If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
G550 and Doom3???
I know I'm wishing here, but...
P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. ....is it possible? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Noozer" wrote in message news:WOXQc.29792$M95.14846@pd7tw1no...
I know I'm wishing here, but... P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. ...is it possible? No. Doom3 requires DX9 support, and the G550 doesn't have it, even via software emulation. Rick |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:49:01 -0700, "Rick" wrote:
| "Noozer" wrote in message news:WOXQc.29792$M95.14846@pd7tw1no... | I know I'm wishing here, but... | | P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't | start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. | | This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary | display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. | | ...is it possible? | | No. Doom3 requires DX9 support, and the G550 doesn't | have it, even via software emulation. I don't think Matrox cards, even the exalted Parhelia, can handle Doom3. There are beta drivers available from Matrox for the P650 and up that claim DX9 support. But the fact that Matrox apparently isn't continuing work on them makes me suspect they have insolvable problems. Larc §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I'm a Matrox fan, but I'm really happy with my ATI 9600.
Time to pry that Matrox from your cold dead fingers. "Noozer" wrote in message news:WOXQc.29792$M95.14846@pd7tw1no... I know I'm wishing here, but... P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. ...is it possible? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Noozer wrote:
I know I'm wishing here, but... P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. ...is it possible? No, it's not possible. Not only do you need a DirectX 9 card, but one that's fast and with at least 128MB of RAM. The Parhelia is far too slow (and has inadequate DX9 support). The G550? No way. Based on reviews, I wouldn't recommend anything slower than an ATI 9600XT 128MB for this game. Regards, -- *Art |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick" wrote in message ... "Noozer" wrote in message news:WOXQc.29792$M95.14846@pd7tw1no... I know I'm wishing here, but... P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. ...is it possible? No. Doom3 requires DX9 support, and the G550 doesn't have it, even via software emulation. I figured as much... This is the wifes machine and she NEEDS reliable dualhead. Guess no Doom3 for her. The game is pretty dissappointing anyhow. Thanks! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Noozer" wrote in message news:Td7Rc.35492$gE.34603@pd7tw3no...
"Rick" wrote in message ... "Noozer" wrote in message news:WOXQc.29792$M95.14846@pd7tw1no... I know I'm wishing here, but... P4 @ 3Ghz and a gig of memory with a 16meg Matrox G550 card. Doom3 won't start claiming drivers aren't providing the needed functions. This is configured for dualhead with independent resolutions. Secondary display given only enough memory to run 32bit 1280x1024 @ 85hz. ...is it possible? No. Doom3 requires DX9 support, and the G550 doesn't have it, even via software emulation. I figured as much... This is the wifes machine and she NEEDS reliable dualhead. Guess no Doom3 for her. The game is pretty dissappointing anyhow. Thanks! One option might be to switch to an older dual head G450 PCI card, and then add a high-end AGP DX9 card for Doom3. PCI G450's aren't going for very much on eBay, e.g. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=5114270688 Rick |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think Matrox cards, even the exalted Parhelia, can handle
Doom3. There are beta drivers available from Matrox for the P650 and up that claim DX9 support. But the fact that Matrox apparently isn't continuing work on them makes me suspect they have insolvable problems. I have seen DOOM3 running on a Matrox Parhelia 128MB card using the same beta driver and it does indeed run but rather slow at 640 x 480. For today's gaming needs, buy ATI or Nvidia based products. The only insolvable problem is that people are trying to run software on hardware that does not support it. It is not that hard to comprehend. Kind of like putting unleaded gas in your engine that runs on leaded gas. DirectX 9.x requires hardware to run all these effects in the games, and the current line of Matrox graphics cards simply do not support them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ender.Wiggin wrote:
I have seen DOOM3 running on a Matrox Parhelia 128MB card using the same beta driver and it does indeed run but rather slow at 640 x 480. For today's gaming needs, buy ATI or Nvidia based products. I put in an ATI 9600XT in my machine yesterday, so I could play Doom 3 better than with the Parhelia-128R. And yes, it is faster. But the card is going out again. I find that the ATI card is problematic compared to the Matrox Parhelia, at least for anything *except* playing the latest games. - When using two independent monitors, you can only get Direct3D on *one* monitor. - When the card gets warm, higher resolutions start shaking. - The gamma curve is higher order, and not a predictable one you can easily adjust with a single value. You can choose between distinguishing dark colours and distinguishing midtones, but can't get both. - There's no video overlay on a second monitor. - You can't even drag windows using overlay between monitors. - Whenever opening display properties, at least one of the monitors will shake wildly and draw horisontal black flickering lines for a second or so. - There's no way to add "missing" resolutions, or delete ones you don't want. Many of the above problems are presumably because the cards only have a single RAMDAC, but some seems to be because the card is cheaply made, with only a single thing in mind: Gaming. The only insolvable problem is that people are trying to run software on hardware that does not support it. It is not that hard to comprehend. Kind of like putting unleaded gas in your engine that runs on leaded gas. DirectX 9.x requires hardware to run all these effects in the games, and the current line of Matrox graphics cards simply do not support them. True, but on the other hand, they support a lot of things that a gaming card doesn't support. Just the inability to watch TV on my 17" monitor while working on the 19" is enough that the 9600XT goes out again, only to be used as a spare. -- *Art |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Arthur Hagen wrote:
Ender.Wiggin wrote: I have seen DOOM3 running on a Matrox Parhelia 128MB card using the same beta driver and it does indeed run but rather slow at 640 x 480. For today's gaming needs, buy ATI or Nvidia based products. I put in an ATI 9600XT in my machine yesterday, so I could play Doom 3 better than with the Parhelia-128R. And yes, it is faster. But the card is going out again. I find that the ATI card is problematic compared to the Matrox Parhelia, at least for anything *except* playing the latest games. - When using two independent monitors, you can only get Direct3D on *one* monitor. - When the card gets warm, higher resolutions start shaking. How high is "higher"? Have you tried additional cooling? - The gamma curve is higher order, and not a predictable one you can easily adjust with a single value. You can choose between distinguishing dark colours and distinguishing midtones, but can't get both. - There's no video overlay on a second monitor. - You can't even drag windows using overlay between monitors. - Whenever opening display properties, at least one of the monitors will shake wildly and draw horisontal black flickering lines for a second or so. That is not normal. - There's no way to add "missing" resolutions, or delete ones you don't want. Third party utility called "powerstrip". Many of the above problems are presumably because the cards only have a single RAMDAC, but some seems to be because the card is cheaply made, with only a single thing in mind: Gaming. Uh, a Parhelia costs approximately 3 times what a 9600XT costs. I think it is unreasonable to expect the same quality of secondary components. You migh want to try a Fire GL T2. The only insolvable problem is that people are trying to run software on hardware that does not support it. It is not that hard to comprehend. Kind of like putting unleaded gas in your engine that runs on leaded gas. DirectX 9.x requires hardware to run all these effects in the games, and the current line of Matrox graphics cards simply do not support them. True, but on the other hand, they support a lot of things that a gaming card doesn't support. Just the inability to watch TV on my 17" monitor while working on the 19" is enough that the 9600XT goes out again, only to be used as a spare. ?????? Why are you unable to watch TV on your 17" monitor while working on the 19"? That mode of operation works very nicely on all current ATI boards. In display settings, look at "overlay". -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|