VOGONS


First post, by cxm717

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Just like my other threads about driver performance Geforce256 driver performance, TNT2 driver performance and Rage128 driver performance

The card I used is a Matrox G400max (150/200). I used the same test setup: P3/800EB, intel OR840 board, 512MB 800MHz RDRAM and a Creative Soundblaster live.

Here are the benchmark results:

g400drvp398.png
Filename
g400drvp398.png
File size
457.89 KiB
Views
494 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
g400drvp399.png
Filename
g400drvp399.png
File size
264.79 KiB
Views
494 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

I am going to do a comparison of just the different TurboGLs but I'm going to do it on a 440BX board. The reason for this is the OR840 has no AGP aperture setting and it defaults to a size of 64MB. Matrox recommended an aperture setting of 256MB, lower than this and you may get texture corruption or crashes. I did test the games that worked fine with the TurboGL and an AGP aperture size of 64MB.

Reply 3 of 7, by Tiido

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It is interesting to see that here we see a general trend of higher performance with newer drivers but with other manufacturers comparisons I have seen show mostly the opposite 🤣.

T-04YBSC, a new YMF71x based sound card & Official VOGONS thread about it
Newly made 4MB 60ns 30pin SIMMs ~
mida sa loed ? nagunii aru ei saa 😜

Reply 4 of 7, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank Moderator
Rank
Moderator

I think the 256MB AGP Aperture recommendation is related to BIOS bugs with some motherboards. Digging through the MURC forum shows some people had major problems with the cards if AGP aperture wasn't at 256MB.

Look at TurboGL go. 😀 It's supposedly quite nice for K6-2/3 too. I think G400 is troublesome on those motherboards though. The usual AGP quirks.

Reply 5 of 7, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:

I think the 256MB AGP Aperture recommendation is related to BIOS bugs with some motherboards. Digging through the MURC forum shows some people had major problems with the cards if AGP aperture wasn't at 256MB.

Look at TurboGL go. 😀 It's supposedly quite nice for K6-2/3 too. I think G400 is troublesome on those motherboards though. The usual AGP quirks.

Can TurboGL be used with a G450? Support came with 6.x drivers..

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 6 of 7, by bofh.fromhell

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Fantastic job !
I had a feeling that Matrox improve over the driver revisions.
But its nice to know =)

The Matrox cards definitly have their limitations.
But I really like them as retro cards !

Reply 7 of 7, by cxm717

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Here are the TurboGL results on the 440BX chipset:

allg400tgl.png
Filename
allg400tgl.png
File size
187.11 KiB
Views
217 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

I included the 840 with driver 555/TGL 1.3 in the graph. I did test all of the games on the BX (D3D and OGL ICD) but I haven't made any graphs for it yet. The G400 is almost always faster on the BX than the 840, mostly just around 5% though. The reason there are no TGL results for Q2 engine games using the TGL with the 6.xx drivers is because you get some pretty bad texture corruption with dynamic lighting enabled.