It is possible to put a baby AT motherboard in a full-ATX (or better yet EATX) case, and even to use an ATX power supply. There's an adapter to convert a 20-pin ATX connector to an AT connector - they can be found on eBay and Amazon pretty easily.

Fixing the missing IO shield problem is more difficult - probably the best way is to get a blank IO shield, then measure and drill a 14mm hole in it for the keyboard connector. (And for the PS/2 connector if the board has a PS/2 mouse port, though most don't.) If you feel adventurous, you could cut holes in the ATX IO shield to accommodate parallel and serial ports in the usual ATX locations, too.

The usual ATX power button won't work, but the ATX-AT adapters come with a switch. If you can't find a good place to mount it, you could wire in a different one, or build an SCR-based latching circuit triggered by the standard ATX case switch.

Oh, I know all of those tricks for adapting ATX to house an AT board. Just looking for the simple way is all 😀

I'm in no rush for any of these projects, so I have plenty of time to try and source the period correct parts.

clueless1 wrote:

My Packard Bell uses the 430FX Triton chipset and has a socket 5. It's also got an AT power supply. I guess that means Packard Bell broke the spec when they designed it?

It's ATX? I'd say it's an interesting combination. They probably had some surplus AT power supplies to get rid of, or got better prices on them. You can find the same combo on some revisions of XP55T2P4 from ASUS (their first ATX board). All in all though, it's the 430FX chipset, and your board can go all the way to 200mhz on the multiplier. I'd say it's a Socket 7 board in practice.

clueless1 wrote:

My Packard Bell uses the 430FX Triton chipset and has a socket 5. It's also got an AT power supply. I guess that means Packard Bell broke the spec when they designed it?

No. 430FX + Socket 5 + AT was a quite common combination.

vetz wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

My Packard Bell uses the 430FX Triton chipset and has a socket 5. It's also got an AT power supply. I guess that means Packard Bell broke the spec when they designed it?

It's ATX? I'd say it's an interesting combination. They probably had some surplus AT power supplies to get rid of, or got better prices on them. You can find the same combo on some revisions of XP55T2P4 from ASUS (their first ATX board). All in all though, it's the 430FX chipset, and your board can go all the way to 200mhz on the multiplier. I'd say it's a Socket 7 board in practice.

It's not ATX. And the socket says "Socket 5" on it. <shrug>
http://pbclub.pwcsite.com/wiki/index.php?titl … Multimedia_C110

The multiplier will only take it to 133Mhz. My POD converts the 1.5x multipler to 3.0x.

Not a very good pic, the sound card is blocking most of the motherboard:
download/file.php?id=22437&mode=view

Better pics of my system here:
Souped up Packard Bell

lazibayer wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

My Packard Bell uses the 430FX Triton chipset and has a socket 5. It's also got an AT power supply. I guess that means Packard Bell broke the spec when they designed it?

No. 430FX + Socket 5 + AT was a quite common combination.

I thought so, but I figured vetz new better than me, so i was deferring to him. Unless I'm misunderstanding his comment.

clueless1 wrote:

lazibayer wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

My Packard Bell uses the 430FX Triton chipset and has a socket 5. It's also got an AT power supply. I guess that means Packard Bell broke the spec when they designed it?

No. 430FX + Socket 5 + AT was a quite common combination.

I thought so, but I figured vetz new better than me, so i was deferring to him. Unless I'm misunderstanding his comment.

Since you quoted the ATX board in your original post I thought you meant your Packard Bell was ATX as well, but with AT power supply. Since ATX board with only AT power supply connection did exist, I thought that was the case.

clueless1 wrote:

Not a very good pic, the sound card is blocking most of the motherboard: download/file.php?id=22437&mode=view […]
Show full quote

Not a very good pic, the sound card is blocking most of the motherboard:
download/file.php?id=22437&mode=view

Better pics of my system here:
Souped up Packard Bell

Do you still have the original sound/modem card that came in the packard bell? I'm really curious to know what the audio chipset was on that one?

senrew wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

Not a very good pic, the sound card is blocking most of the motherboard: download/file.php?id=22437&mode=view […]
Show full quote

Not a very good pic, the sound card is blocking most of the motherboard:
download/file.php?id=22437&mode=view

Better pics of my system here:
Souped up Packard Bell

Do you still have the original sound/modem card that came in the packard bell? I'm really curious to know what the audio chipset was on that one?

