Then it is just a matter of whether you want to use internal SE wide device and internal LVD device at the same time.
However, the 29160 is superior then.

But check the PCI slots. The front side (away from the bracket) must have a kind of space so that the 29160 with the 64 bit connector will fit.

(perhaps you can post a picture)

Disruptor wrote on 2023-12-15, 19:25:

Then it is just a matter of whether you want to use internal SE wide device and internal LVD device at the same time. However, t […]
Show full quote

Then it is just a matter of whether you want to use internal SE wide device and internal LVD device at the same time.
However, the 29160 is superior then.

But check the PCI slots. The front side (away from the bracket) must have a kind of space so that the 29160 with the 64 bit connector will fit.

(perhaps you can post a picture)

all my pc are IBM desktop with vertical risercard, all spece the controlled need is available. So, the last question is: what are the hard drive without a jet engine motor but with a nuce seeking sound??

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-15, 05:52:

[...]

I didn't think there was so much integration between the controller and the motherboard, I thought it did almost everything.

There is no integration. It's just a matter of the right voltages (3.3V vs 5V) and features (bus mastering) being present.

the first computer I wanted to experiment with it on was a socket5 (Triton) and then also use it on socket3/5/7, the latter HX chipset.

:?

Triton is i430FX - but that's not going to support a Pentium MMX (which needs split voltage). Socket 3 is a 486 socket that doesn't work with i430FX or i430HX.

i430HX was the first (Intel) chipset to support PCI 2.1, so the 29160 would work on this board, but not on the i430FX board.

it seemed like a good way to continue having cheap platter discs without having to look for discs less than 1 gigabyte for the 486, less than 8 gigabyte for the HX etc... but from what you tell me I don't know if my plan can work and if so on which computer and with what result....

It could be an excellent way to avoid BIOS limits, but it does not avoid other limits.

Note that chipset IDE controllers don't have limits, it's all BIOS-related. Or OS-related. You can use a 128GB IDE HDD on an i430HX chipset, so long as your BIOS supports large drives, you patch the BIOS with HDD vendor software, or you have a separate IDE controller with its own BIOS. Or a SCSI controller with its own BIOS. In all cases your hardware must work on the PCI 2.1 bus of the i430HX.

To use large HDDs with older motherboards, you need older controllers that work on PCI 2.0 buses.

Disruptor wrote on 2023-12-15, 16:39:

Yes, you can use that Initio SCSI card. But you'll be limited to the speed of Narrow Ultra SCSI. That is 20 MB/s.

Tbh, the linear throughput of a HDD is generally its least relevant spec. For HDDs, seek time is king, which is why fast-rotating SCSI drives respond better than any PATA drives, even if they run on ATA133 bus.

20MB/s is probably more than an OS running on a P233MMX could handle, and even at that relatively low throughput you still get the full benefit of low seek times with a fast-rotating SCSI drive.

dionb wrote on 2023-12-16, 00:29:

There is no integration. It's just a matter of the right voltages (3.3V vs 5V) and features (bus mastering) being present. […]
Show full quote

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-15, 05:52:

[...]

I didn't think there was so much integration between the controller and the motherboard, I thought it did almost everything.

There is no integration. It's just a matter of the right voltages (3.3V vs 5V) and features (bus mastering) being present.

the first computer I wanted to experiment with it on was a socket5 (Triton) and then also use it on socket3/5/7, the latter HX chipset.

:?

Triton is i430FX - but that's not going to support a Pentium MMX (which needs split voltage). Socket 3 is a 486 socket that doesn't work with i430FX or i430HX.

i430HX was the first (Intel) chipset to support PCI 2.1, so the 29160 would work on this board, but not on the i430FX board.

it seemed like a good way to continue having cheap platter discs without having to look for discs less than 1 gigabyte for the 486, less than 8 gigabyte for the HX etc... but from what you tell me I don't know if my plan can work and if so on which computer and with what result....

