Post a pic of the POST screen (where it displays the BIOS ID string). Alternatively, try a utility like Navrátil System Information (NSSI 0.60) to try and identify your motherboard manufacturer.
Lastly, try this site: http://arvutimuuseum.ee/th99/#1.

Regardless, there is no cache RAM on this motherboard. Hence, why the option is not available is the CMOS setup.

here you go: https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/motherboards/U/U … -MAINBOARD.html

Pretty rare (if EVER) for a 386SX to have cache. Those TI chips (the SN74F244N) aren't cache chips, but octal buffers/drivers.

Awesome thanks everyone when I cleaned the board from the battery leak it removed most of the white indicators that tells me what numbers pins are for jumpers and the weird thing is that whoever owned this board set jumper 1 to pins 2+3 instead of 1+2 so they had it set as a 20MHz CPU instead of a 25MHz, if 386 boards didnt have cache chips wouldnt they run extremely slow slower than in my case 25MHz?

What is the OSC1 in the manual used for?

it is an SX board. It was a low-end board from the very start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldI6nQIU9Ms

the OSC is the empty socket next to the bigger empty socket.

Its for an upgrade to a FPU.

I mean no offence but I think your posts would be easier to understand if they were split into shorter sentences.
Those ALI chipsets have pretty good memory perfomance so while it would be better to have cache, a good RAM set to 0 waitstates will almost make up for it when both banks are populated. Either way a 25MHz 386SX is not going to set the world on fire - but it's enough for many DOS games. These are nice, small mobos that "just work".

OSC is a socket for a separate clock generator for the co-processor. Only original Intel 387 could run with async clock, all other ones used the CPU clock even if the jumpers were set otherwise.

Thanks Deunan no offence taken, I'll keep it short in the future, I thought AMD made decent chips back in 386 days but from your video above they are not? What made them so low end (crap)?

GabrielKnight123 wrote:

Thanks Deunan no offence taken, I'll keep it short in the future, I thought AMD made decent chips back in 386 days but from your video above they are not? What made them so low end (crap)?

They aren't (at least not during the 386 era). Intel also made 386SX chips - the AMD ones are just "copies" of the Intel ones.
AMD did, however, produce 40 MHz CPU's (both in SX & DX variants) while Intel only went up to 33 MHz.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it crap, FM Towns Marty has a 16MHz 386SX CPU and so many good games, like almost perfect port of Operation Wolf.

It's just that most people, when asked about 386, would bring up an AMD 386DX-40 - even on this forum. An uncached mobo with 386SX-25 is only half it's speed, and that is sort of dissapointing because you'd want to play late 386-era games but that CPU will be too slow for most of them. Like Doom, or Privateer. Not to mention games that require more than 4MB RAM (or that just barely work with 4MB) - because 4MB 30-pin sticks are somewhat rare and expensive compared to 1MB sticks.

Funnily enough I was lookig for such 25MHz mobo at some point and couldn't find a decent one. I have 2 of those ALI boards and one has 40MHz CPU and the other one had a 33MHz but I put a 486SXLC there with clock generator replaced to provide 25MHz.

GabrielKnight123 wrote:

Thanks Deunan no offence taken, I'll keep it short in the future, I thought AMD made decent chips back in 386 days but from your video above they are not? What made them so low end (crap)?

the amd and intel chips are virtually identical. Same for the other brands. differences exist in the FPU's.

the SX basically means the bus is crippled to make it cheaper.

buying an SX is akin to buying a 3-wheeled cart. its really cheap, it still works, but the whole damn time you are going to wish you got one with the 4th wheel.

Unless your goal is word processing and text adventures, then the SX was a good buy.

luckybob wrote:

Unless your goal is word processing and text adventures, then the SX was a good buy.

I agree with this.

One must also put this into context in terms of what computers cost back in the late 80's & early 90's. They were very expensive (to your average home user and small to medium businesses).

Considering what a 386 (DX) system cost back in the late 80's & early 90's, a 386SX was a very attractive proposition.
Not many software actually required the use of the full 32-bit bus and having more than 4 MB of RAM wasn't within many people's reach (due to the high cost of memory). Many of those PC's still came with only 1 MB or 2 MB of RAM.

luckybob wrote:

here you go: https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/motherboards/U/U … -MAINBOARD.html

Luckybob how did you find this board from all the boards on https://stason.org/TULARC/index.html I click on "Personal computers (PC's) info, then "Motherboards jumper settings: A-Z" and there are many 386's there did you look at all the pictures or did you know this board personally?

GabrielKnight123 wrote:

luckybob wrote:

here you go: https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/motherboards/U/U … -MAINBOARD.html

Luckybob how did you find this board from all the boards on https://stason.org/TULARC/index.html I click on "Personal computers (PC's) info, then "Motherboards jumper settings: A-Z" and there are many 386's there did you look at all the pictures or did you know this board personally?

Look at the chipset. It's an ALi chipset, which are relatively unusual. So if one of the "unidentified" boards is called "ALI" that would be a good place to start looking - and rightly so it seems in this case.

GabrielKnight123 wrote:

luckybob wrote:

here you go: https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/motherboards/U/U … -MAINBOARD.html

Luckybob how did you find this board from all the boards on https://stason.org/TULARC/index.html I click on "Personal computers (PC's) info, then "Motherboards jumper settings: A-Z" and there are many 386's there did you look at all the pictures or did you know this board personally?

Don't do a normal search.

I use this as a start to a google IMAGE search: site:stason.org

I then add what I know: amd 386sx-25

usually narrows it down a fail deal.

then I just look for the correct arrangement of the isa slots, usually drops it to 2-3 finalists. Then I check jumper locations.

easy peasy lemon squeezy

this was super quick, as literally the 2nd board on the search was the correct one: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C … img.LCZrCFh_fEI

jesolo wrote:

Not many software actually required the use of the full 32-bit bus

What's requiring a "full 32 bit bus" ?

To me 386SX are kinda like 286s but with greater compatibility (even though most 286 will beat 386SX clock for clock but the fastest 286s are rare)

Deksor wrote:

jesolo wrote:

Not many software actually required the use of the full 32-bit bus

What's requiring a "full 32 bit bus" ?

What I meant by that are applications that were compiled to run on 16-bit processors and wouldn't benefit much (if at all) from running on a 32-bit processor.

Deksor wrote:

To me 386SX are kinda like 286s but with greater compatibility (even though most 286 will beat 386SX clock for clock but the fastest 286s are rare)

Agreed, which also came out in this thread and was explained by Scali: Performance comparison of CPU: 286-25 vs 386DX-25 vs 386SX-25.
This would probably be more applicable to 16-bit compiled applications. Once you move onto applications that take advantage of your 386 CPU, then this is where the "compatibility" factor would start to play a role (provided that your CPU is actually fast enough to run said software).

Interesting that something so simlar turned out here, I got a similar form factor 386SX board with cache not long ago myself. I also had a 486SX board in this minimalist form factor before.. I wonder if these were for use in things like ATMs and casiers etc?

Hello @ll!
Got my hands on four battery-corroded boards like these. Managed to salvage 3 so far.

Exploring the possibilities...