Graphics accelerators (accelerators) are specialized graphics coprocessors that increase the efficiency of the video system. Their use frees the central processor from a large volume of operations with video data, since accelerators independently calculate which pixels to display on the screen and what their colors are.

Video accelerators

The image that we see on the monitor screen is the contents of the video memory output by a special digital-to-analog converter RAMDAC (Random Access Memory Digital to Analog Converter) and a scanning device. This content can be changed by both the central processor and the graphics processor of the video card - a 2D graphics accelerator (synonyms: 2D accelerator, 2D accelerator, Windows accelerator or GDI accelerator). Modern window interfaces require fast (in tenths of a second) redrawing of the screen contents when opening / closing windows, moving them, etc., otherwise the user will feel insufficiently fast response of the system to his actions. To do this, the processor would have to process data and transfer it over the bus at a speed that is only 2-3 times lower than the speed of RAMDAC, which is tens and even hundreds of megabytes per second, which is practically unrealistic even by modern standards. At one time, local buses were developed to increase the system performance, and later - 2D accelerators.

2D accelerators are specialized GPUs, capable of independently drawing the mouse cursor on the screen, window elements and standard geometric shapes provided by GDI - graphic the Windows library... 2D accelerators exchange data with the video memory via their own bus without loading the processor's system bus. By system bus 2D accelerator only receives GDI instructions from central processing unit, while the amount of transmitted data and processor load are hundreds of times less.

Modern 2D accelerators have a 64- or 128-bit data bus, and to use this bus effectively, a video card must have 2 or 4 MB of video memory, respectively, otherwise data will be transferred over a twice narrower bus with a corresponding loss in performance. We can say that 2D accelerators have reached perfection by now. All of them work so fast that, despite the fact that their performance on special tests may differ from model to model by 10-15%, the user will most likely not notice this difference. Therefore, when choosing a 2D accelerator, you should pay attention to other factors: image quality, availability additional functions, quality and functionality of drivers, supported frame rates, VESA compatibility (for fans of DOS games), etc. 2D accelerator chips are currently produced by ATI, Cirrus Logic, Chips & Technologies, Matrox, Number Nine, S3, Trident, Tseng Labs and other companies.

Multimedia accelerators are usually understood as devices that, in addition to accelerating ordinary graphics operations, can also perform a number of operations on processing video data from different sources.

First of all, these are functions for accelerating video output in AVI, Indeo, MPEG-1 and others. The problem is that NTSC video is at 30fps, PAL and SECAM at 25fps. The frame rate in digital video of the listed formats is also less than or equal to 30 fps, but the image resolution rarely exceeds 320 x 240 pixels. With these parameters, the speed of information receipt is about 6 Mbytes / s, and the processor has time to decompress it and transfer it over the bus to video memory. However, this image size is too small for comfortable viewing on the screen, so it is usually scaled to full screen. In this case, the data flow rate increases to tens and hundreds of megabytes per second. This circumstance led to the emergence of video accelerators that can independently scale video in AVI and MPEG-1 formats to full screen, as well as perform anti-aliasing of the scaled image so that it does not look like a set of squares. The overwhelming majority of modern 2D accelerators are at the same time video accelerators, and some, for example ATI Rage128, can play video in MPEG-2 format (that is, with the original resolution of 720 x 480).

Multimedia functions also include hardware digital compression and video decompression (which is almost never found on mass video cards), the presence of a composite video output, a TV signal output to a monitor, a low-frequency video input and a high-frequency TV input, a module for working with teletext and other functions.

video memory pixel processor accelerator

We all remember the legendary Truckers 1 and 2 parts, a game that literally takes the soul, today we will figure out how to run Truckers 2 on Windows 8.1, 10, 7, 8 x32 and x64 bit machines. If the game crashes and the error Your computer does not have graphic accelerator pops up, do not climb on the shelf with an old laptop, read this guide to the end.

The game is old, but knowledgeable amateurs come back to it again and again regardless of age, and since all the configs and the engine were written for the old hardware, hence the errors. In this case, the program swears at the lack of a graphics accelerator, complete nonsense, many will think, after all, at all modern computers there are video cards, and the toy runs even on the built-in Intel video.

