Graphics Problem

Unfortunately, there is no utility to alter the core voltage, so I'm stuffed on that one.

But, again, shouldn't matter, this chip has worked with this board for quite a while (months in fact, 6 hours a day, intense gaming), so it shouldn't need adjusting.


What's your take on the board being damaged?

 

Rockster2U wrote:

Firstly, from Jim Eshelman:

Secondly, from Ron Martell:

Digitalis wrote:

As Holmes once said:

It would appear that the only possible cause of the issue which has not yet been eliminated is a mobo problem so ...

Out of interest though, click Start - Run and type "DXDIAG" (without the quotes). Look under the Display tab - are any problems noted?

 

Brett - now you really have me wondering if I need to get glasses or something. I read a few other things in the article you linked to but didn't see the quote from Ron Martell that was thrown in your more recent post. Like I said before, your link reinforced my opinion - so doesn't a re - reread of that same link.

You missed a couple of comments from the article you referenced:

"But first, THREE EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOREGOING:

EXCEPTION No. 1: For systems with more than 128 MB of RAM, setting a VCache maximum of about 70% of your total RAM is recommended as prophylaxis against run-away VCache growth in rare, specialized situations. (A tip of the hat to MS-MVPs Ron Martell, Ovidiu Popa, and Alex Nichol for months of experimentation and documentation of these details and recommendations.) "


"THE "CONSERVATIVE SWAP FILE USAGE" TWEAK
A WIn98/ME recommendation floating around various magazines and newsgroups is to add the following line to the [386Enh] section of the SYSTEM.INI file: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

Those who have used it, and reported favorably on it, say that it keeps their swap file usage lower, does not impede performance in any situation they have noticed, and seems to improve it in other situations. I have seen this reported on systems with 128 MB to 256 MB of RAM. I have seen it on my own 128 MB system.

Is there anything to this? What does it do?

Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Sometimes not.

Based on benchmark testing by MS-MVPs Mike Burgess, Alex Nichol, and other MS-MVP colleagues, I have concluded that this tweak can be of real value in many Win98/ME systems with 128 MB of RAM or more (and on some 64 MB systems). If your machine has sufficient RAM that, for your particular use of your computer, there is relatively little swap file usage, then this tweak will probably improve system performance by reducing the overhead in swap file maintenance activities that you do not really need.[NOTE: In contrast to behavior in Win98, testing of this by Mike Burgess in Windows Millennium Edition showed no significant performance difference with or without it. However, because it does affect swap file run-away growth on some computers "” such as mine! "” I am presently recommending this on Windows ME.]

The default value of ConservativeSwapfileUsage was 1 in Win95, and 0 in Win98 and WinME. Therefore, this recommended tweak reverts a portion of the Win98/ME improved memory management system back to the way Win95 did things. (That’s what sounded like such a bad idea at first, because Win98 or ME is generally far superior to Win95 with regard to memory management.) A valid question, though, is whether it is a good (that is, useful) idea for systems that have grown past the RAM size originally contemplated as typical when Win98 was created. For many computers, the answer seems to be: Yes, it is. "

As an aside, I'll also argue with Watson, Sherlock Holmes, Jack the Ripper, you or The Queen herself in support of setting my own swap file parameters versus letting Windows do it, thank you.

Maybe I shouldn't have asked what I was missing - I just read this link quite differently than you, seeing most of the words, most of the time on mostly my screen.

 

Brett -

Not trying to get into a pi**ing contest here, I have had great results using Cache Manager on numerous systems. At the same time, you quote some valid opinions. Guess thats what makes it worth a try.


This quote from the program authors:

"Will Cacheman improve every system? "

"No. Cacheman is not a magic utility. Many Cacheman users have achieved great performance and/or system reaction time improvement, some even reported their system behaves after using Cacheman like after an expensive hardware upgrade. Of course, we have received a few reports where Cacheman was not able to help. We urge you to try it yourself and decide. "

 

We're obviously interpreting the content of that article very differently (particularly in relation to the possible benefits of "resource boosting" utilities)!

Here's some extracts from Jim's (usenet) posts:

and:

If you wish to continue this debate in more detail, maybe we should move it to a new thread so as not to distract anybody’s attention from Dig’s problem

 

Enough said - not trying to get into a pi**ing contest. I thought Cacheman would be worth a try re: this problem because its an easy change, requires minimal user intervention and can quickly be reset. Definately don't want to stray from Digitalis's problem - its got me scratching my head and yes, I'm grasping for straws here - he's tried most everything else.

 

wow , isn't this a hot one!!!!!

I tried DXDIAG, and it showed me this:

The file ELSAGMXD.DRV is uncertified, which means that it has not been tested by Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs. You may be able to get a certified driver from the manufacturer of the hardware device.
DirectDraw test results: All tests were successful.
Direct3D test results: All tests were successful.
AGP texturing test results: All tests were successful.

The driver it refers to was supplied by Elsa, and is the one that I have used since I have owned the card, no problems until this one.

I checked the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage" and it is already set to "1 ", but I don't know if cachemanager set it to this, it still starts from boot, so I have no idea.

Looks like a new board then eh?

Any Recommendations on a board under £80?

 

I have taken the initiative and ordered a board already, its a MSI K7T Turbo 2 .

I read a few reviews on it, and I am happy that it'll do everything I want.
Unless anybody has anymore to say on this matter, I suppose this thread is closed.

I'll post back with the results probably next week sometime, until then

--------------------------------CHEERS ALL!!! -----------------------------

 

I got a new Mobo:

MSI KT7 Turbo 2 (MS-6330)

I haven't tested the graphics yet, because I have a setting issue, I haven't seen this BIOS before, perhaps someone can help, please click the thread:

------------------UDMA100 on MSI mobo & seagate HDD? ---------------

Once I have sorted this setting issue, I'll test my graphics.

Cheers
Dig.

 

OK, I have the UDMA issue sorted.

The graphics have been tested quite rigorously, the problem seems to be pretty much solved, but I have said that before-only for it to come back quite soon afterwards.

But it IS NOT doing what it used to do, so I am happy.

Thank you all for any help/advice offered.

Job Done!!!

Dig.

 

Phew ------ Glad to hear it Dig. Congratulations. Thanks for posting back.