VOGONS


Cyrix 5x86 120GP with Biostar MB8433 Version 2

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 64, by rgart

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jolaes76 wrote:

I see, but even the IBM 5x86 prices are rising. I have just paid over 46 USD for a perfect specimen. I do not usually care for collectors grade items just for the shiny looks, but I wanted to have an unused or lesser stressed one.

Are you going to use it?

Strangely: When I use this cyrix chip at its intended frequency of 120mhz. I can throw every test at it and it passes with flying colours well below its rated voltage.

Set at 3.45 volts via the jumpers on the board I still am unable to crash it.

=My Cyrix 5x86 systems : 120MHz vs 133MHz=. =My 486DX2-66MHz=

Reply 21 of 64, by Jolaes76

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Of course I am going to use it 😀 Not on daily basis, but not rarely either.
That is why I always have only a modest collection - it takes a lot of time to regularly re-test parts for their condition. I immediately bin / give away components at the first sign of malfunctioning. Old hardware are capricious by default, who needs faults on top of that...

You have some real CPU gems in your hands, try to keep them working as long as it is possible. Even if I prefer the AMD 5x86 line for perfect 486 compatibility, the performance of the rare Cyrix based processors never can be ignored.

"Ita in vita ut in lusu alae pessima iactura arte corrigenda est."

Reply 22 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
rgart wrote:

Strangely: When I use this cyrix chip at its intended frequency of 120mhz. I can throw every test at it and it passes with flying colours well below its rated voltage.

Set at 3.45 volts via the jumpers on the board I still am unable to crash it.

That is not strange at all. If all the 120's ran at 133 MHz, Cyrix would have marketed some as 133 MHz a lot earlier in production.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 24 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Not very strange. I think all ceramic 120 chips were either marked as 3.6V or not volt marked at all. You are bound to get some which operate well at slightly less voltage. We don't really know what qualification procedure was used by Cyrix for this chips. Perhaps only some seldom used chip feature needed the extra 0.15 V. Perhaps only 40% of the chips needed the extra 0.15 V and they marked them all as 3.6V for simplicity. Maybe one day a former Cyrix CPU designer will show up here 😀

It is difficult to establish stability with some DOS tests and a Win98 install. Try also installing NT4 and W2K on separate partitions and run the ensuite of benchmarks in the 686 benchmark comparison, followed by several hours of mp3 playback. I also like to transfer 50 GB or so over the network as another test. The network test was one of my first puzzling discoveries of infrequent stability on a Cyrix 5x86 with different memory density/types and cache timings. NT4 would BSOD at around 30 GB transferred. With this particular EDO memory, I had to either set the cache to 3-2-2-2 or leave it at 2-1-1-1 and use FPM memory to pass the network transfer. It was 4-chip EDO sticks at 32 MB/stick.

Nothing really surprises me with 486's anymore.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 25 of 64, by rgart

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

you are just too thorough Feipoa 😀

I know you have mentioned before I should use an Awe 64 gold in this system but the PCI variant is not easy to come by.

Will system stability and speed drop if i use an ISA card?

=My Cyrix 5x86 systems : 120MHz vs 133MHz=. =My 486DX2-66MHz=

Reply 26 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I don't recall saying to use an AWE64 PCI card. I mentioned an AWE64Gold was a popular choice for an ISA sound card for these boards. It is also the only ISA sound card I have tested on a 66 MHz FSB 486. If the ISA bus is running at FSB/4 (or 16.7 MHz), I'm not sure which sound cards are really stable at this frequency. It is on my to-do list to determine if any instability previously noted with the IBM 5x86c-133 could be due to cards on the ISA bus. 16.7 MHz is out of spec 2-fold.

If you only use cards on the PCI bus and use the 1/2 divisor option, all expansion cards should be within spec, that is, assuming the PCI clock signal is not overly noisy and still within TTL voltage levels. I think most Pre-1999 PCI sound cards will function. There are other threads on which PCI sound cards are gaming popular and will function in DOS.