How to fix the graphic accelerator problem and start the game

Follow the link to the Yandex disk and download the archive dgVoodoo2_44.rar.
For the game we need to download the archive dgVoodoo2_44.rar. Inside contains all the necessary ".dll" files and dgVoodooSetup.exe for more fine-tuning.

This is how the interface of the running program looks like:

Let's go through the main settings briefly:

• Select your video card in the "Adapter to use" tab.
• Full screen for full screen game mode, Windowed for windowed mode.
• Below on Color adjustments you can set the brightness and saturation of the color.
• To change the resolution in the game, go to the Glide tab and in the Resolution line select your screen resolution.

Here are the main points, to be on the safe side, try to set "Compatibility", "Compatibility mode" with Windows XP SP2 in the properties of the toy shortcut, here you can experiment. At startup, right-click and "Run as Administrator".

Conclusion

I hope you figured out the error "Your computer does not have graphic accelerator" in the game Truckers 2. For everyone who has difficulties or the game does not start below we post a video with a solution to the problem. If you cannot install Truckers 2 on Windows 7.10 - write in the comments and we will write detailed manual on installation. Have a nice trip.

(8 estimates, average: 4,38 out of 5)

Discussion: 5 comments

Everything went well for me at 10-64. I don't know how stable yet. One jamb: in the rain, streaks of soap, in principle, do not allow to go. there are no drops ...

Every user can notice that with 8 bit color, any graphic image does not look as good as 16 bit color. However, most users will not be able to tell the difference when viewing a well-made graphic in 16 bit and 32 bit color mode. The phrase "well-done graphic" means rasterization (dithering) - the process of mixing two adjacent colors to obtain a third while ensuring smooth transitions between elements of the image. As a result of using rasterization technology, images are obtained that look almost the same in modes with different color depths.

A 16-bit color representation requires twice as much memory as an 8-bit color representation, and a 32-bit color representation requires twice as much memory as a 16-bit one. Due to the fact that graphics adapters have limited amounts of memory, saving this resource becomes one of the priority tasks. In addition, displaying 32 bit data often takes longer than displaying 16 bit data. And this already refers to the problem of performance, which also should not be forgotten. This is why the average user should use the 16-bit color representation in Windows95 / 98 / NT.

The user or application selects whichever color presentation mode is most convenient for them. Word processor, spreadsheet and 2D games can work fine in 8-bit color mode. Movies, 3D games, and 3D applications typically use 16-bit color as a compromise between image quality and performance. When using programs for viewing high-quality photos, editing them, as well as applications for creating graphics, it is best to use a 24/32 bit color representation.

How do you know which mode the RAMDAC is operating in? If you are using Windows, then you have the opportunity to choose the color depth between 8, 16 or 24/32 bit modes. In 8 bit mode, a palette is used, i.e. RAMDAC operates at 205 MHz, in all other modes, with a different color depth, the palette is not used and RAMDAC operates at 220 MHz. If an application is launched for execution, running in full screen mode(for example, most games work in this mode), then the application itself determines in which mode the RAMDAC will work. Sometimes the application, having selected the operating mode, communicates this information to the user. But in most cases, this does not happen.

The user can find out which mode the RAMDAC is operating in by doing the following: Find a surface that has a smooth transition from one color to another (like, for example, in the sky over your head). If the transition from one color to another looks like it consists of intermittent dots that are very different in color, then your application is running in 8-bit color mode. Otherwise, i.e. if the transition from one color to another is really smooth, your application is working with a different color depth. At the same time, it is not superfluous to remind once again that the average user cannot confidently determine with what depth of color representation he is dealing with 16 or 24/32 bits.

It is quite easy to make sure that the declared RAMDAC speed values ​​are true. If you know what resolution you are working in, for example, 1024x768, and with what frequency the image is refreshed (for example, 75 Hz), then you can find out what the speed of the DAC is. The speed of 220 MHz is quite enough for display in the modes 1280x1024 at 85 Hz and 1600x1200 at 75 Hz. For the 1600x1200 mode at 85 Hz, a speed of 250 MHz is required. It is known that according to European standards, a screen refresh rate of 85 Hz should be supported in all resolutions, but only a few models of modern monitors can operate in 1600x1200 mode at 85 Hz.

