Haig

IceStorm
3rd February 2002, 00:07
drop back two steps and PUNT!

Ice do you have a clue as to how any electronics design and specs apply to reality... I honestly don't think so.
So because I can read a spec, but don't work in the industry, I'm not qualified to determine that JohnK's correct? Uh-huh...

The spec formed while the G400 was in late stages of development. It's not a "theory we're going with." So Matrox sat on the G400 chip and board design for over a year, based on your thinking. Spec finished May, 1998. Card launched May, 1999, or thereabouts. While I'm not saying its out of the question, it would explain why Matrox's product cycle seems to be so long.

I also don't know how you deemed Matrox's implementation "violating the wrong way." I checked, there's no appendix to the spec on "How to Correctly Violate the Spec." Spec states that two types of slots check TYPEDET#. It doesn't state that checking TYPEDET# is an option for the 3.3v. In that light, any card that's going to be a dual mode card should set TYPEDET# to ground, not open. That's how I interpret the spec. This also seems to be the way nVidia card makers interpreted it as well as later Matrox designs. There's a list of cards (http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/october/011029_i845_AGP/011029_i845_AGP.htm)that Van's Hardware tested at the bottom of the page. While he's not the most unbiased person around, I trust he can use a multimeter.
And being smart enough to read a spec doesn't excuse a combatant, shitty, arrogant, personality, but you keep going anyway.I'm not taking any of this personally. I'm also not going to roll over and agree that Matox isn't "wrong" in this case.

John suggested that we shouldn't have included the 4x notch on our 2x boards.

In turn, I said if we did that, we would not work in 4x only motherboards, which we do.
No, that's not what you said. You said:

Why would we take out the 4x key? This would mean that it would not work in a 4x system which it does. Don't confuse the agp notch with the voltage becuase these are 2 separate issues you are talking about.
The AGP notch MUST match TYPEDET#. Find me a place in the spec, anyone, where it says they don't have to match. As per spec you can't divorce the two from each other as you seem to be suggesting above.

The old G400 MAX card rev works with both, but it violates spec when it comes to TYPEDET#. That's possible, and you and I have already proven it's possible. But that doesn't make it right.

Who's talking about a universal slot? You were, Haig, when you said:
Follow me here The 4x indication notch will allow the card to fit in a 4x or a universal agp slotted motherboard. Typedet has nothing to do with this. hence my reply.

Greebe
3rd February 2002, 00:14
What you decided this all was about is a personal vendetta against anyone whom makes any statement against yours... no proof is good enough, no matter how knowledgeable we are on the subject or in the industry.

How sad

IceStorm
3rd February 2002, 00:20
no proof is good enough, no matter how knowledgeable we are on the subject or in the industry.
Not true. I'd like proof that somewhere in black and white Matrox wasn't wrong to do what they did when they wired up the board for 3.3v. Find me something in the specs that say it's ok to do this with a card that has a notch for 1.5v operation.

So far, all I get is people saying that Matrox tried to overcome a problem with the spec. Along with that, I get the impression that you're agreeing what Matrox did was appropriate. But what I don't see is anyone posting a thought process that would lead to this conclusion. You're saying it's due to the spec not being finalized, but that doesn't make much sense to me - you're saying it's ok to design to a draft spec and not validate it against the final spec after the spec's released and well before the product goes to market? Exactly how can that be considered acceptable?

Greebe
3rd February 2002, 00:40
Because noone who took part in the design process of the original G400's cares to appease your morbid desire to prove it to you at this point. You are akin to a smartass punk kid whom without the forsight or sensibility to know when you've killed any chance finding why all this is with your degrading attacks against those whom at least once upon a time were attempting to help you see the forest from the trees.

IceStorm
3rd February 2002, 00:52
You are akin to a smartass punk kid whom without the forsight or sensibility to know when you've killed any chance finding why all this is with your degrading attacks against those whom at least once upon a time were attempting to help you see the forest from the trees.You sound like a jaded engineer who feels he doesn't have to bother explaining his rationale when confronted with the errors in his logic after he's made his first attempt at explaining the situation.