If you are intent on running a 60/66 MHz FSB system, I would establish stability with only PCI cards before contemplating adding any ISA cards.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 27 of 64, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Jolaes76 wrote:

I see, but even the IBM 5x86 prices are rising. I have just paid over 46 USD for a perfect specimen. I do not usually care for collectors grade items just for the shiny looks, but I wanted to have an unused or lesser stressed one.

There was a seller on ebay who had one a few months back that he was listing for $24 with free shipping that was there for the longest time. I was surprised it lasted as long as it did. I actually broke one of my own rules for that one because nobody else seemed interested and haggled him down to $21 and got it. It's got pins that need straightening, but I've done that before and I expected it because a lot of chips from that time have bent pins. Even if it turns out not to work, at least I didn't pay a ridiculous price and can throw it in with some of my other pieces that I bought strictly for show. I already have a Cyrix 120mhz so getting the IBM chip into a motherboard isn't really a priority for me right now but I do have another motherboard that I could put it in, I just don't have enough AT cases and power supplies. Cases and power supplies are actually a bigger headache than finding the chips and motherboards.

Reply 28 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Last month I bought 3 new and unused IBM 5x86c chips for $30 shipped to Canada ($30 for all 3). They are not the more common late 1995 chips either, they are from 3-12th week of 1996. The 12th week chip is even past Cyrix last production date of these chips (7th week of 1996). I've done some initial testing with the chips on a PC Chips M919 and they seem to work very well.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 29 of 64, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

You shouldn't pay much for the 5x86C chips. They aren't worth much in gold, and they were mass produced.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 31 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I'm not sure what AC thinks is a good price for 5x86c chips, but I don't think I've paid more than $15 for an IBM 5x86c or any of the common Cyrix 5x86's. This, of course, was before they were scarce. If you get an IBM 5x86c-100 chips which runs very well at 133 (2x66) MHz and at a low voltage, then I don't think $20-30 is too much.

Based on what I have read online, the It's ST chips had the lowest qualification standards, Cyrix had the middle-of-the-road qualification standards, whereas and IBM had the highest. From my personal testing experience, the ST chips overclock the worst, IBM's the best. I kinda wonder if Cyrix sold ST their marginally passing chips. There are some Cyrix- and ST-branded 4x capable chips marked as 100 MHz, but you can forget about running these at 133 MHz, I've tested both variants. The ST chip wouldn't even show signs of life at 133 MHz at any voltage, whereas the Cyrix-branded chip at least displayed the start screen at 133 MHz. Obviously, chips marked as 5x86-133/4x should work at 133 MHz.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 32 of 64, by rgart

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Feipoa Ive been using 3.45 volts and yeah Its a s1r3 Cyrix 5x86-120.

I think $20 is a great price for a cyrix 120 chip

I'd pay substantially more than 20 for a 133.

As soon as I get a day off Ill finish off the complete system.

=My Cyrix 5x86 systems : 120MHz vs 133MHz=. =My 486DX2-66MHz=

Reply 33 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I forget exactly which of the Cyrix advanced features work differently with s1r3 vs. s0r5 chips. I think BTB may work a little better with s1r3, but I have yet to determine this conclusively. It may have been BWRT or LINBRST which need to be disabled on s1r3.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 34 of 64, by rgart

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I had problems with both the set5x86.exe and ibmm9.exe programs.

I found Peter Moss's Utility to be the best. It helps to be able to use it from the command line too.

The machine is in pieces at the moment but ill get around to testing what works best.

How many 133 chips do you have Feipoa?

=My Cyrix 5x86 systems : 120MHz vs 133MHz=. =My 486DX2-66MHz=

Reply 35 of 64, by dirkmirk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

So what are the motherboard choices to run a 120@133mhz with the least hassle? None of my boards support 66mhz and is running @66mhz the only possible way to reach 133mhz?

