I
am not sure if the Savage2000 or SavageXP are the same...the specs
look alike but im not sure. Anyway, this card has been criticised so much
that I think even the Savage4 is faster. But dont worry read the specs,
and you will find out that its not that bad after all and is faster than
the Savage4. Lets compare them...
| Feature | Savage 2000/Savage XP | Savage 4 |
| Engine Type | 128bit | 128bit |
| Anisotropic | Yes | Yes |
| Anti-Aliasing | Yes | Yes |
| Pixel fill rate | 333 Million TriLinear pixel fill rate | 140M pixels/second trilinear fill rate |
| Texel Fill rate | 666 Million Texels per second | n/a |
| Direct X Support | Direct X 7 & 8 | DirectX 6 (7 & 8 are certified) |
| T&L engine | S3G Transform and Lighting | n/a |
| RAMDAC | 350Mhz | 300Mhz |
| Memory Speeds | 183MHz-200Mhz | 125Mhz-143Mhz |
Some people say that S3G's Transform & Lighting slows down the card. The new features also include a Quad engine (1 engine-two pipelines-two texels/pipeline), support from DirectX 7 and 8 APIs. The S3TC is also improved with support from DirectX 7, rather than 6, which means 192MB of textures can fit in only 32MB local memory.