Let us recall the known facts: if the refresh rate of the screen is too low, then the user will notice flickering of the image, as a result of which his eyesight can be impaired. The screen refresh rate of 75 Hz is already fast enough for the human eye to notice the flicker. Therefore, it is much more reasonable to focus on the image refresh rate values ​​rather than the DAC speed, especially since these values ​​are interrelated.

 Graphics accelerators(accelerators) - specialized graphics coprocessors, increasing the efficiency of the video system. Their use frees the central processor from a large volume of operations with video data, since accelerators independently calculate which pixels to display on the screen and what their colors are. Video accelerators

The image that we see on the monitor screen is the contents of the video memory output by a special digital-to-analog converter RAMDAC (Random Access Memory Digital to Analog Converter) and a scanning device. This content can be changed by both the central processor and the graphics processor of the video card - a 2D graphics accelerator (synonyms: 2D accelerator, 2D accelerator, Windows accelerator or GDI accelerator). Modern window interfaces require fast (in tenths of a second) redrawing of the screen contents when opening / closing windows, moving them, etc., otherwise the user will feel insufficiently fast response of the system to his actions. To do this, the processor would have to process data and transfer it over the bus at a speed only 2-3 times lower than the speed of RAMDAC, which is tens and even hundreds of megabytes per second, which is practically unrealistic even by modern standards. At one time, local buses were developed to increase the system's performance, and later - 2D accelerators, which are specialized graphics processors that can independently draw the mouse cursor, window elements and standard geometric shapes provided by GDI, the Windows graphics library. 2D accelerators exchange data with the video memory via their own bus without loading the processor's system bus. The 2D accelerator receives only GDI instructions from the central processor via the system bus, while the amount of transmitted data and processor load are hundreds of times less.

Modern 2D accelerators have a 64- or 128-bit data bus, and to use this bus effectively, a video card must have 2 or 4 MB of video memory, respectively, otherwise data will be transferred over a twice narrower bus with a corresponding loss in performance.

We can say that 2D accelerators have reached perfection by now. All of them work so fast that despite the fact that their performance on special tests may differ from model to model by 10-15%, the user will most likely not notice this difference. Therefore, when choosing a 2D accelerator, you should pay attention to other factors: image quality, availability of additional functions, quality and functionality of drivers, supported frame rates, VESA compatibility (for fans of DOS games), etc. currently manufactured by ATI, Cirrus Logic, Chips & Technologies, Matrox, Number Nine, S3, Trident, Tseng Labs and others.

History

One of the first graphics adapters for the IBM PC was the MDA (Monochrome Display Adapter) in the year. It worked only in text mode with a resolution of 80x25 characters (physically 720x350 pixels) and supported five text attributes: normal, bright, inverse, underlined and blinking. No color or graphic information he could not transmit, and the color of the letters was determined by the model of the monitor used. They were usually black and white, amber, or emerald. Hercules in the year released a further development of the MDA adapter, a video adapter with a graphic resolution of 720 × 348 pixels and supported two graphic pages. But he still didn't allow working with color.

The first color video card was IBM and became the basis for subsequent video card standards. It could work either in text mode with resolutions of 40 × 25 and 80 × 25 (symbol matrix - 8 × 8), or in graphic mode with resolutions of 320 × 200 or 640 × 200. In text modes, 256 symbol attributes are available - 16 symbol colors and 16 background colors (or 8 background colors and a blinking attribute), in the 320 × 200 graphics mode, four palettes of four colors each were available, the 640 × 200 high resolution mode was monochrome. In the development of this map appeared

It is worth noting that the interfaces with the monitor of all these types of video adapters were digital, MDA and HGC transmitted only a point and an additional luminance signal for the "bright" text attribute on or off, similarly to CGA on three channels (red, green, blue) transmitted the main video signal , and could additionally transmit a luminance signal (a total of 16 colors were obtained), EGA had two transmission lines for each of the primary colors, that is, each primary color could be displayed at full brightness, 2/3, or 1/3 of full brightness, which and gave a maximum of 64 colors in total.

In early models of computers from IBM PS / 2, there is a new graphics adapter (acquired by AMD in 2006)

Specialized

Other manufacturers

• PNY Technologies (NVIDIA partner)
• 3dfx (acquired by NVidia)
• XGI Technology Inc. (acquired by ATI in 2006)

Literature

• Scott Mueller PC Upgrade and Repair = Upgrading and Repairing PCs. - 17th ed. - M .: "Williams", 2007. - S. 889-970 ... - ISBN 0-7897-3404-4

Video adapters and monitors standards
Video adapters
MDA | CGA | PGC | MCGA | |
VGA | XGA | XGA + | SXGA + |
Widescreen options
WXGA | WSXGA / WXGA + |

Introducing the top ten "video hits" from Home PC. We have collected twenty graphics accelerators from ATI and NVidia to choose the fastest among them. Of course, performance is not the only criterion we are guided by when buying a video card, there is also a price. And we will definitely discuss this aspect, considering each model from the point of view of the buyer.

TOP 10
1.	Radeon 9800 Pro
2.	Radeon 9700 Pro
	GeForceFX 5800
4.	Radeon 9700
5.	GeForce4 Ti4600 / 4800
6.	Radeon 9600 Pro
7.	GeForce4 Ti4200 / Ti4800SE
8.	GeForceFX 5600 Ultra
9.	Radeon 9500
10.	GeForceFX 5600

Change model lines leading manufacturers, but our favorites remain unchanged. Among graphic accelerators high class Our greatest enthusiasm continues to be the Radeon 9700, which has the best price / performance ratio. Representatives of the new series Radeon 9600 and GeForceFX 5600 did not live up to our hopes: at a cost close to the Radeon 9700, they are seriously inferior in performance. This means that in the middle class we are left with only the GeForce4 Ti4200 - it is still fast enough for its money, albeit morally outdated. If we talk about budget video cards, revolutionary changes are taking place there: the youngest representative of the new NVidia line for the first time received full functionality. With DirectX 9 support, the GeForceFX 5200 128 MB is the new leader in this class.

How we tested Test system configuration Pentium 4 3 GHz (800 MHz FSB, Hyper-Threading), two 256 MB Corsair CMX256A-3200LL memory modules, motherboard Gigabyte GA-8KNXP on Intel i875P chipset. Video cards ABIT Siluro GeForce4 MX440 64 MB; ASUS V9900 / TD (GeForceFX 5800 128 MB), V9520 Magic (GeForceFX 5200 64 MB, 64 bit); Club-3D CGA-P988TVD (Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB), CGA-9528TVD (Radeon 9500 128 MB), CGA-9328TVD (Radeon 9100 128 MB); Creative 3D Blaster 4 Titanium 4600; FIC A97 Radeon 9700; Gainward Ultra / 760XP Golden Sample (GeForceFX 5600 Ultra), Ultra / 650-8X XP Golden Sample (GeForce4 Ti4200-8X); Gigabyte Maya GV-R9000 64 MB; HIS Excalibur Radeon 9200 128 MB; Inno3D Tornado GeForce4 Ti4800SE 64 MB; MSI MS-8907 FX5200-TD64 and FX5200-TDR128; Prolink PixelView GeForceFX 5600; Tyan Tachyon G9700Pro; Sapphire Radeon 9000 Pro 128 MB, Radeon 9500 64 MB, Radeon 9600 Pro 128 MB. Operating system and drivers Windows XP Professional SP1, DirectX 9.0a, NVidia Detonator 44.03, ATI Catalyst 3.4 (7.88). Default driver settings. Test programs Unreal Tournament 2003, version 2225 (benchmark.exe in the ..UT2003System directory, standard files maxdetail.ini and maxdetailuser.ini). Splinter Cell, patch 1.02.087 (timedemo.bat in directory..Splinter CellSystem with shadowmode = projector parameter). We took the arithmetic mean of the average results at three game levels. GeForce4 Ti4800SE 64 MB and both GeForceFX 5200 64 MB models were tested in the more demanding shadowmode = buffer mode, which is contraindicated for Radeon video cards. The GeForce4 MX440 64 MB and Radeon 9000 64 MB cards could not pass the test in any of the shadowmode modes. 3DMark2001 SE Pro, build 330. 3DMark03 Pro, version 3.3.0. GeForceFX video cards show lower results in this test version than in the previous ones. This issue is covered in more detail in the document. www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf which you can find on the DPK-CD along with the 3.3.0 patch.

Ten from ATI

Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB

Specifications

The new top model from ATI, which has a slightly more advanced architecture compared to the Radeon 9700 Pro, as well as increased core and memory frequencies. In today's gaming applications, the advantage of the Radeon 9800 Pro is mainly provided by clock speeds, and new technologies implemented in this chip are aimed at future games with sophisticated visual effects... Considering the high price tag of the Radeon 9800 Pro (over $ 400), we would advise you to take your time with the purchase and wait for the GeForceFX 5900 series, which we will see and test this summer.

Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB

Club-3D Radeon 9800 Pro

Tyan Radeon 9700 Pro

Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro

With the advent of the new flagship, the Radeon 9700 Pro has moved to a more affordable price category which makes it a very attractive option. With such performance and support for DirectX 9, the Radeon 9700 Pro simply does not have, and in the near future there will be no competitors among graphics accelerators that cost up to $ 300.

Radeon 9700 128 MB

Still the best buy for high-end graphics cards. While the price of the Radeon 9700 Pro crosses the $ 300 border, the price of the Radeon 9700 is heading towards the $ 200 mark. Again, judging by the test results, none of the NVidia graphics accelerators up to $ 250 are even "worth it". The same applies to the Radeon 9600 Pro graphics cards, despite the fact that in terms of price they are not far from the Radeon 9700.

Radeon 9600 Pro 128 MB

This graphics accelerator has replaced the Radeon 9500 Pro, and it cannot be said that the replacement is the most successful one. The Radeon 9500 Pro had eight pipelines and differed from the Radeon 9700 only in the memory bus width - 128 bit versus 256. Now the Radeon 9600 Pro has only four pipelines, and even a much higher clock frequency cannot compensate for this. As noted, at around $ 200, the Radeon 9600 Pro has no chance against the Radeon 9700.

Radeon 9500 128 MB

These video cards are good first of all because they are amenable to software modification at least to the Radeon 9500 Pro. Having four conveyors "on paper", in fact they have all eight. To use their "hidden" reserves, the RivaTuner utility is required. However, among the opened conveyors, there may be defective ones with a high probability, so either luck or a special recommendation from the seller (of course, not free) will be required.

One more thing: if the Radeon 9500 has 128 MB of memory chips located above and to the right of the graphics chip, then it has a 256-bit memory bus and may well turn into a Radeon 9700. If only on one side, then the bus is 128-bit and the performance of such a Radeon 9500 128 MB will not differ much from the 64-MB model.

Radeon 9500 64 MB

A video card with a 128-bit memory bus, which can easily be turned into a 64-megabyte Radeon 9500 Pro using the RivaTuner utility. However, the price for it is not much lower than that of the 128MB version of the Radeon 9500, so its purchase is impractical.

Radeon 9100 128 MB

The most interesting graphics accelerator of the junior Radeon representatives. It has two texturing units on each of the four pipelines, which has the most beneficial effect on the results. The low score in 3DMark03 is due to the fact that the board does not support DirectX 9, and therefore cannot pass the corresponding gaming test. Actually, only this prevents it from competing with the GeForceFX 5200 series.

Radeon 9000 Pro 128 MB

Long time Radeon graphics The 9000 Pro was the best option in the economy class, but now they have a formidable rival - the GeForceFX 5200 128 MB. With a similar speed, the latter has an undeniable advantage - support for DirectX 9. The only chance for the Radeon 9000 Pro 128 MB to "survive" is to keep the price gap with the GeForceFX 5200 128 MB at least at $ 20.

Radeon 9200 128 MB

Another example of how misleading names can be and how useless is the newfangled AGP 8X interface. Actually, this video card is no different from the Radeon 9000, and therefore you shouldn't overpay a penny for it ... unless it is equipped with additional multimedia capabilities, like the sample we tested.

Radeon 9000 64 MB

Lower clock frequencies than the Radeon 9000 Pro, and correspondingly lower results. Interestingly, 64 MB turned out to be not enough for this and some other graphics accelerators for passing Splinter Cell at maximum settings quality. It seems that 128 MB of video memory is no longer a luxury, but becomes a vital necessity.

Ten from NVidia

GeForceFX 5800 128 MB

Specifications

This graphics accelerator can be perceived as a prototype of the GeForceFX 5900. It is the GeForceFX 5900 that will be shipped in large volumes, and in its face we will get a product much more attractive than the GeForceFX 5800. In addition to the improved performance, the GeForceFX 5900 will be characterized by lower heat dissipation and, accordingly, noise. At the right price point, the 5900 series is a serious competitor to the Radeon 9800 Pro.

GeForce4 Ti4600 / 4800 128 MB

ASUS GeForceFX 5800

Gainward GeForceFX 5600 Ultra

MSI GeForceFX 5200

Representatives of the GeForce4 Ti line in our table of ranks are right behind the GeForceFX 5800 and all as one are ahead of the GeForceFX 5600 Ultra. A depressing picture is emerging: in the middle class, NVidia is dominated by video cards that do not support DirectX 9 (which, in particular, is the reason for the low results in 3DMark03).

The GeForce4 Ti4800 differs from the Ti4600 only in the AGP 8X interface, which in no way affects the performance. At more than $ 200, these video cards have no chance against the Radeon 9700. No wonder they have practically disappeared from the market.

GeForce4 Ti4800SE 64 MB

We are used to taking the abbreviation SE (Special Edition) as a sign that the product is more perfect. But in this case, SE indicates the exact opposite. The video cards GeForce4 Ti4800SE are nothing more than the GeForce4 Ti4400 with AGP 8X. Accordingly, the clock frequencies and performance are much lower than those of the GeForce4 Ti4600 / 4800. Nevertheless, the prices for such video cards are quite attractive, and then they will turn out to be a better option than the GeForce4 Ti4200 128 MB

GeForce4 Ti4200 128 MB

In our hit parade, such a graphics accelerator outperforms the GeForceFX 5600 Ultra, which may surprise you. But faster performance is more important than supporting exotic (for now) graphics technologies. In addition, for modern video cards, the efficiency of the functions of full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering is not critical. They are already not very fast in modern games, as exemplified by the results in Splinter Cell. If we talk about the GeForce4 Ti4200, at a price of up to $ 140, this is the most successful purchase among all graphics accelerators from NVidia and ATI that cost up to $ 200.

GeForceFX 5600 Ultra 128 MB

Enough has been said about this video card. At a price over $ 200, it is of no interest even in comparison with the GeForce4 Ti4200. DirectX 9 support as well effective work image-enhancing features don't count here: it's too slow for the money.

GeForceFX 5600 128 MB

The situation is as dire as the Ultra version, unless the price drops below $ 150, which will not happen soon. However, ATI is doing well in this price range the situation is not much better, and thus the niche from $ 150 to $ 200 remains unoccupied: enthusiasts with a limited budget will buy the GeForce4 Ti4200, and the more affluent will buy the Radeon 9700.

GeForceFX 5200 128 MB

Top contender for dominance in the under $ 100 category. Although the Radeon 9100 and Radeon 9000 Pro are slightly faster, this advantage negligible compared to the difference in functionality: the GeForceFX 5200, unlike them, supports DirectX 9. Of course, with the help of this graphics accelerator you will not be able to really enjoy the new graphics, but at least you will be able to watch a slideshow of beautiful pictures.

GeForceFX 5200 64 MB (128 bit)

All that has been said about the 128MB model can be fully attributed to this video card, only the price level that it needs to overcome in order to get success on the market, we will set at around $ 80.