You gave a chronology. You were off by a year. I pointed this out. You've never gone back to explain that missing year. If you can't/don't want to, that's fine, but don't expect me to take that as a valid reason for Matrox having defective card designs.

Greebe
3rd February 2002, 00:55
Oh that's right I didn't did I


OK I was off by a year... big flyin monkey poop! I knew that didn't sound right when I posted it but it was late and said what the heck and posted anyway, then crashed.

What a putz

Greebe
3rd February 2002, 00:58
I didn't design the G400... think you need Miss Cleo for this cause all avenues from getting the answer in the specific form you want it in is now a burnt bridge with you on the wrong side.

IceStorm
3rd February 2002, 00:59
I didn't say you didn't reply to it, just that you've not gone back to explain the missing year...

I am not assuming you designed the G400. I honestly don't know/remember who you work for.

I "burnt bridges" ? I'm defending a poster in a Tech Support forum from the ridicule of the jaded support people. And for that I've "burnt bridges" ?

KevinST
3rd February 2002, 01:36
It seems to me that the arguments are revolving around whether Matrox released the early PCB's without testing against AGP 4x (hence TYPEDET open) and then when they did test against AGP4x they fixed the issues to make the card AGP 4x, thus closing the TYPEDET pin (I can't quote anything to back this up - it's the overall feeling I have of the direction of the discussion). This is incorrect as Matrox have 2 PCB's 906 01 and 906 02, both of which are non AGP 4x cards, however TYPEDET is open on the 906 01 card and closed on the 906 02 card.
So, with this in mind, I still maintain that Matrox intended the TYPEDET pin to be closed from day one and that the origonal PCB B]906 01[/B] had either a design mistake or a manufacturing mistake in it which was fixed in the very next revision.
I've worked in design and tech support in Security Systems, microprocessor development tools and network equipment... and I've know of this to happen in every single industry.


I appreciate what MURC has done for Martox users, and the knowledge that's contained within the minds of the forum, and I also understand your need to defend the Matrox products. However, I'm getting a little fed up with the arrogance of some of you.
In the thread I started back in December about this very issue (http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30491 I was flamed for even suggesting that TYPEDET should be open, that Matrox had the spec right, and Asus had it wrong. Even at the beginning of this thread we had this

>the TYPEDET pin should be connected to ground on all G400's.

You know, if you want to bring that up again, the spec hasn't changed. It still says floating. If Matrox follows the spec, and the MB mfr doesn't, then it's not Matrox's fault.


Please realise that it is possible for non "Super MURC" and "moderators" to be right.

KevinST
3rd February 2002, 02:06
Greebe, did I say it was you who said TYPEDET should be open???? look back over this post and the other one I linked to - you'll see plenty "Super MURCers" telling me that I'm wrong.

Oh - do you really think it's mature and correct to give details of another posters work details??? I would suggest you consider editing your post to make it a little more professional - after all, I thought the idea of moderators was to be responsible???

Edit: Greebe - I'm glad you (or someone else) removed your post.

Haig
3rd February 2002, 21:19
I'm defending a poster in a Tech Support forum from the ridicule of the jaded support people.

It's unfortunate that you feel I wanted/had (whatever tense you want to use) to ridicule our own client on our public forum. None the less, that's your opinion and you can keep it.

If John felt/feels that/this way, I'm sure he would've/would let me know. He doesn't need someone else to come to his rescue.

No, that's not what you said. You said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would we take out the 4x key? This would mean that it would not work in a 4x system which it does. Don't confuse the agp notch with the voltage becuase these are 2 separate issues you are talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes that is what I said and I will say it again. Why would we not include/take out (whatever tense/text you want to use) the 4x notch? The 2x board works in a system, that has a 4x key/notch.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's talking about a universal slot?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You were, Haig, when you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow me here The 4x indication notch will allow the card to fit in a 4x or a universal agp slotted motherboard. Typedet has nothing to do with this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hence my reply.

