VOGONS


The Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison

Topic actions

Reply 220 of 224, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
jakethompson1 wrote on 2020-07-09, 00:30:
I've had the ESA-486 industrial motherboard for a few years now and don't think I've posted Speedsys for it. It uses an SoC with […]
Show full quote

I've had the ESA-486 industrial motherboard for a few years now and don't think I've posted Speedsys for it.
It uses an SoC with a Cyrix 486DX4 core.
As you can see, there is no L2 cache. It does have 128MB of onboard PC100 SDRAM.
These hard drive numbers look pretty bad, don't they? Not sure why because I have UltraDMA enabled in the BIOS.

AFAIK, enabling UDMA or DMA in BIOS usually just allows it to be used but does not explicitly enable it . For that, under DOS, you would need to load something like the third party UDMA.SYS .

Reply 221 of 224, by jakethompson1

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
darry wrote on 2020-07-09, 01:41:

AFAIK, enabling UDMA or DMA in BIOS usually just allows it to be used but does not explicitly enable it . For that, under DOS, you would need to load something like the third party UDMA.SYS .

Ah, I was thinking the BIOS would install an int13h handler would accommodate it, but I guess not.
I assume SPEEDSYS does go through the BIOS and doesn't talk to the IDE io ports directly?
The UDMA on this board is apparently quite specialized. The ZFx86 website has a patch for the 2.2.x Linux kernel that I've been able to compile and use for UDMA. A plain Linux kernel won't do it. They also have a Win95 and Win98 driver.

Reply 222 of 224, by 1ST1

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I have not checked the full thread of this on 12 pages, but what I saw is very interesting, but I can't see which benchmark tools are you using for this. Has anybody put the Cyrix/TI 486SLC in coparison? I know, it is a "486" CPU for 386 systems, and a quick benchmark in Checkit 3.0 says, that it has only about 50% as the saved value of a 80486-33 system, even with L1 cache enabled by the Cyrix tools. I have such a machine, and I could run the benchmarks if they are compatible, and I also would like to do the comparison with the original 80386-33, and I coud compare with ULSI387 Math Copro and IIT387, and as soon as I get hands on a Cyrix FastMath 387 and an original Intel 80387.

Reply 223 of 224, by jesolo

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
1ST1 wrote on 2020-11-21, 08:54:

I have not checked the full thread of this on 12 pages, but what I saw is very interesting, but I can't see which benchmark tools are you using for this. Has anybody put the Cyrix/TI 486SLC in coparison? I know, it is a "486" CPU for 386 systems, and a quick benchmark in Checkit 3.0 says, that it has only about 50% as the saved value of a 80486-33 system, even with L1 cache enabled by the Cyrix tools. I have such a machine, and I could run the benchmarks if they are compatible, and I also would like to do the comparison with the original 80386-33, and I coud compare with ULSI387 Math Copro and IIT387, and as soon as I get hands on a Cyrix FastMath 387 and an original Intel 80387.

If you download the pdf files, then you will also see more detail around the testing methodology and the various benchmarks used (both under DOS & Windows).
I think one of the reasons why the Cyrix SCL/DLC CPU's were excluded, is because they don't fit on a Socket 3 platform.

The intention of this exercise was to keep (as far as possible) all the other components the same, apart from swopping out the CPU's - this was to obviously to ensure that there were no other variables in the testing that was performed.
Granted, there were some CPU's that were tested on other motherboards, but with the same chipset.

I seem to recall that @feipoa was planning on performing a similar benchmark exercise on the 386 platform, but I'm speaking under correction.
If you had said the Cyrix 486DLC, then I would say you perhaps have an interesting point, but I wouldn't regard a Cyrix 486SLC as being in the 486 class, since it runs on a 16-bit external data bus (like your 386SX CPU) which severely cripples its performance. At best, you will get the equivalent performance of a 386DX-33 with a 486SLC CPU (provided you can get the L1 cache to operate properly on the motherboard), but nowhere near 486 performance.

That being said, Texas Instruments (being a second source for Cyrix back then) also made a Cyrix 486DLC equivalent, called the TI486SXL with 8kb of L1 cache (both in 132-pin and 168-pin packages and even clock doubled versions), The 168-pin equivalent one could probably test on a similar setup to see how it stacks up against your Intel/AMD 486DX counterparts.

However, based on my own tests, a Cyrix 486DLC 40 MHz CPU runs just below that of an Intel 486DX 33 MHz CPU (in terms of integer performance). Considering that most 386 motherboards did not have VLB slots, this would also hinder overall performance compared to an equivalent 486DX-33 setup with a VLB grahpics card.

@feipoa did perform some comparative tests between a Cyrix 486DLC & TI486SXL - Cyrix/Ti 486DLC vs 486SXL

Reply 224 of 224, by 1ST1

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

No, it's a 80386DX-33 machine upgraded with the TI486 (Cyrix) CPU. So it's fully 32 bit on the mainboard, but not the ISA cards. Maybe soon I have two interesting real 486DX machines to benchmark. First I need to restaurate them. These machines have no setting for clock speed or voltage, so mainboard always runs at 33 MHz. But they are EISA bus, I have EISA VGA cards for them, and they have 64 bit interleaved memory bus, up to 64 MB with an access speed of 30ns, no L2 cache. Memory bus is similar to Pentium 4 machine, these machines always require to install two PS/2 simm modules at the same time. They made that because besides the 486 the mainboard also could be populated with an i860 Risc CPU as a "copro". The one mainboard has the original i486DX-33, the other has a voltage adapter socket with an Intel or AMD DX4-100 (I forgot, that's made more than 25 years ago) and maybe I can upgrade the DX-33 to a Cyrix-DX2-66.

I will check the PDFs and let's see...