It could be an excellent way to avoid BIOS limits, but it does not avoid other limits.

Note that chipset IDE controllers don't have limits, it's all BIOS-related. Or OS-related. You can use a 128GB IDE HDD on an i430HX chipset, so long as your BIOS supports large drives, you patch the BIOS with HDD vendor software, or you have a separate IDE controller with its own BIOS. Or a SCSI controller with its own BIOS. In all cases your hardware must work on the PCI 2.1 bus of the i430HX.

To use large HDDs with older motherboards, you need older controllers that work on PCI 2.0 buses.

What exactly happen if i install the 29160 on a computer with FX chipset or the one present on my Pentium60 chipset (i not know now wich is but for sure alder than fx) ? If your reply is something like (it does not work completley) wich controller is appropriate with this two system? a 2904 for exhample?

About the MMX on my socket5… i have read here on vogons that pentiumMMX can work for years at 3,3v without issue if have a good cooling. It iis a computer used 3 hours a week for retrogaming, not a computer on for 8h day 7/7days…

dionb wrote on 2023-12-14, 20:24:

SCSI-160 is total overkill for P233MMX, but yes, it should work. Note that if the disk is very large you may hit operating system limits. In particular, DOS up to 6.22 and the original Windows 95 use FAT16 which supports max 2GB partitions, so max 8GB total per disk with four partitions. Later OEM Win95 OSR2 and OSR3 use FAT32 which supports up to 2TB in theory - but those OSs would be rather heavy on a Pentium MMX.

Win95 OSR2 heavy for an MMX Pentium? What?

the Adaptec AHA-2940UW works well in early PCI systems had dos drivers and win 3.X drivers also... It has worked in boards from a 486 pci system to Core2 systems.

appleiiguy wrote on 2023-12-16, 08:51:

the Adaptec AHA-2940UW works well in early PCI systems had dos drivers and win 3.X drivers also... It has worked in boards from a 486 pci system to Core2 systems.

but is not compatible as 29160 with the modern sca quite drive if i understood correctly. if 29160 work in pci 2.0 i prefer but i have not understand if work, not work, work worst and what means worst… tnks

dionb wrote on 2023-12-16, 00:32:

Tbh, the linear throughput of a HDD is generally its least relevant spec. For HDDs, seek time is king, which is why fast-rotating SCSI drives respond better than any PATA drives, even if they run on ATA133 bus.

20MB/s is probably more than an OS running on a P233MMX could handle, and even at that relatively low throughput you still get the full benefit of low seek times with a fast-rotating SCSI drive.

20 MB/s is what an EISA 486/50 can handle.
With a P233MMX you can expect a bit more.

But the access times from SCSI disks are smart.

Personally, even if it would be 5MB/sec I would be satisfied.

You're not copying ISO's or installing Crysis. 😉

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-16, 01:26:

[...]

What exactly happen if i install the 29160 on a computer with FX chipset or the one present on my Pentium60 chipset (i not know now wich is but for sure alder than fx) ?

A Pentium 60 could be paired with Intel i430LX but also with various SiS, OPTi or ALi chipsets. As far as I'm aware none of them support PCI 2.1, which is required for the AHA-29160. It won't work correctly. Can't say whether it will fail to install, or whether drivers would crash in-use, but it's a nope.

If your reply is something like (it does not work completley) wich controller is appropriate with this two system? a 2904 for exhample?

I don't know a "2904". I suggest looking up its manual/datasheet and see what PCI bus version it requires.

The pretty ubiquitous AHA-2940U works fine in PCI 2.0 boards, so would be an option. Note that it is a narrow (8b, 50p) SCSI adapter, so if you want to use a wide (16b, 68/80p) drive, you need to consider termination of the floating lines. Not sure about the AHA-2940UW, it is 16b and if it works you don't have to worry about wide-narrow termination. Not totally sure about that card though - again, look up its manual/datasheet and check yourself.