You first mentioned it on our forums here on your post dated January 29th:

http://forum.matrox.com/mgaforum/Forum1/HTML/007876-2.html

Ever since then, you keep bringing it up, hence my reply.

In any case, our cards have a universal connector, the voltage is determined by typedet. Hence, the keying/notches are not the determining factor for the voltage. This is made public on Intel's site.

Regading the early G400 boards, I will give people an update on our thread sometime this week.

Haig

Rags
3rd February 2002, 21:44
Reading the spec, it's obvious they wanted to use the type det to allow a universal connector to determine what type of card was in the slot.

Now, it had no foresight that a motherboard company would put that det in a 1.5v only design to protect from instability (that's why it's there, not because of frying a motherboard slot).

What Matrox did was make a universal card that would detect what voltage the slot was, and then switch to that mode automatically. Ironically, the G400 is the only card of its time to do this and as such is more compatible in more slots than any of the competing products.

Now to say that an early PCB with the type det open is a defect or is wrong, it's not. The original spec said that if the card could operate in 3.3, it would leave that open. Later, the spec was ammended to remove that part, and the later PCB's on the matrox cards reflect that change.

Rags

KevinST
4th February 2002, 02:30
1.5v only design to protect from instability (that's why it's there, not because of frying a motherboard slot).
Contradicts Asus and a few other sites that state that if a 3.3v only AGP card is placed in a AGP slot connected to a 1.5v only chipset, the motherboard is damaged.


Now to say that an early PCB with the type det open is a defect or is wrong, it's not. The original spec said that if the card could operate in 3.3, it would leave that open. Later, the spec was ammended to remove that part, and the later PCB's on the matrox cards reflect that change.
Contradicts both what Haig has said in the past (he's even advised that customers can ground TYPEDET themselves on cards where it is not grounded), ... also, do you have a copy of the original spec, and the currently available spec to show the differencees???

Rags
4th February 2002, 07:57
Originally posted by KevinST

Contradicts both what Haig has said in the past (he's even advised that customers can ground TYPEDET themselves on cards where it is not grounded), ... also, do you have a copy of the original spec, and the currently available spec to show the differencees???
Not only do I have a copy of the original, but I have a copy of the ammended notes to correct for uninversal cards.

Rags

KevinST
4th February 2002, 08:42
I'm sure that you' knew this was going to be asked....

Care to upload the documents and provide a link to them so we can all see the differences???

Sasq
4th February 2002, 08:57
hmmm an interesting read can be had here (http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2001/agp4x_update_e/index2.php)

particulary the line

The renewed inspection of the AGP2.0 specifications confirmed that the AGP universal slot is the only AGP slot reading the A2 pin for distinguishing between 3.3V and 1.5V graphic boards and therefore recognizing a graphic board to comply with AGP4x or not.

Dan

KevinST
4th February 2002, 09:06
I agree it is an interesting article, however as (AFAIK) the G400 is designed to go into a Universal AGP slot, so the TYPEDET# should have been used.

I'm really mystified why there's been so much argument on this issue... it's almost as if no one can believe that Matrox might have made a mistake.
Haig himself has said that TYPEDET# should be grounded, and has suggested to a customer that they wire the TYPEDET pin to ground themselves.

Rags
4th February 2002, 12:50
The G400 was designed and put to PCB before the change was made. Look at issue16 on Intel's site for notes considering the change.

The final PDF is still on their site, it states clearly that ALL 3.3V cards leave TYPEDET# open.

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/agp/downloads/agp20.pdf

Page 219, bottom of the page.
"All 3.3V cards leave TYPEDET# open."