Reply 36 of 64, by rgart

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I think most people would use a fsb of 33mhz and a multiplier of 4. Im not sure what boards can be modded to run with a 66mhz fsb stably other than the biostar mb8433

=My Cyrix 5x86 systems : 120MHz vs 133MHz=. =My 486DX2-66MHz=

Reply 37 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

There are a few ways to reach 133 MHz on an IBM 5x86c. In each case, the CPU voltage should be set around 3.65-3.85 V. Some options as follows,

1) 66 MHz FSB motherboard w/2x multiplier. The Biostar MB8433-UUD v2-3.x are the only boards I've been able to achieve any success with this. The PLL clock generator chip on most PCI 486 boards does have pre-programmed multipliers which allow for 20, 25, 33, 40, 50, 60, and 66 MHz FSB operation. The jumper configurations for non-typical speeds would not be documented, but can be determined fairly easily. The DTK PKM-0033S board and 4DPS board do not operate well at 60 and 66 MHz. These boards have a jumper configuration for 1/2 PCI frequency, although the manual may hide it in the 50 MHz jumper setting. It is easy to figure out what it is though. The HOT-433 and M919 do not operate well at 66 MHz, but the M919 operates OK with 60 MHz. I don't recall if the HOT-433 runs well at 60 MHz or not. The HOT-433 and M919 have 1/2 PCI frequency settings. The MB8433 has 1/2 and 2/3. Running your FSB at 66 MHz will likely cause your ISA bus to run at 16.7 MHz, which is fairly out of spec. Also, even the slowest cache timings are pretty fast at 66 MHz, but it seems to work on the MB8433.

In the past, I ran quite a few stability tests at 2x66 on the MB8433. I found a voltage which the system did not hang at all, but when summer came, it didn't run as stable. This points to cooling issues inside my mini tower. I'll probably want to put this into a larger tower. However, recently, I noticed that when using my DTK PKM-0033S motherboard and an ISA sound card, the ISA sound card was causing issues with a 40 MHz FSB and the ISA bus set to 7.1x MHz. The system ran fine when it was set to FSB/4. Anyway, this got me wondering if running the ISA bus on the MB8433-UUD at 66/4 caused the summer instability and not the heat. I was infact running continuous mp3 playback during the summer stability tests. I need to retest for this scenario by removing the ISA sound card entirely.

2) Add an additional 2x multiplier phase-lock loop (PLL) to the motherboard or on a CPU interposer card. This is the most desirable option because you could run your FSB at 33 MHz and everything would be in spec. You could also use the fastest timings. I have plans to do this and have parts on hand. Attention should be given to matching the input/output/line impedences.

EDIT: I have had some initial success with this. Refer to attached image.

3) Swap out the crystal oscillator on the motherboard which feeds the FSB PLL generator chip. The standard onboard crystal oscillator is 14.318 MHz. If you want to use the 3x CPU setting, you can swap the crystal to these commonly available frequencies,

19.2 MHz or 19.6608 MHz. It should be a drop-in replacement of only 2 solder points. Maybe even put in a SIP for just pull it out with your fingers in the future.

With the 19.2 MHz crystal, you'd have these settings at 3x
CPU = 134.1 MHz
FSB = 44.7 MHz
PCI = 29.8 MHz (using 2/3 multiplier on motherboard)
ISA = 11.2 MHz

With the 19.6608 MHz crystal, you'd have these settings at 3x
CPU = 137.3 MHz
FSB = 45.8 MHz
PCI = 30.5 MHz (using 2/3 multiplier on motherboard)
ISA = 11.4 MHz

Option 3 clearly requires the least amount of effort, but if your motherboard doesn't have a 2/3 PCI multiplier option, you'd be stuck with an overly fast PCI bus, or an overly slow 1/2 PCI bus at 22.5 MHz.

