BitWrangler wrote on 2021-09-16, 18:57:

Yah I don't understand the ppl who are like "OMG no, run your GPU fan as low as possible, you'll wear it out!!!!111 Having it run full speed is over-stressing it!!" (and if it's a stock type on the cooler you'll probably find manufacturer spec is something around 9-15V range and you're not even really close to the edge on 12V) Dude, my fan is the wear part not my GPU kthx, I'll run it at 80% minimum just to take the edge off the loud pedal and stop my GPU getting hot in the first place, if it hits 100% it's doing it's job under load, not trying to kill itself imminently, calm down.

With newer video cards and cases with good air flow, I just set the fan curve so it keeps the GPU cool. I never, ever see the fans ramp up to full speed even if I am running a stress test.

On older systems, the best thing I have found to keep the video and other cards cool is to mount an 80mm to 120mm fan via a modified slot cover bracket to have the fan blowing down across the cards from above the slots.

Takes up way less space than mounting a puny fan on the puny passive heatsink and it cools both sides of the cards and cools way better than a dinky little fan and it is quieter as well.

Those little old fans were almost always cheap sleeve bearing fans and a lot of them have died after years of use.

Yah, need to feed those old ones oil like they're an 80s Chrysler.

But even that doesn't help when the bearings are worn out.

However, the oil I do use when refurbing fans is Mobile-1 full synthetic 10w-30 motor oil. For fans that were worth repairing, I haven't ever had to oil them again.

Con 2 botones wrote on 2021-09-17, 13:03:

I upload pictures of the "Extreme"version of the card I´ve got, as well some benchmark I did some time ago.

It's interesting cause I'm quite sure and wrote these results numbers on the very same card time ago probably with a P-III 600Mhz.

3DMark99: 4629
3DMark2000: 1890
3DMark2001 SE: 783

The first value is quite higher.. do you have any results with 2000 and 2001 benchmarks? I can't test again until I'll get a disk for that system but I remember having tested it on a time correct Pentium II/III board.

386SX wrote on 2021-09-17, 17:27:

It's interesting cause I'm quite sure and wrote these results numbers on the very same card time ago probably with a P-III 600Mh […]
Show full quote

Con 2 botones wrote on 2021-09-17, 13:03:

I upload pictures of the "Extreme"version of the card I´ve got, as well some benchmark I did some time ago.

It's interesting cause I'm quite sure and wrote these results numbers on the very same card time ago probably with a P-III 600Mhz.

3DMark99: 4629
3DMark2000: 1890
3DMark2001 SE: 783

The first value is quite higher.. do you have any results with 2000 and 2001 benchmarks? I can't test again until I'll get a disk for that system but I remember having tested it on a time correct Pentium II/III board.

In my case it was tested on a Soyo Sy-6AB+ (440BX chipset), Pentium II 450mhz. W98Se (some of the unofficial service pack patches applied), Direct X 7.0a (I belive).

Yes your results are significantly better. Could it be due to your CPU being superior?

I just found another interesting link: https://forums.windrivers.com/showthread.php? … llation-Problem
The ftp linked there (ftp://ftp.hastec.nl/pub/videokaarten/stealth/ … -3/S540biosses/) should have updated bios for the diamond savage4 card, obviously the ftp isn't working anymore, is there a way to recover it?

Nemo1985 wrote on 2021-09-17, 20:27:

I just found another interesting link: https://forums.windrivers.com/showthread.php? … llation-Problem
The ftp linked there (ftp://ftp.hastec.nl/pub/videokaarten/stealth/ … -3/S540biosses/) should have updated bios for the diamond savage4 card, obviously the ftp isn't working anymore, is there a way to recover it?

You may be in luck, as hastec.nl seems to have made them available via http as well at some point . At least some of them have been archived .

https://web.archive.org/web/2002*/http://www. … 0/s540biosses/*

That's great, thank you!!!
Mine is a S520 but I may try to crossflash.

Edit: I think those cards are cursed.

I used the gigabyte ga-6bxc rev 2.0 with a pentium II 400, the results where inconsistent, they were the same with stock and overclocked frequencies.
So I decided to use another bx400 the msi bx master, with a beefy pentium 3 1000, as soon I installed the video driver I always had a bsod, format didn't help (I did different tries like lower the bus from 133 to 100)
I switched with to a ECS P6S5AT with tualatin 1400. Installed the video drivers, very same error, using the latest drivers (Savage4 v4.12.01.8226) :

I tried the trieber drivers but they ask for a catalog file not bundled with the drivers.

What the hell? The only difference is that the beefy machines have more ram, but always less than 512mb.

Edit: that while the cheap diamond savage4 pro card works fine.

Con 2 botones wrote on 2021-09-17, 18:40:

386SX wrote on 2021-09-17, 17:27:

It's interesting cause I'm quite sure and wrote these results numbers on the very same card time ago probably with a P-III 600Mh […]
Show full quote

Con 2 botones wrote on 2021-09-17, 13:03:

I upload pictures of the "Extreme"version of the card I´ve got, as well some benchmark I did some time ago.

It's interesting cause I'm quite sure and wrote these results numbers on the very same card time ago probably with a P-III 600Mhz.

3DMark99: 4629
3DMark2000: 1890
3DMark2001 SE: 783

The first value is quite higher.. do you have any results with 2000 and 2001 benchmarks? I can't test again until I'll get a disk for that system but I remember having tested it on a time correct Pentium II/III board.