On page 222:
"On an A.G.P. 1.5 volt signaling add-in card, TYPEDET# is hardwired to
ground. Note that the A.G.P. clock and reset will be driven at a 3.3 volt signaling level regardless of what I/O
signaling levels (3.3 volt/1.5 volt) is selected by the add-in card. Components that are not 3.3 volt tolerant must
divide the 3.3 volt A.G.P. clock and reset signaling levels down to avoid possible damage to the inputs of these
devices."
This tells you the consequences of having the improper voltage going to a 3.3V only card. It WILL NOT damage the motherboard.
Again, this refers to the universal slot only.


Here's a note on article 16 about the AGP4X proposed change (I am sure that Matrox and other mfrs were involved in getting this change made).
http://www.intel.com/update/archive/issue16/stories/ss2.htm

Note: "A Universal card should ground the TYPEDET# pin. On power-up, a motherboard that supports both 3.3 and 1.5 volt signaling will set Vddq based on TYPEDET#. "
First this suggests to the change be made to make the cards used in universal slots to use the new 1.5V signaling. Second it clearly implies the TYPEDET# is to be used on universal slots.

No provision was made for universal cards until the ECR request was made. The first PCB of the G400 had already been made after the change. Now after the change was made, then the G400 refelected that change.

Asus was wrong to use the TYPEDET# IMHO.

Rags

Rags
4th February 2002, 12:54
I agree it is an interesting article, however as (AFAIK) the G400 is designed to go into a Universal AGP slot, so the TYPEDET# should have been used.
Wrong. All HWQ assessments were done on 3.3V slots, so by their logic, they would stick with a signalling that would be proven to be okay. Now, after the provision for universal add in cards such as the G400 were made, the G400 reflected that change, and motherboards with 1.5 signalling were also available for HWQ testing, thus it was proper to change the PCB at that time.




I'm really mystified why there's been so much argument on this issue... it's almost as if no one can believe that Matrox might have made a mistake.
Matrox didn't make a mistake. They were going by the specs as they were. Matrox came out with an innovative design that was eventually adopted by other mfrs, and as such gave enough grounds to ammend the spec. Matrox followed the spec after that change was made.



Haig himself has said that TYPEDET# should be grounded, and has suggested to a customer that they wire the TYPEDET pin to ground themselves.
It should be grounded, because the spec has changed. If you want it grounded, then ground it.

Rags

HalvDan
4th February 2002, 14:35
Hi

I'm a happy owner of a G400 Max from the first revision and it's been the best graphics card I've ever had. But now I've bought an Abit TH7II-RAID motherboard that's on it's way and I'm a little bit worried over this typedet issue. As I understand it's up to the G400 to switch to 1.5 V, if you have a motherboard with a 1.5 V only agp slot that don't check the typedet. Have anyone tested a first revision G400 card that is not grounded on a 1.5 V only motherboard (one that doesn't check the typedet)?

/Dan

Rags
4th February 2002, 17:47
Originally posted by HalvDan
Hi

I'm a happy owner of a G400 Max from the first revision and it's been the best graphics card I've ever had. But now I've bought an Abit TH7II-RAID motherboard that's on it's way and I'm a little bit worried over this typedet issue. As I understand it's up to the G400 to switch to 1.5 V, if you have a motherboard with a 1.5 V only agp slot that don't check the typedet. Have anyone tested a first revision G400 card that is not grounded on a 1.5 V only motherboard (one that doesn't check the typedet)?

/Dan
Hi Dan,

The G400 will work fine in a 1.5 only slot. The only issue is the earlier PCB of the G400 with that Asus board. AFAIK, those boards are the only ones witha 1.5 only slot with a TYPEDET#.

Rags

KevinST
5th February 2002, 03:31
This tells you the consequences of having the improper voltage going to a 3.3V only card. It WILL NOT damage the motherboard. there why are there several reports of non1.5v AGP cards damaging 1.5v only chipset motherboards???
As you have pointed out, the AGP spec was written before any 1.5v chipset's were available, therefore the damage assesment would have been theoretical.


