mr666acdc wrote on 2023-12-18, 22:54:

Capacitors markings are wrong on PCB

the stupid thing with Asus/Pegatron yeah

I have some questions about those stupid VIA chipset drivers for this motherboard:
VIA 4 in 1 Hyperion (Pro) chipset drivers

Almost 1,5 years I'm using my 775DUAL-VSTA with many AGP Cards & Q6700.

HD 4670 AGP-Q6700 with underclock 253 FSB (2.53 GHz)
HD 3850 AGP-Q6700 with underclock 200 FSB (2.00 GHz)

With completely fine and no issues. Underclocked Quads still significantly better than Core 2 Duos and other dual-core CPUs like Pentium D etc.

Underclocked Quad has just two Core 2 Duo CPUs glued together, it has almost no benefit in games that can run comfortably on Radeon 3850, unless you you multitask heavily.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-03-11, 19:20:

Underclocked Quad has just two Core 2 Duo CPUs glued together, it has almost no benefit in games that can run comfortably on Radeon 3850, unless you you multitask heavily.

Yes, in games may be however in applications consuming too much CPU and Memory like Google Chrome, Quads are much better than Duos. Practically I experienced...

Not sure why you would want to browse modern internet on anemic quad core CPU with 3 Gb RAM tops. Still an awful experience.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-03-12, 09:22:

Not sure why you would want to browse modern internet on anemic quad core CPU with 3 Gb RAM tops. Still an awful experience.

No, It's my daily driver in all way, not only browsing internet.

Because I like AGP-based rigs. I have also Conroe865PE.

I've noticed larger cache and maxing FSB makes a lot of difference in speed. I've read comments that reason is slow memory/cache architecture on these boards.

I'm currently running e5800 4ghz and there's definitely diminishing returns on pure clock speed increase after 3.5ghz. 4ghz 2mb cache is still probably better for old games than 2ghz quad with 8mb cache.

Unfortunately X6800 with 4mb cache is too difficult to find these days for reasonable price.

timsdf wrote on 2024-03-12, 10:52:

I'm currently running e5800 4ghz and there's definitely diminishing returns on pure clock speed increase after 3.5ghz. 4ghz 2mb cache is still probably better for old games than 2ghz quad with 8mb cache.

L2 cache in Core 2 Quads is not shared. So effectively it's only 4 Mb for a single/dual thread applications.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-03-12, 09:22:

Not sure why you would want to browse modern internet on anemic quad core CPU with 3 Gb RAM tops. Still an awful experience.

And my comment was brought to you here on a stock-clocked (1.8 GHz) Phenom x4 9150E 🤣 🤣 🤣
^ on a Windows 7 system with 4 GB of RAM, 160 GB HDD, and onboard HD3200 IGP <-- i.e. my daily "more powerful" browser PC. Indeed for browser use, more slower cores is better than fewer faster cores (well, to a point anyways - you still need decent core speed for youtube at higher resolutions... which I can't get to anyways, since I'm still stuck on WLAN in this apartment and it has concrete walls... so WiFi is not very fast, to put it mildly.)

BTW, I also frequently browse and post on Vogons from my 2.8 GHz P4 Prescott s478 WinXP machine.

Why on Windows 9x this motherboard is incompatible and does not work with nvidia drivers 40 series and lower and only works with nvidia drivers 50 series and up?

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-21, 22:25:

nvidia drivers 40 series and lower

45.23 works on this board in Win98.
The board however has via zero bytes agp memory bug.

Bruno128 wrote on 2024-04-22, 07:13:

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-21, 22:25:

nvidia drivers 40 series and lower

45.23 works on this board in Win98.
The board however has via zero bytes agp memory bug.

45.23 and lower do not work! Only 50 series and up work!

https://ibb.co/VvJGpkF
Why does it only show 3.18 GB (3264 MB) of RAM instead of 4 GB (4096 MB) of RAM?

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 09:00:

https://ibb.co/VvJGpkF
Why does it only show 3.18 GB (3264 MB) of RAM instead of 4 GB (4096 MB) of RAM?

Could be some memory remapping/translation function in your BIOS you have to disable or enable.

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 08:10:

45.23 and lower do not work! Only 50 series and up work!

It works totally fine and exclamation mark doesn't add anything meaningful to identifying the problem you are running into.
Post your entire config and elaborate on how exactly it "not work"

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 09:00:

Why does it only show 3.18 GB (3264 MB) of RAM instead of 4 GB (4096 MB) of RAM?

Due to a chipset limitation this board doesn't report more than 3.25gb RAM it is what it is and it's not about 64bit OS.

Bruno128 wrote on 2024-04-22, 14:13:

It works totally fine and exclamation mark doesn't add anything meaningful to identifying the problem you are running into. Post […]
Show full quote

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 08:10:

45.23 and lower do not work! Only 50 series and up work!

It works totally fine and exclamation mark doesn't add anything meaningful to identifying the problem you are running into.
Post your entire config and elaborate on how exactly it "not work"

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 09:00:

Why does it only show 3.18 GB (3264 MB) of RAM instead of 4 GB (4096 MB) of RAM?

Due to a chipset limitation this board doesn't report more than 3.25gb RAM it is what it is and it's not about 64bit OS.

45.23 and lower do not work at all. Only 50 versions and up do work. After installing any nvidia drivers lower than 50 series it is impossible to boot into any Windows 9x system. Usually one of those things happens after installing nvidia driver lower than 50 series (depending on driver version):
- some sort of Windows system protection error;
- reboot/restart loop just before booting to Windows;
- hangs just before booting to Windows;
- tries to boot into Windows for hours and is unable to;
- blue screen.
When I install nvidia driver from 50 series and up then everything is OK and works correctly.

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 23:38:

45.23 and lower do not work at all. Only 50 versions and up do work. After installing any nvidia drivers lower than 50 series it […]
Show full quote

Bruno128 wrote on 2024-04-22, 14:13:

It works totally fine and exclamation mark doesn't add anything meaningful to identifying the problem you are running into. Post […]
Show full quote

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 08:10:

45.23 and lower do not work! Only 50 series and up work!

It works totally fine and exclamation mark doesn't add anything meaningful to identifying the problem you are running into.
Post your entire config and elaborate on how exactly it "not work"

Sephiroth, The Great wrote on 2024-04-22, 09:00:

Why does it only show 3.18 GB (3264 MB) of RAM instead of 4 GB (4096 MB) of RAM?

Due to a chipset limitation this board doesn't report more than 3.25gb RAM it is what it is and it's not about 64bit OS.

45.23 and lower do not work at all. Only 50 versions and up do work. After installing any nvidia drivers lower than 50 series it is impossible to boot into any Windows 9x system. Usually one of those things happens after installing nvidia driver lower than 50 series (depending on driver version):
- some sort of Windows system protection error;
- reboot/restart loop just before booting to Windows;
- hangs just before booting to Windows;
- tries to boot into Windows for hours and is unable to;
- blue screen.
When I install nvidia driver from 50 series and up then everything is OK and works correctly.

It's hard to say what could be doing that. What chipset driver version are you using? Some older 9X Hyperion drivers are known to reject display drivers. Also, what other peripherals and cards are hooked up? What changes have you made in the BIOS?

My first guess is, if you're running the latest chipset driver, the 9X 45.23 driver does not work with more than 2GB of RAM, or the unofficial BIOS patch to support more than 2 GB is causing some incompatibility. I recommend trying the 45.23 driver with 2 GB or less if you can.