Back in 90s I briefly used cheap PC CHIPS M575.

The chipset was branded "TXpro", but it is just a rebranded ALi M1531. The board had 1MB of real PLBl cache. I think they even produced a version with 2MB.

Skalabala wrote on 2020-05-04, 10:45:

Hi members :) This is sort of a myth to me. If you read the motherboard spec sheet most of them says "1Mb optional" Now looking […]
Show full quote

Hi members 😀
This is sort of a myth to me. If you read the motherboard spec sheet most of them says "1Mb optional"
Now looking at the Aladdin V 1541/1542 datasheet and doing some more reading it is not possible for the ALi chipset to have 1Mb of cache.
But a motherboard by the name of freetech P5F103 seems to actually exist with 1Mb of cache.
If there are any members on here with any motherboard using the ALi V chipset with 1Mb cache can you pretty please post some photos of it?

Wow... such a nice board !
See:
Bought these (retro) hardware today

I have already contacted that member a few days ago :p
You can see that there is space for two cache chips on the freetech P5F103 . The one he had(sold now) only had one cache chip.
And thanks for that info @PARKE, but I am looking for specifically for motherboards with Aladdin V chipset 😀

Yes, I noticed that there are two cache chips on the layout in the manual and that the update to 1Mb is 'optional'.
But this -is- Aladdin V according to this review, right ?
http://www.super7.net/Super7/Freetech/p5f103rev.html
I guess it will not be easy to find a 1Mb version.

IMO, 512 KB cache is enough for SS7. And if you go with a K6 3/2+/3+ CPU, you can even disable the external cache altogether (you will maybe lose 1-2% performance).
So the chase for boards with 1MB, 2MB of cache is kinda useless (again, IMO) 😀

PARKE wrote on 2020-05-04, 15:48:

Yes, I noticed that there are two cache chips on the layout in the manual and that the update to 1Mb is 'optional'. But this -is […]
Show full quote

Yes, I noticed that there are two cache chips on the layout in the manual and that the update to 1Mb is 'optional'.
But this -is- Aladdin V according to this review, right ?
http://www.super7.net/Super7/Freetech/p5f103rev.html
I guess it will not be easy to find a 1Mb version.

I made a mistake in my previous message :p I should have directed that post to member mpe

Skalabala wrote on 2020-05-04, 16:06:

PARKE wrote on 2020-05-04, 15:48:

Yes, I noticed that there are two cache chips on the layout in the manual and that the update to 1Mb is 'optional'. But this -is […]
Show full quote

Yes, I noticed that there are two cache chips on the layout in the manual and that the update to 1Mb is 'optional'.
But this -is- Aladdin V according to this review, right ?
http://www.super7.net/Super7/Freetech/p5f103rev.html
I guess it will not be easy to find a 1Mb version.

I made a mistake in my previous message :p I should have directed that post to member mpe

Most motherboards take a big hit in performance if you disable the cache. The one I have tested that did not do bad was Jetway 524C
And there is another thing to it. Using two cache chips could speed things up. And then there is the other thing, 1Mb cache chip made by Elite MT is 4ns instead of 5ns.
I am hoping the 1Mb 4ns chip could be more stable when overclocked VS the 5ns chip.

Skalabala wrote on 2020-05-04, 16:06:

I made a mistake in my previous message :p I should have directed that post to member mpe

Ok, no sweat.

bloodem wrote on 2020-05-04, 16:01:

So the chase for boards with 1MB, 2MB of cache is kinda useless (again, IMO) 😀

It probably is for most mortal humans but there are also (some) people interested in reaching for the stars:
AMD K6 3DMARK, aiming for stars.

Nice one, thanks for the heads up, PARKE! So... I respectfully retract my previous statement 😀
Fun fact: I see that he was also using driver version 7.76 for those benchmarks, which is also my go-to driver for SS7 / old Pentium 2s (based on my own tests).

bloodem wrote on 2020-05-04, 17:22:

Nice one, thanks for the heads up, PARKE! So... I respectfully retract my previous statement 😀

Ehehehe....

That ASUS P5-A board *WITH* the onboard sound has 1mb onboard cache where the non-sound versions seem to have 512kb.

luckybob wrote on 2020-05-04, 19:35:

That ASUS P5-A board *WITH* the onboard sound has 1mb onboard cache where the non-sound versions seem to have 512kb.

I have not seen any of these 🙁 My one P5AB has sound but 512Kb.
I have seen a photo a few years ago of I think it was P5A with 1Mb cache.

not on this one?
http://assets.hardwarezone.com/2009/reviews/mb/p5a/p5a.htm

Ok, slight mistake.

I forgot which one was which. The -B apparently is the baby-At board. That board with sound should have 1mb cache

imi wrote on 2020-05-05, 11:31:

not on this one?
http://assets.hardwarezone.com/2009/reviews/mb/p5a/p5a.htm

You can see from the tiny photo that cache chip looks like 512Kb and seems to say so in the specs below.
My P5A-B with sound is 512kb 🙁

Well here was a price list with a P5A 1Mb at least :p
http://web.tiscali.it/x-file/listino1.htm

Skalabala wrote on 2020-05-04, 16:10:

Most motherboards take a big hit in performance if you disable the cache.

Not if you use a k6-2+ or k6-3. The on chip cache runs as CPU speed and is significantly faster then the on-motherboard cache SRAM witch runs at FSB speed. Depending on how much ram the system has, disabling on-motherboard cache when using one of these chips can actually improve performance. In my tests, with 128mb of ram, a K6-3 performs up to 5% faster with L3 cache (on motherboard) disabled, but with 512MB of ram it takes a small performance hit. The motherboard I used is a Aopen AX59 PRO.

Socket3 wrote on 2020-08-09, 09:16:

In my tests, with 128mb of ram, a K6-3 performs up to 5% faster with L3 cache (on motherboard) disabled [...]

I have to say, I also heard this urban legend multiple times, and have tested this theory on probably more than 10 motherboards, paired with K6-2+ @ 550 / 600 MHz.
And what I found, was that performance is consistently worse with MB cache disabled (albeit, not by much on a K6-2+). So I'm pretty curious to find out in which circumstances the platform is faster with the MB cache disabled, because for gaming... this is definitely not the case, at least not on the motherboards that I tested.