Here's a note on article 16 about the AGP4X proposed change... unfortunatly, this article is not dated :( (not that I can see anyway)


Asus was wrong to use the TYPEDET# IMHO. Personally, it is the only way I can see that they would be able to prove electrically that the AGP card will work at 1.5v. You can't rely on the physical connector cut out as there are several cards out there that have the AGP4x / 1.5v cut out but do not support 1.5v


It should be grounded, because the spec has changed. If you want it grounded, then ground it.
It's a pity you didn't agree with me on that back at Christmas when you tried to suggest that the sate of the pin would be changed automatically by the card

At the end of the day, we're going to have to wait for Matrox to come back to us with what they are going to do about G400's that do not have TYPEDET grounded.
If, as you suggest, it was a design requirement to leave TYPEDET open then I guess Matrox are not under any requirement to swap units out.

Rags
5th February 2002, 07:56
Is that what you are looking for?

A swap?

I don't think you will get one.


Not because one particular motherboard has chosen to ignore the specs. Even the latest AGP specs are insisting that TYPEDET be used in the universal slot.

Why is it a pity that I didn't agree with you back then? I misunderstood your issue, that's all. Even so, the G400 will work fine in a P4B266 motherboard.

Rags

KevinST
5th February 2002, 08:17
This thread is getting silly. We're not going to agree.
You've avoided coming back many of the points where I've questioned your sources or your statements (e.g. you claiming 1.5v AGP cards can't damage motherboards, dates on documents ) so why should I bother trying to continue a logically threaded conversation?

Anyway....
A swap??? That's what Haig has been indicating toward since Matrox started to be involved in a more helpful way than has been experienced on this forum.
Do I want a swap??? not really - I don't use my G400 - it's gathering dust... I became involved in this issue when I was one of the first to receive a P4B266, found others were having issues with G400's and thuought I would use my tech support and design skills in trying to help out.

If Haig says it's OK to wire the TYPEDET to GND and that nothing on the board will be effected then I'll do that.

I still can't understand wht you think Asus were wrong in using the TYPEDET pin to detect a valid 1.5v card... after all if the card is OK to be used in a universal slot (which I expect 99% of AGP cards would be... after all there's no physical reason for a card not to fit into a universal slot so it's in the manufacturers interest to have it work in a universal slot) then the TYPEDET pin will show the correct state.

And as for misunderstanding my issue in the other thread I gave up on??? I'm amazed that you could misunderstand me saying TYPEDET should be grounded... and I can't think of any statement you may have thought I said which would result in you suggesting the state of the TYPEDET pin is changed by the G400 card!

Rags
5th February 2002, 18:24
Originally posted by KevinST
This thread is getting silly. We're not going to agree.
You've avoided coming back many of the points where I've questioned your sources or your statements (e.g. you claiming 1.5v AGP cards can't damage motherboards, dates on documents ) so why should I bother trying to continue a logically threaded conversation?

Anyway....
A swap??? That's what Haig has been indicating toward since Matrox started to be involved in a more helpful way than has been experienced on this forum.
Do I want a swap??? not really - I don't use my G400 - it's gathering dust... I became involved in this issue when I was one of the first to receive a P4B266, found others were having issues with G400's and thuought I would use my tech support and design skills in trying to help out.

If Haig says it's OK to wire the TYPEDET to GND and that nothing on the board will be effected then I'll do that.

I still can't understand wht you think Asus were wrong in using the TYPEDET pin to detect a valid 1.5v card... after all if the card is OK to be used in a universal slot (which I expect 99% of AGP cards would be... after all there's no physical reason for a card not to fit into a universal slot so it's in the manufacturers interest to have it work in a universal slot) then the TYPEDET pin will show the correct state.

And as for misunderstanding my issue in the other thread I gave up on??? I'm amazed that you could misunderstand me saying TYPEDET should be grounded... and I can't think of any statement you may have thought I said which would result in you suggesting the state of the TYPEDET pin is changed by the G400 card!