In my case it was tested on a Soyo Sy-6AB+ (440BX chipset), Pentium II 450mhz. W98Se (some of the unofficial service pack patches applied), Direct X 7.0a (I belive).

Yes your results are significantly better. Could it be due to your CPU being superior?

I think the mainboard chipset was the same cause it supported (like unofficially) up to the early Pentium III 600Mhz and no more and I suppose those 3DMark results got much better with such jump from a P-II 450 to a P-III 600. Beside the later 2000 and 2001 versions where really the GPU is the main worker there. I need to buy as said an IDE-SD adapter so I can make tests on multiple config easily and soon I might test it again. Anyway it sure was an interesting card to have back in its time but thinking at that time I could remember only the common Savage4 version around in the stores.

I once tested Savage4 PRO by Manli on a config from the description and the results were as follows:

Ydee wrote on 2021-09-18, 09:37:

I once tested Savage4 PRO by Manli on a config from the description and the results were as follows:

I think that confirm the point that the Pentium III 600Mhz already pushed the Savage4 to its limits not to mention an Athlon XP, while the Xtreme version even with the P-III cpu got interesting higher results in both heavier 3DMark2000 and 2001 like posted always with Win 9x/ME. 😉

3DMark99: 4629
3DMark2000: 1890
3DMark2001 SE: 783

Yes, it is possible. I don't remember the driver version, but OS was W98SE. I'll try to run some more tests if I can find free time.

dormcat wrote on 2021-09-15, 17:09:

My Gainward CARDEXpert SG4 Savage4 Pro PCI has a similar problem: while the sticker says "SG4 Pro" (86c397), software like Everest or CPU-Z identify it as either non-Pro (86c395) or "Savage4V," a model that I can't find on most websites. Memory clock is even slower at just 100 MHz.

Please consider to use CPU-Z VE (Vintage Edition), not CPU-Z 1.78.1 for Win98(SE)/ME - the latter seems to be deprecated with the release of the former.

If you find any glitch / bug / not correctly indentified hardware, please report it within the dedicated thread: Need help to improve the support of 486/586/686 class CPUs in CPU-Z, I think this is also valid to GPUs. The developer(s) of CPU-Z (CPUID - Franck Delattre [and his team!?]) will look into this, for sure.

I really appreciate the work of CPUID for ~two decades, with our help it will even get better - so, go on! 😀

kind regards
soggi

Nemo1985 wrote on 2021-09-17, 21:21:

That's great, thank you!!! Mine is a S520 but I may try to crossflash. Edit: I think those cards are cursed. I used the gigabyte […]
Show full quote

That's great, thank you!!!
Mine is a S520 but I may try to crossflash.
Edit: I think those cards are cursed.
I used the gigabyte ga-6bxc rev 2.0 with a pentium II 400, the results where inconsistent, they were the same with stock and overclocked frequencies.
So I decided to use another bx400 the msi bx master, with a beefy pentium 3 1000, as soon I installed the video driver I always had a bsod, format didn't help (I did different tries like lower the bus from 133 to 100)
I switched with to a ECS P6S5AT with tualatin 1400. Installed the video drivers, very same error, using the latest drivers (Savage4 v4.12.01.8226) :
photo_2021-09-18_00-55-08.jpg
I tried the trieber drivers but they ask for a catalog file not bundled with the drivers.
What the hell? The only difference is that the beefy machines have more ram, but always less than 512mb.
Edit: that while the cheap diamond savage4 pro card works fine.

Try engineering bitflip driver

matze79 wrote on 2021-09-19, 07:47:

Try engineering bitflip driver

I found that also the diamond card showed instability, it hanged during 3dmark test.

I will give some try again later.

Perhaps rhe card runs's too hot.

ENGINEERING RELEASE NOTES
S3 Savage 4 (4.11.01.8008-8.10.33) 01/28/00

soggi wrote on 2021-09-19, 04:16:

Please consider to use CPU-Z VE (Vintage Edition), not CPU-Z 1.78.1 for Win98(SE)/ME - the latter seems to be deprecated with the release of the former.

If you find any glitch / bug / not correctly indentified hardware, please report it within the dedicated thread: Need help to improve the support of 486/586/686 class CPUs in CPU-Z, I think this is also valid to GPUs. The developer(s) of CPU-Z (CPUID - Franck Delattre [and his team!?]) will look into this, for sure.

Here is the result of three versions of CPU-Z, along with SIV and Everest:

Unfortunately 1.78 gave the most detailed (relatively) information; VE 1.03 couldn't even identify the model.

dormcat wrote on 2021-09-20, 03:01:

Here is the result of three versions of CPU-Z, along with SIV and Everest:
Savage4.jpg
Unfortunately 1.78 gave the most detailed (relatively) information; VE 1.03 couldn't even identify the model.

Yes, I know - GPU detection has been kind a disregarded for years. That's why I linked to the official CPU-Z Vintage Edition thread, hopefully CuPid has the time and passion to have a look into this!?

kind regards
soggi

There are lots of Savage 4 Extreme chips in regular cards. Only Diamond and Numer Nine made real Extreme models. There are InnoVision "Extreme" cards but its only name of card and do not mean that Extreme chip was used, maybe latest models have it but work with low clocks 110/115. Every other card with extreme chip will not have Extreme clocks.

Also wikipedia is misleading about Savage4 variants specification