About the MMX on my socket5… i have read here on vogons that pentiumMMX can work for years at 3,3v without issue if have a good cooling. It iis a computer used 3 hours a week for retrogaming, not a computer on for 8h day 7/7days…

OK, now I really don't understand what you are playing at...

You are incredibly cautious asking about exactly what would happen if you maybe put a card not 100% supported onto a much older PCI bus. But here you happily massively overvolt a CPU. Maybe the CPU will keep working. Maybe the VRM on the motherboard won't fail. But if you're happy doing this, stop all these neurotic questions and just stick cards into boards and see what happens.

Maybe he meant the Pentium Overdrive with MMX instructions. But OP needs to be more precise about models and types of hardware he is using or planning to use / pointing at.
If it makes sense, or genuinely don't know stuff, we're happy to help of course.

dionb wrote on 2023-12-16, 16:27:

A Pentium 60 could be paired with Intel i430LX but also with various SiS, OPTi or ALi chipsets. As far as I'm aware none of them […]
Show full quote

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-16, 01:26:

[...]

What exactly happen if i install the 29160 on a computer with FX chipset or the one present on my Pentium60 chipset (i not know now wich is but for sure alder than fx) ?

A Pentium 60 could be paired with Intel i430LX but also with various SiS, OPTi or ALi chipsets. As far as I'm aware none of them support PCI 2.1, which is required for the AHA-29160. It won't work correctly. Can't say whether it will fail to install, or whether drivers would crash in-use, but it's a nope.

If your reply is something like (it does not work completley) wich controller is appropriate with this two system? a 2904 for exhample?

I don't know a "2904". I suggest looking up its manual/datasheet and see what PCI bus version it requires.

The pretty ubiquitous AHA-2940U works fine in PCI 2.0 boards, so would be an option. Note that it is a narrow (8b, 50p) SCSI adapter, so if you want to use a wide (16b, 68/80p) drive, you need to consider termination of the floating lines. Not sure about the AHA-2940UW, it is 16b and if it works you don't have to worry about wide-narrow termination. Not totally sure about that card though - again, look up its manual/datasheet and check yourself.

About the MMX on my socket5… i have read here on vogons that pentiumMMX can work for years at 3,3v without issue if have a good cooling. It iis a computer used 3 hours a week for retrogaming, not a computer on for 8h day 7/7days…

OK, now I really don't understand what you are playing at...

You are incredibly cautious asking about exactly what would happen if you maybe put a card not 100% supported onto a much older PCI bus. But here you happily massively overvolt a CPU. Maybe the CPU will keep working. Maybe the VRM on the motherboard won't fail. But if you're happy doing this, stop all these neurotic questions and just stick cards into boards and see what happens.

Ok very helpful information, i think i will buy 29160 for the 430HX and above machine and 1542 for 486. Then i search for info about 2940 if it will work on PCI 2.0 BUS of my two system. tnks fof now.

And... and ... and... install a 29160 in a PentiumII/III/4 with a 15.000rpm disk... is a good idea? I do not want to use SSD with my retrogaming PC before you suggest me to do that tnks.

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-16, 17:15:

And... and ... and... install a 29160 in a PentiumII/III/4 with a 15.000rpm disk... is a good idea? I do not want to use SSD with my retrogaming PC before you suggest me to do that tnks.

I have a 2940U2W on a P3C-D (dual Pentium 3 933) system with two 15k rpm disks running WinXP. It positively flies, feels much faster than anything I ever had when WInXP was current, and closer to SSD than to IDE HDD. I have a P3-1400S with SATA and SSD and they are similar in terms of 'snappy' feeling. I doubt the difference between 29160 and 2940UW will be significant, it's all about the drives.

dionb wrote on 2023-12-16, 18:41:

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-16, 17:15:

And... and ... and... install a 29160 in a PentiumII/III/4 with a 15.000rpm disk... is a good idea? I do not want to use SSD with my retrogaming PC before you suggest me to do that tnks.