You know, you sure are a class A ass.

I have been nothing but nice and helpful towards you and you have come off as a prick. Well, go be a prick, I am not discussing anything with a prick.

Rags

Zanna
6th February 2002, 17:40
:mad: My G400 Max does have a PCB 906-01 Rev.A

I have the same PCB revision of KevinST, then I suppose this doesn't work with P4B266.

Rags, does you have the same PCB rev? (you stated that your card it's working fine...)

If yes, what is your S/N ? (If you want, can leave the three last digits *obscured* ;) )

Where is assembled your card? Mine is made in Ireland.

===========

I readed the Haig statement on the Matrox forums.

I think only if I have a motherboard AGP4X compliant in the left hand and a graphics card AGP4X compatible in the right hand, there must be possible to use these two items together.

I want to stay with my matrox card until next serious Millennium GXXXX release, if I will be forced to buy an other graphics card, and Matrox doesn't have released nothing new, surely I will have to spend my moneies on one G-fart or other peasant Canadian things... :(

Is definitely sure to wire the TYPEDET# signal to ground?

It would be much beautiful one if someone (Haig?) even explain how to identify this pin (with one the attached photo, even), how to check if it is well connected, and eventually how to wire it to the ground !

*** A minimal digital multimeter cost less than a new card :D ***
(but I have already one)

Thank to everyone.

Greebe
6th February 2002, 17:50
Componet side of the card, second pin from the case front... if you have this PCB revision then it's open... we are all waiting for the official word on wether it's ok to ground.

Haig
6th February 2002, 18:41
and eventually how to wire it to the ground !

I can't show people how to modify our hardware becuase I am basically helping you folks put your card out of warranty.

I'm sure a smart young lad will eventually figure it out and tell you folks what to do.

Haig

Rags
6th February 2002, 19:06
Simply take a pencil and bridge the open R68 spot.

I will take a photo of it tonight if I get time when I get off work.

Rags

Rags
6th February 2002, 20:21
Here's where to find the resistor:
http://home.attbi.com/~ragsmatt/hoster/r68location.jpg

You can use a regular #2 pencil and bridged the two solder points, use a conductive pen, or a rear defrost repair kit to do the same if you wish not to solder.

Rags

Wombat
6th February 2002, 20:53
Gee Matt, it almost looks like Matrox was prepared to ground that resistor all along. Why, it's as if they were working off of information that could change at any moment.

Rags
6th February 2002, 21:03
Originally posted by Wombat
Gee Matt, it almost looks like Matrox was prepared to ground that resistor all along. Why, it's as if they were working off of information that could change at any moment.
Ya think?

Rags
6th February 2002, 21:03
Originally posted by Greebe
R68's location:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Show off your nice camera, so I have an elcheapo....nice pic BTW.

Rags

Greebe
6th February 2002, 21:11
another try :) (had to lighten it up a tad and adjust PSP gamma)

Zanna
7th February 2002, 18:40
Tanks Rags, tanks Greebe.
Images archived in order to eventually use them later..

Haig, I still waiting (with some other people) the Matrox final decision about this issue (tanks for your patience and for your support)

For a few time, I will not touch the graphics board (and, of course, I will not buy the new Asus P4 motherboard). :mad:

I will appreciate so much if Matrox itself can resolve this problem.

Maybe I will be successfull making hand-made modification to the board, maybe not.

Obviously you haven't asked us to made this modification.
Also obviously, I won't make a modification breaking my warranty! :D

Anywhere, there are a great percentage of users that does not have enough skill to use a soldering unit or other similar things to make this modification, and the Matrox Millennium G400 MAX card is still a well appreciated one, so there must be a solutions for these people that have spent some bucks on it and love to have this Graphics board in place of a G-fart ! :p

When Matrox will release the real new Millennium series, I surely will buy one of it, certainly remembering how good Matrox handled some strage startup problems on my old G400MAX....