EDIT: It seems that the chipset relies on a 14.318 MHz crystal for internal timers, like those used for the diskette controller. Increasing the crystal clock by more than about 1 MHz causes the system not to boot from diskette. So the crystal swap option might not be the best way to go about this. However, you may be able to get away with a ISA floppy controller. I'm not sure which other system features are effected by the cyrstal needing to be 14.318 MHz.

4) Trick the cpu into 4x mode? I think these are hard-coded and this cannot be done. I'm hoping that my IBM 5x86c chips from 1996 are 4x-capable.

rgart wrote:

I think most people would use a fsb of 33mhz and a multiplier of 4. Im not sure what boards can be modded to run with a 66mhz fsb stably other than the biostar mb8433

I suspect the Cyrix CPU used hard-coded PLL's, in which case a 4x setting is dependent entirely on the pre-programming of the R/N/P values on the CPU's onboard PLL. If it is not coded for 4x as an option, there is no motherboard which will make it run at 4x. I have already tried altering the CPU's register which controls the 4x capability, but it does not switch into 4x mode. Most 1990's era PLL's on motherboards had hard-coded R/N/P values. Most of the PLL's I see today allow for thousands of non-hard coded multiplier/divisor values. I am guessing that 1/2/3x Cyrix/IBM chips have hard-coded 1/2/3x options only. There are the rare few chips which also burned in R/N/P values for the 4x option. I don't really understand why Cyrix didn't at least leave register control capability open for 4x, but leave the CLKMUL jumper setup for 2x/3x. This way, we could have at least used software or a BIOS register setting to set the 4x multiplier. The particular register combination for 4x does not allow for writing in these values except on the 4x-specific chips. Perhaps it took slightly more dye space to code in an extra multiplier setting; maybe their existing PLL design didn't work well with 4x; maybe they didn't want people trying to overclock; why didn't IBM at least enable 4x - was anyone really running these chips at 2x?;

5) Try to modify a Cyrix MediaGX to run on a socket 3. These chips went all the way up to 300 MHz and are based on the 5x86. The multipliers for the more common chips went from 5 - 10x in 1x increments.

Attachments

Last edited by feipoa on 2013-08-18, 09:44. Edited 2 times in total.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 38 of 64, by rgart

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I always enjoy reading your posts feipoa and trying to assimilate some knowledge. I dont recall trying 4 x 33 on my system. I did try 50x3 but it didnt post 😀. Where is the reading material on the different revisions and steppings from the cyrix company itself. All I can find on google is a lot of conjecture on old news groups from 1995ish.

In one of your threads you say:

"RESULTS - ALU

From the graph shown above, it is clear that BTB had the largest impact for ALU-focused processes, with a 22% boost. BTB, or branch prediction, on a Cyrix 5x86 is generally not considered a stable setting in Windows except possibly with Stepping 1, Revision 3 CPUs"

Where did that information come from regarding the step 1 rev 3 cpu?

=My Cyrix 5x86 systems : 120MHz vs 133MHz=. =My 486DX2-66MHz=

Reply 39 of 64, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

A combination of first-hand experience and it being mentioned in the Peter Moss documentation,

There are many owners who can not operate with branch prediction enabled, especially in windows or windows 95. The revision of your CPU may be a factor here and step 1 revision 3 up should be suitable but is not guaranteed.

I first thought BTB worked better on s1r3 in Windows, but when I played with BTB on the IBM chips (s0r5), I was able to run all the Windows benchmarks for the ultimate 486/686 benchmark comparisons with BTB enabled. However, I seem to recall it being a little fussy with an occasional BSOD, but at other times, no signs of BSOD. BTB may be frequency-dependent. Since I did not cross-compare this "fussiness" with s1r3 chips using the same benchmarks, I used the term "possibly" and "Cyrix 5x86" instead of "IBM 5x86." I have run s1r3 chips in Windows with BTB enabled, but did not undergo the same complexity in testing. There is certainly more work to be done in this area.

I have not found any mention of stepping/revisions in the Cyrix 5x86 documentation.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.