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?

"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

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 - §§§

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?
>
>

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

"Rick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "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!

"Noozer" <> wrote in message news:Td7Rc.35492$gE.34603@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Rick" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > "Noozer" <> wrote in message
> news:WOXQc.29792$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

> 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.

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

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)