If Matrox does not solve this, anywere, me and some other people can change the opinion about Matrox.

Onestly now my opinion about your company is good (my personal opinion about you Haig is better: Haig for president!), I am your customer since the times of the Matrox Mystique!

I understand that is costly to replace a lot of cards around the world, I will not ask this.

I only can say that one solution, that accomodate both Matrox and Users needs must be taken.

Waiting for the solution....

Haig
7th February 2002, 18:49
Greetings Zanna,

We will not be doing a re-call nor any type of re-work on the 2x model of the G400 as we do not believe that we did anything wrong 3 years ago.

Some people will undoubtably say the contrary but none the less, our decision is final.

Regards

Haig

Wombat
7th February 2002, 20:12
Zanna,
A good coating of graphite should do the trick on your G400. Use a wood pencil, with soft lead, for the best chance of success. It won't void your warranty: a little eraser, and it's all gone.

MetalCartman
1st March 2002, 05:16
After reading the whole thread here and at Matrox' Tech Support Forum, the final question:

I bought a P4B266-E yesterday, the red light is ON with my G400DH 32MB Rev.A and it will not power up.

Will shortening the R68 solder points with a pencil work or will it screw up my shiny new mainboard? Please answer YES or NO;)

Thx in advance!

Rags
1st March 2002, 06:07
Dude. How many times do I have to say it? IT WILL WORK FINE!!!!!!!!

Rags

MetalCartman
1st March 2002, 06:28
Thanks!

Sorry, didn't want to go you on the nerves! Was just a little confused...;)

Have a nice weekend!:cool:

MetalCartman
2nd March 2002, 06:42
Ok, here is what I did:

First tried it with a pencil, had no effect, the red light was still on.

Then I bridged the contacts with a very small piece of aluminium foil which I taped on the board. Red light was now off, and I could power up the system...BUT my monitor remained black, although the system was booting correctly (heard the windows startup sound). What the hell is going wrong here? :mad: Can't this G400 handle 1,5V? Anyone who had similar problems?

Any help would be highly appreciated, 'cause I hate this crappy Radeon VE which is in my rig at the moment...

Thx in advance,
Cartman

P.S.: Dear Matrox, please release your new allround 2D/3D/gaming/highend/whatever card!;)

MetalCartman
3rd March 2002, 05:56
Anybody?

Zanna
12th August 2002, 05:31
Hi MetalCartman (and to everyone...)....

I'm turned back to my old idea (about buyng a new M/B).
Originally I seen the new shining matrox Parhelia, and I was thinking about to change MB and graphics card, but after acquiring the information about lack of win98se drivers, I decided to buy a new P4B-XXX in September, remaining with my G400MAX.

Have you obtained any success shortening the R68 pin on the G400MAX?

Must I turn my thinkings on other M/B of other manufacturers?

I like ASUS and I want an Intel CHIPSET, but if I must change for another good M/B manufacturer (same chipset brand) or at least another good video card manufacturer, i will do!

Thanks.

MetalCartman
28th August 2002, 06:39
Hi Zanna,

yes, the good news is, I had success. i just soldered the two soldering points of R68 together, using a standard soldering iron (30Watts) equipped with a fine tip. the card is now correctly indentified as a 1.5V device by the Asus board. The modification does no harm to the card and it still works in boards with AGP 2x/1x.

Cartman

Guru
28th August 2002, 06:55
Originally posted by Rags
I have a G400 Max that is an early version that doesn't do 4X, it works fine in the P4B 266.

Rags

Same here but mine does not work (MSI 845E)!

jwexqm
8th March 2003, 09:15
Just to let you all know that I had success getting a Shuttle SB51G to power-up with my initial revision PCB (906-01) G400 DualHead after I installed a 100R surface mount resistor across R68.

Previously the machine wouldn't even turn on - thanks for nailing this one down.

James