I have a 2940U2W on a P3C-D (dual Pentium 3 933) system with two 15k rpm disks running WinXP. It positively flies, feels much faster than anything I ever had when WInXP was current, and closer to SSD than to IDE HDD. I have a P3-1400S with SATA and SSD and they are similar in terms of 'snappy' feeling. I doubt the difference between 29160 and 2940UW will be significant, it's all about the drives.

Very interesting, in fact I would have liked to ask the practical difference in use and feeling between 2940u2w and 29160. Yesterday I found a 2940u2w including box as if it were new and I took it... I'll try it. I also picked up a 1452cf to try in the 486DX4 and 386sx. I also found 3 hitachi 15k U320 discs which from the datasheet have the FDB motor, I hope they are quiet enough. What discs do you use? are they silent?

PD2JK wrote on 2023-12-16, 16:45:

Maybe he meant the Pentium Overdrive with MMX instructions. But OP needs to be more precise about models and types of hardware he is using or planning to use / pointing at.
If it makes sense, or genuinely don't know stuff, we're happy to help of course.

Basically i have 286, 386sx, 486dx (and varous cpu), P60, P200, PII/III, P4 478. All are IBM from ps/2 to ps/1, from PC330 to Netvista. I can try different controller in a very large span of technology. But i think that from P200 (430HX) and above the controller used can be the same.

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-17, 07:02:

Very interesting, in fact I would have liked to ask the practical difference in use and feeling between 2940u2w and 29160. Yesterday I found a 2940u2w including box as if it were new and I took it... I'll try it. I also picked up a 1452cf to try in the 486DX4 and 386sx. I also found 3 hitachi 15k U320 discs which from the datasheet have the FDB motor, I hope they are quiet enough. What discs do you use? are they silent?

2940u2W is 80Megabytes/s scsi bus max
29160 is 160Megabytes/s scsi bus max

is practically only difference of use.

weedeewee wrote on 2023-12-17, 08:33:

2940u2W is 80Megabytes/s scsi bus max 29160 is 160Megabytes/s scsi bus max […]
Show full quote

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-17, 07:02:

Very interesting, in fact I would have liked to ask the practical difference in use and feeling between 2940u2w and 29160. Yesterday I found a 2940u2w including box as if it were new and I took it... I'll try it. I also picked up a 1452cf to try in the 486DX4 and 386sx. I also found 3 hitachi 15k U320 discs which from the datasheet have the FDB motor, I hope they are quiet enough. What discs do you use? are they silent?

2940u2W is 80Megabytes/s scsi bus max
29160 is 160Megabytes/s scsi bus max

is practically only difference of use.

if it's only that 80 M/s is way way way more than enough for everithing in a retropc. can be 2940u2w more compatible with older computer? who know? we will see when arrive to me

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-17, 11:43:

weedeewee wrote on 2023-12-17, 08:33:

2940u2W is 80Megabytes/s scsi bus max 29160 is 160Megabytes/s scsi bus max […]
Show full quote

AlessandroB wrote on 2023-12-17, 07:02:

Very interesting, in fact I would have liked to ask the practical difference in use and feeling between 2940u2w and 29160. Yesterday I found a 2940u2w including box as if it were new and I took it... I'll try it. I also picked up a 1452cf to try in the 486DX4 and 386sx. I also found 3 hitachi 15k U320 discs which from the datasheet have the FDB motor, I hope they are quiet enough. What discs do you use? are they silent?

2940u2W is 80Megabytes/s scsi bus max
29160 is 160Megabytes/s scsi bus max

is practically only difference of use.

if it's only that 80 M/s is way way way more than enough for everithing in a retropc. can be 2940u2w more compatible with older computer? who know? we will see when arrive to me

PCI bus max speed is ~132M/s shared amongst devices, same like scsi bus
for the matter of compatibility. don't know. Try, find out, and come back to tell us.