This one? ftp://cyberia.dnsalias.com/pub/filebase/utils/k6clkwin.zip

Looks like a nice utility... I wish I had a "+" version of K6-2 500MHz 😉

Is there a reason to use this instead of gerwin's setmul?

setmul works with EMM386, which is a huge advantage. It also allows you to disable the L1 & L2 cache.

Between setting the multiplier between 2 and 6 and disabling the L1 cache, I can run my K6-3+ in increments from a 486-66 through full speed--550 MHz--according to Speedsys.

UPDATE: Ah, I see that you are talking about on-the-fly changes in Windows.

Just use the software I used in my 4 in 1 Retro Gaming PC. It works on the fly 😀 I forgot the name though, but the file should be linked in the project thread.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Just use the software I used in my 4 in 1 Retro Gaming PC. It works on the fly 😀 I forgot the name though, but the file should be linked in the project thread.

The program is k6speed according to your video. Like you, I have no plans to slow down in Windows given that there aren't any Windows games I play that have issues with a too-fast CPU. I'll just use a DOS boot disk and SETMUL when I want to play older games.

One question: because killing the L1 cache has such a significant impact on performance, did you notice very much of a difference between a 66MHz bus and a 100MHz bus (2x multiplier) when L1 is disabled? I'm asking because I'd prefer to keep the 100MHz bus for maximum Windows performance, especially if there isn't much difference beween a 133MHz CPU and a 200MHz CPU without L1 cache.

I found CTU (Central Tweaking Unit) to be the best native windows 9x program for configuring the K6 mobiles.
Available here:
http://www.k6plus.com/phpBB3/dm_eds/showcat.php?id=3

Other native windows programs that may support K6 tweaking:
WCPUID (not sure if it supports K6 mobile, it does support certain VIA CPUs)
CrystalCPUID
K6Speed

I can only hope that gerwin make his Setmul compatible with WinNT+ OS, however since he recently moved, he probably have other things to do right now... 😢 So I would like to try it under Win98 then - anyone have it?

At least I do have an internet connection now, since 5 minutes ago. 😀

boxpressed wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

Just use the software I used in my 4 in 1 Retro Gaming PC. It works on the fly 😀 I forgot the name though, but the file should be linked in the project thread.

The program is k6speed according to your video. Like you, I have no plans to slow down in Windows given that there aren't any Windows games I play that have issues with a too-fast CPU. I'll just use a DOS boot disk and SETMUL when I want to play older games.

One question: because killing the L1 cache has such a significant impact on performance, did you notice very much of a difference between a 66MHz bus and a 100MHz bus (2x multiplier) when L1 is disabled? I'm asking because I'd prefer to keep the 100MHz bus for maximum Windows performance, especially if there isn't much difference beween a 133MHz CPU and a 200MHz CPU without L1 cache.

Sorry for the confusion, I was really replying to the thread in general, seeing the OP asked for a Windows utility to set the multiplier on the fly.

For DOS, SetMul to be flawless and don't see a reason not to use it.

Regarding 66 MHz vs 100 MHz FSB, yes there is a performance difference when you disable L1 cache, but have the motherboard cache enabled. Turn both off, there is very little difference. 66 MHz FSB is more compatible with older speed sensitive games. Some games simply won't launch at the higher FSB / clock speed. So, as always, it depends on the game you play. So I would just test them all out, if they work with 100 MHz, all is good.

The other option is wiring up switches and controlling the FSB externally.

gervin -

At least I do have an internet connection now, since 5 minutes ago. 😀

At lest something happend! 😀 Congratulations for the first step 😁 And thanks for the nice find. Sadly, CPU-Z does not run on Win98/se/ME ... only Windows 2000 / WinXP are possible and there is necessary to be able change the multiplier down to 2x 😉

AFAIK there is an old version of CPU-z that works on Windows 98. The fonts are a bit on the small side though.

trodas wrote:

Sadly, CPU-Z does not run on Win98/se/ME

Of course it does, just don't use a 2015 version 😀

But you cannot validate the score w/o using the latest CPU-Z, witch made it nonexisting. If you cannot validate from earlier versions of CPU-Z, then they are nonexisting in practical purposes.

trodas wrote:

But you cannot validate the score w/o using the latest CPU-Z, witch made it nonexisting. If you cannot validate from earlier versions of CPU-Z, then they are nonexisting in practical purposes.

You said it "Does Not Run", which is not correct. Just be a bit more specific in the future please 😀

Well, for the necessary validation purposes (no validation = not happen) is simply "does not run" for me. I believe that this is easy to understand. This is not like rocket science, I made it clear on numerous occasions before and also in the post you are reffering to ("015-9-10 @ 06:47: "you cannot validate the score"), so for practical purposes is any copy of CPU-Z, witch result cannot be validated, nonexisting.

Hence "does not run" for me, even this is not technically correct, as older versions of CPU-Z does run under Win98se (I tried sucesfully v1.51: http://hwbot.org/submission/2965202_ ).

...

And sorry to sound bad and harsh, but I just trying to figure our, witch version of CPU-Z run on WinNT 4.0 and I failed even with v1.34.1, witch suxx bad... Grrrrrr!!!!

Does K6-2 speed settings "survive" a "quick" reboot? Like the one QEMM does when you press Ctrl+Alt+Del (does not go through POST, just jumps straight back to the boot manager)?

trodas wrote:

Well, for the necessary validation purposes (no validation = not happen) is simply "does not run" for me. I believe that this is […]
Show full quote

Well, for the necessary validation purposes (no validation = not happen) is simply "does not run" for me. I believe that this is easy to understand. This is not like rocket science, I made it clear on numerous occasions before and also in the post you are reffering to ("015-9-10 @ 06:47: "you cannot validate the score"), so for practical purposes is any copy of CPU-Z, witch result cannot be validated, nonexisting.

Hence "does not run" for me, even this is not technically correct, as older versions of CPU-Z does run under Win98se (I tried sucesfully v1.51: http://hwbot.org/submission/2965202_ ).

...

And sorry to sound bad and harsh, but I just trying to figure our, witch version of CPU-Z run on WinNT 4.0 and I failed even with v1.34.1, witch suxx bad... Grrrrrr!!!!

If you're talking about validation at HWBOT, WinNT is an exception. You can use chkcpu or Lavalys Everest. Unless it's a CPU-clockspeed specific competition, then you have to use at least Win2k where the latest CPU-Z works.

If you're talking about validation at HWBOT, WinNT is an exception.

Not in competition, they are not. CPU-Z validation is required, hence Win2k SP4 or WinXP. No way around it. And besides, v1.30 works with the shlwapi.dll 😀

trodas wrote:

If you're talking about validation at HWBOT, WinNT is an exception.

Not in competition, they are not. CPU-Z validation is required, hence Win2k SP4 or WinXP. No way around it. And besides, v1.30 works with the shlwapi.dll 😀

Yes, but there are an exception and that is when the competion is about SuperPi on 486. Since Win2k or XP doesn't work with 486, then you have to use WinNT (SuperPi 1.5 doesn't work in 98).

QEMM had something that it didn't fully reboot the PC when you pressed Ctrl+Alt+Del, it just sent you back to the bootloader. Maybe, with something like that, you could go in DOS, set the speed, then use this quick reboot feature to go to Windows 2000+ while such speed is set.

GRUB4DOS can do the same. Used it once to init a soundcard in pure DOS, then boot to win2k without losing the effects of that action.