Search results for AMD \ VOGONS

Re: UMC chipset PCI 486 mobo. AMD P90 CPU options?

Posted on 2011-06-03, 23:53

It doesn't look like any user-controllable options have changed in the BIOS, but there may be other fixes. Too bad we don't have a revision history. Thank you for the images. I have never hot-flashed a BIOS before, but I think this is what I'd do, METHOD A 1) On M919 motherboard with non-flashable …

Re: UMC chipset PCI 486 mobo. AMD P90 CPU options?

Posted on 2011-06-04, 09:06

by Tetrium

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

Btw, I just LOVE that AMI windows BIOS. When I showed it to a friend of mine he was like 😳 😳 😳 He never knew it existed! Course theres a reason why we use text based BIOS's these days, but it sure seems like the easiest way to test serial mice 😁

Re: Pentium II and 486/AMD K-6 builds in progress

Posted on 2011-06-04, 17:43

by Ace

in Marvin \ System Specs

Okay, so I've tested your CTCM directory, and while I can get SoundBlaster 16 digital audio and CQM out of my SoundBlaster 32 and two SoundBlaster AWE64s, I can't get any General MIDI or AWE synth working. What's the problem? As for my SoundBlaster Live! issues, I figured it out. I have to overclock …

Re: Pentium II and 486/AMD K-6 builds in progress

Posted on 2011-06-04, 18:17

by schlang

in Marvin \ System Specs

actually the midi port of the awe64 in my configuration is set to 300h, have you tried the correct port? what about native awe synth? this can be checked with the DIAGNOSE.EXE program

Re: Pentium II and 486/AMD K-6 builds in progress

Posted on 2011-06-04, 19:03

by Ace

in Marvin \ System Specs

I set the MIDI port to 330, which is what I always use, but I got no General MIDI at all. Now, I haven't tested AWE synth using DIAGNOSE.EXE, but I could not get it working in X-Wing's SETMUSE program. It seems the MIDI data is being sent to the EMU8000, but I don't hear anything. Also, I've …

Re: Pentium II and 486/AMD K-6 builds in progress

Posted on 2011-06-04, 19:15

by schlang

in Marvin \ System Specs

I know these problems. That's why I ended up with three different PCs 😀

Re: Pentium II and 486/AMD K-6 builds in progress

Posted on 2011-06-04, 20:23

by Tetrium

in Marvin \ System Specs

.....and this Cyrix C3-based computer I'm currently working on. Now I want to build a C3 rig as well, but my attic still isn't done yet. I'm FINALLY done putting all the extra metal closets (dunno the proper English word, sorry lol) together and I got the new desk ready, though it's not like I had …

Re: UMC chipset PCI 486 mobo. AMD P90 CPU options?

Posted on 2011-06-06, 21:24

by sebaz_ri

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

@feipoa i think both of these methods must works,but i make this 1) On M919 motherboard with non-flashable BIOS, partially remove the BIOS so that it is just connected. 2) On M919 motherboard with partially connected non-flashable BIOS,set BIOS to boot from floppy 3)Boot from floppy, run Uniflash, …

Re: UMC chipset PCI 486 mobo. AMD P90 CPU options?

Posted on 2011-06-06, 21:36

by sebaz_ri

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

@feipoa You can attach the "DOS Benchmark Pack"? (if possible) just do not include Sppedsys, 3DBench, DOOM & Quake because i have already them also you can attach Sandra99?, because i don´t found this benchmark

Re: AMD 5K86??

Posted on 2011-06-12, 11:36

by Markk

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

Is that the K5 cpu? It's a pentium compatible, so I guess socket 5/7.

Re: AMD 5K86??

Posted on 2011-06-12, 12:33

by elianda

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

[removed wrong assumptions 😉] Edit: Ok I reread some stuff, so the 5x86 is a fast 486 core CPU (with 16 kB L1) while the SSA5 / 5k86 / K5 is a completely new core. ( http://www.sandpile.org/impl/k5.htm )

Re: AMD 5K86??

Posted on 2011-06-12, 12:41

by Markk

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

I think the K5 is completely different from the 5X86. The latter is still a 486 while the K5(isn't that codename supposed to mean Pentium Killer :p ) is a pentium compatible chip. I notice also that the ssa/5 K5s are all of them PR rated, but that number is equal to the actual cpu speed. And now I …

Re: AMD 5K86??

Posted on 2011-06-12, 13:44

by Markk

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

I know. Up to now I also had seen only the K5 cpus. But if what it says over there at wikipedia is true, then there are 2 different series, and their difference is that the 5k86 uses the pr rating, but runs at the same speed, and the other one runs at a slower speed than it's pr rating. edit : you …

Re: AMD 5K86??

Posted on 2011-06-12, 18:18

by swaaye

in Marvin \ General Old Hardware

There are two cores. The older chips don't have a fully completed design and perform slower which is why the PR rating equals the clock speed. But they are mostly the same CPU. If they could have managed more clock speed they would have been excellent competition but they topped out quickly and were …

Re: Why USB 2.0 is slower on AMD than on Intel

Posted on 2011-06-13, 06:44

by eL_PuSHeR

in PC Emulation

On my tests all USB ports are 2.0 only. I will keep in mind the new bulldozer architecture.

Re: Why USB 2.0 is slower on AMD than on Intel

Posted on 2011-06-13, 20:32

by Tetrium

in PC Emulation

I never knew USB 2.0 performance could differ so significantly between different platforms, though it's logical to assume that is it a possibility. I know VIA often had sub-par performance and sometimes had troubles with their drivers, but NForce had troubles of it's own. Theres also SiS of course …

Re: Why USB 2.0 is slower on AMD than on Intel

Posted on 2011-06-14, 18:51

by swaaye

in PC Emulation

I have setup a number of 780G boxes and felt the slight sluggishness. I also have a GF8200 board and it has always seemed faster to me. About the USB boot though, some boards boot in USB 1.1. I have a P35 board that does that. Slow.

Re: Why USB 2.0 is slower on AMD than on Intel

Posted on 2011-06-14, 20:22

by eL_PuSHeR

in PC Emulation

Mine boot in USB 2.0 (1.1 would be painfully slow), but the Intel boards boot faster.

Re: Why USB 2.0 is slower on AMD than on Intel

Posted on 2011-06-14, 21:36

by swaaye

in PC Emulation

USB 1.1 is about 1MB/s. That won't make things abysmally slow but it is annoying. The 780G and P35 Gigabyte boards that I have used are clearly not at USB 2.0 until some time later in the boot process when I assume the OS loads its USB drivers. This isn't the chipsets fault though because I have …

Re: Why USB 2.0 is slower on AMD than on Intel

Posted on 2011-06-15, 06:56

by eL_PuSHeR

in PC Emulation

Yes, probably a BIOS issue. Remember that you have additional hidden BIOS option on Gigabyte boards by pressing CTRL-F1 on BIOS main screen. You will notice menus are extended.

Main menu

Common searches