Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77

Thread: Safe to mount a G400MAX on a i845D chipset?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Jeepin' to the grave Kruzin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, Wy, USA, Earth
    Posts
    6,543

    Talking

    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?
    Last edited by Kruzin; 1st February 2002 at 21:57.
    Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

  2. #2
    Jeepin' to the grave Kruzin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, Wy, USA, Earth
    Posts
    6,543

    Talking

    Or perhaps bubble gum?
    Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

  3. #3
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default Re: Thanks Tempest!

    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!!!

    I am simply thinking HOW ?

    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

  5. #5
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    I have a G400 Max that is an early version that doesn't do 4X, it works fine in the P4B 266.

    Rags

  6. #6
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  7. #7
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  8. #8
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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/...oads/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/...tories/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

  9. #9
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  10. #10
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  11. #11
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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

  13. #13
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    Here's where to find the resistor:


    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

  14. #14
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    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?

  15. #15
    Super MURCer Rags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    4,052

    Default

    Originally posted by Greebe
    R68's location:
    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

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

    Rags

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Safe to mount a G400MAX on a i845D chipset?
    By Zanna in forum Matrox Hardware
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 18th February 2007, 05:28
  2. Running a rack mount UPS on its side?
    By SteveC in forum General Hardware/Software
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 1st November 2004, 18:05
  3. Mount Kinabalu
    By lecter in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 30th October 2004, 09:56
  4. G400Max and i865 Chipset
    By ChenSoft in forum Matrox Hardware
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12th July 2003, 12:39
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 1st February 2000, 23:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •