RaVeNsClaw wrote on 2025-04-13, 11:08:

[…]
Show full quote

1. Attached are "Save Local" reports of some old GPUs under NT4.0:
2. 3Dlabs GLint MX + GLint Delta
3. Number Nine Imagine 128
4. Number Nine Imagine 128 II
5. Matrox Impression Plus
6. Matrox Millennium MGA-2064W-R3
7. 3Dlabs Permedia NT
8. Ati Rage II + DVD
9. Intergraph RealiZm Z13

Thank you for all the reports, with so many I feel it's best to number them so I made them a list=1.

1. As MAXDATA set setup in the SMBIOS as the system maker SIV did not realise the board is an ASUS CUBX. This meant all the Temperatures, Fans Speeds and Voltages were not reported. The fix was trivial and is in the attached test SIV32L V5.81 CUBX-04, please use this for all future tests.
2. SIV did OK, do any 3rd party utilities do better and if so which and in what way?
3. SIV did OK, ...
4. I needed to add Imagine 128 II support. I assumed it's much the the same as the 128, is it? How does SIV32L V5.81 CUBX-04 do?
5. I tried to add Impression clock reporting some time ago and suspect the clock speeds can't be read, do any 3rd party utilities report the clock speeds?
6. I also have a MGA-2064 so SIV does OK.
7. SIV did OK, ...
8. The speeds of 1.98GHz seem too high, what should they be?
9. I have added RealiZm Z13 to pcidevs.txt. SIV found the Intense3D Wildcat 4000 twice, I wonder are two installed? Please so SIV32L -DBGGPU -EXIT=10 > SIV_DBGOUT.log | MORE and post the .log file.

Is there anything you have spotted I have missed and need to fix please?

Things I can answer:

• 8. Somewhere between 52 MHz and 63 MHz. Everest can't find the clock either.

• 9. RealiZm Z13 takes two PCI slots. One for the 2D and one for the 3D portion.

RaVeNsClaw wrote on 2025-04-13, 15:26:

• 9. RealiZm Z13 takes two PCI slots. One for the 2D and one for the 3D portion.

OK, but I meant installed in Windows, not two set's of hardware, as NT does not do PnP this can happen.

I just noticed DIMM SPD data was not read, there is an SMBus multiplexor, SIV has code for the ASUS CUBX-E (803B), but not your ASUS CUBX (8025) so I have added this to SIV Driver.

The attached SIV V5.81 Beta-04 fixed this.

Here's screen of my core i7-2600K, yes I have HT disabled because it disturbs some singlethreads apps.
There are 2 different CPU names reported that looks a bit confusing...

RayeR wrote on 2025-04-15, 04:29:

Here's screen of my core i7-2600K, yes I have HT disabled because it disturbs some single threaded apps.
There are 2 different CPU names reported that looks a bit confusing...

Thank you, after posting I checked as best I could what would happen with HT disabled and adjusted SIV V5.81 Beta-03, does it fix the issue please? You can get the latest SIV Beta from the Menu->File->Latest Releases panel or Beta-03 via https://workupload.com/file/pArq7Lu6GfZ (note this link will may stop working after I release SIV V5.81 Beta-04).

The reason for two CPU names is that old CPUs don't report their name via CPUID and some Engineering Samples don't report a useful name so if SIV only reported that sometimes there would be no sensible name at all. It also means it's also more likely users will report the name difference and I can fix it.

I can see that no fan speeds are reported, but as you did not post SIV save files I have no way to figure out why and fix this. Rather than a full save maybe you will do Menu->File->Save->Save Public, press [Minimal] then [Start] and post those two files. Save Public will exclude sections that contain such as IP addresses, change your username to Uuuuu, change or hide serial numbers, [Minimal] will deselect all the sections I don't really need.

OK, I understand. My CPUID utility use similar approach. [link removed on red-ray request, can be found on my homepage in user profile]
It displays CPU name string if available and also displays a CPU database name that is my own description that contains more details like socket, voltage, litography tech...

My MB has SuperIO ITE IT8728F that contains HW monitor on SMBus. E.g. HWinfo reports fans OK. I'll test new beta and make log later when back to bachine...

RayeR wrote on 2025-04-15, 12:29:

OK, I understand. My CPUID utility use similar approach. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Windows 10 is none to keen on your program and considers it a virus, please remove the link from this thread.

red-ray wrote on 2025-04-15, 17:11:

RayeR wrote on 2025-04-15, 12:29:

OK, I understand. My CPUID utility use similar approach. http://rayer.g6.cz/programm/programe.htm#CPUID

Windows 10 is none to keen on your program and considers it a virus, please remove the link from this thread.

FYI : https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/1b5de4828e … d4c89f81c367445

weedeewee wrote on 2025-04-15, 17:19:

red-ray wrote on 2025-04-15, 17:11:

RayeR wrote on 2025-04-15, 12:29:

OK, I understand. My CPUID utility use similar approach. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Windows 10 is none to keen on your program and considers it a virus, please remove the link from this thread.

FYI : https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/1b5de4828e … d4c89f81c367445

1 of 97 is 1 too many, all downloads should have 0 before being offered for download, FYI https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/63c5fec13 … ea62080f9624d44

Probably due to unsigned kernel driver - w7/w10-x64 enforces driver signing and I, as an individual, cannot sign my driver myself so it wouldn't run under W10 in normal mode, needed to enable test mode anyway. My tools is primary targeted for DOS but I made it multiplatform for Win and Linux too. Antiviruses are sometimes throwing false alerts on utils that touches system non-standard way...

RayeR wrote on 2025-04-15, 18:19:

Antiviruses are sometimes throwing false alerts on utils that touches system non-standard way...

Thank you and I get the same from time-to-time. I always try to make sure the SIV release is totally warning free before I offer it for download, do you do this for all your downloads? (Clearly not!)

These days there is no merit in offering unsigned x64 drivers for download (they will only run on XP/2003 x64), the Vista/W7/W8/W10/W11 x64 + x32 .SYS must be Microsoft counter signed and I also feel that all .EXE + .SYS + .DLL should be EV Signed. With driver packages that have .EXE and .DLL in addition to .SYS end up with them all being Microsoft counter signed. I have an extended [Digital Signatures] panel so I can quickly check SIV is correctly signed.

I recall when I first got JMAPI_x64.dll + JMAPI_x32.dll they were not signed and Virus Total flagged viruses for them, when I signed them it was happy so I reported this to JMicon and they signed them. Given this EV Signing all you files is probably a good way to minimise false positives and also means that 3rd parties can't attach viruses to the SIV files without invalidating the digital signatures.

I don't bother much, it's just my for fun personal project. M$ tighten rules with every new windows version and I don't have enough time to fight against. AFAIK you have to be some kind of commercial subject to be able get drivers signed by M$. I personally still run XP-SP3 as main OS (and use CPUID on older computers under DOS) so not much worried about W10...

New version 5.81b3 reports both CPU names in consistent way:

RayeR wrote on 2025-04-17, 02:07:

New version 5.81b3 reports both CPU names in consistent way:

Thank you for confirming this now I just need to fix the SIO reporting to include the fans and will do this once you post the save files.

I have now released SIV V5.81 Beta-04 that can be downloaded via Menu->File->Latest Releases and for the moment via https://workupload.com/file/M3rVTy5qrJX.

RaVeNsClaw wrote on 2025-04-17, 18:40:

Also I ran this on the "SIV32L-V5.81-CUBX-04-MUX" version.

It should fix the AS99127F reporting, does it please?

BetaC wrote on 2025-04-25, 04:41:

It did reject the 486, but that's as expected.

Hi, I spotted your post and wonder exactly which 486 this is, can you post the S-Spec please?

I am currently improving the SIV support for i486 that don't have CPUID, please will you try SIV V5.81 Beta-05 and post screen shots of the initial screen and [CPUID CPU-0].

Below is what my S-Spec SX729 reports, to get [CPUID CPU-0] press the [_]CPUID check box.

red-ray wrote on 2025-04-25, 18:17:

Hi, I spotted your post and wonder exactly which 486 this is, can you post the S-Spec please? […]
Show full quote

BetaC wrote on 2025-04-25, 04:41:

It did reject the 486, but that's as expected.

Hi, I spotted your post and wonder exactly which 486 this is, can you post the S-Spec please?

I am currently improving the SIV support for i486 that don't have CPUID, please will you try SIV V5.81 Beta-05 and post screen shots of the initial screen and [CPUID CPU-0].

Below is what my S-Spec SX729 reports, to get [CPUID CPU-0] press the [_]CPUID check box.

I will get to this soon, but I can at least tell you it's physically one of the DX2-66 processors that Intel shipped with a Blue heatsink glued on.

BetaC wrote on 2025-04-28, 15:30:

it's physically one of the DX2-66 processors that Intel shipped with a Blue heatsink glued on.

Thank you for your post, is it one of these and with the same SX759 please? If not what does it have?

Assuming so it does not have CPUID support. I wonder what SIV will come up with, on Windows 9x I suspect Model 3 Stepping 0 and on Windows NT Model 3 Stepping D0. I quite fancy one, how hard are they to come by?

Does anyone know what the stepping is please? Neither https://www.cpu-world.com/sspec/SX/SX759.html or https://www.ardent-tool.com/CPU/486_Step.html specify this.

red-ray wrote on 2025-04-28, 16:36:

Thank you for your post, is it one of these and with the same SX759 please? If not what does it have? […]
Show full quote

BetaC wrote on 2025-04-28, 15:30:

it's physically one of the DX2-66 processors that Intel shipped with a Blue heatsink glued on.

Thank you for your post, is it one of these and with the same SX759 please? If not what does it have?

Assuming so it does not have CPUID support. I wonder what SIV will come up with, on Windows 9x I suspect Model 3 Stepping 0 and on Windows NT Model 3 Stepping D0. I quite fancy one, how hard are they to come by?

Does anyone know what the stepping is please? Neither https://www.cpu-world.com/sspec/SX/SX759.html or https://www.ardent-tool.com/CPU/486_Step.html specify this.

No, it is a SX731.

As for what SIV says, this is what I got out of Windows 95. Would an NT install help in this instance?

BetaC wrote on 2025-04-28, 21:24:

No, it is a SX731. As for what SIV says, this is what I got out of Windows 95. Would an NT install help in this instance?

Thank you and Windows NT would not really help, I expect the stepping would be D0 rather than 0, but most DX CPUs that don't have CPUID return D0 on NT, SX return C0 and the 486DX-25 SX308 is the only CPU for which I have seen B0, see Early 80486 in https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows … pu/precpuid.htm, I wonder which i486 returns A0. This is the first time I am aware of SIV correctly reporting a DX2 that does not support the CPUID instruction.

The SX731 and SX759 both have a CPUID of 0433 so are effectively identical. I have updated SIV so Beta-06 will report both SX731 and SX759 have a blue heatsink.