Yes, it's in the first pic above. Uses Crystal and Aztech chips along with Yamaha OPL. I used Aztech DOS drivers. Very good SB Pro-compatible sound. The only thing it was missing was a wavetable header, so I ended up switching to the Audician 32 Plus with a DreamBlaster.

Here's an old post with a good photo of it. The next page in that thread has the driver I ended up using from gdjacobs.

And yes, I still have the card. 😀

lazibayer wrote:

No. 430FX + Socket 5 + AT was a quite common combination.

Indeed it was but a POD @ 100 MHz will not finish Super Pi 32M in half an hour, you probably wanted to write "Super Pi 1M"!

You might want to correct this typo before someone buys your POD, tries to run Super Pi 32M and then finds out that the POD in fact never will finish it and complains.

Edit

Typo corrected! 😁

/ Edit

anyone has tried socket 5 with 2M of cache? will it perform like ALOT better?
have this board, was testing it today the maximum install cache is 2M 🤣. Type is P54SA, to google it is unknow 😁

riku wrote:

have this board, was testing it today the maximum install cache is 2M 🤣. Type is P54SA 😁

How did 2 MB of cache work out for you? I would be surprised if it was any faster than 1 MB.

i dont have 2M of cache, i have board where is says max is 2M, i was asking if someone tried? i don't have yet enough cache chips to try out

riku wrote:

i dont have 2M of cache, i have board where is says max is 2M, i was asking if someone tried? i don't have yet enough cache chips to try out

Most systems have a point where adding more cache is useless. A 486 almost never needs to go over 256k. I would be surprised if a Socket 5 system needed more than 512k, but 1MB is plenty in my eyes. My Pentium 3 rig doesn't even have that much.

The main benefit of more cache in these older systems, especially with direct-mapped L2 cache, is to increase the cacheable range of main memory. 2 MB of L2 cache sounds cool though, especially for direct-mapped cache. The only board I have with 2 MB of L2 cache is a super socket 7 board based on the MVP3 chipset. 2 MB of cache on that chipset allows you to cache all 512 MB of RAM.

vetz wrote:

creepingnet wrote:

For me, the rarity of mention is only because I have been retro-computing for almost sixteen-seventeenish years now, and I've had upwards of 50 computers pass through my hands in that time - a few XT's, a handful of 286, a lot of 386 and 486 hardware, and almost as many Pentium systems. EVERY Pentium I've had until I got that 1995 Gateway 2000 system last year has been a Socket 7, I mean every single one of them from the Gemstar motherboard I had in a GEM computer Products Compaq Deskpro 386 style case to the one I built out for my mom (which she still had many many years down the road), and then I got the Gateway and was shocked to find that Socket five got any real distribution.

I think possibly, for a time there circa late 1994-1996 - Socket 5 had it's day, but it was almost sharing a 50/50 split with the 80486 Socket 3 systems for popularity - most people with less money wanted to get online, so why not hop on down to the local Five Guys in College computer Shop and have them build you out a PC' Chips desktop in a Kingspao chassis with a cheap generic PSU and a Digital Readout to brag about the AMD 5x86 "Actually a 486 DX5" chip under the hood (and tell all of your friend's it's a Pentium 133 while your at it, they don't need to know it's not a Pentium). I would think in 17 years I would have seen at least one other Socket 5 but I have not - now Socket 4? I've had 2 of those cross my path (A Pentium 60, and a Pentium 66 - both were very unstable systems, I'd take a 486 DX4-100 over one of those any day).

The socket 4 and 5 systems cost an arm and a leg as well back then. It was highend!

I have a Socket 4 system (Intel motherboard and chipset) and I find it more stable and easy to work with that my Socket 3 builds.

I have owned quite a few IBM PC 330 and one or two PC 350 pc's with a socket 5 motherboard, usually with a Pentium 75 or 90. Those IBM pc's are not that hard to find.

I have quite a few systems and boards now and I only got 1 socket 5 so far: an Intel Premiere PCI II
The idea was to remake a P75 system with it but due to the empty soldered Dallas RTC, I need to postpone the plan. It works though.
Back in the days I had a Highscreen P75 so maybe that was a S5 too. I only was interested in gaming then, not in the actual HW 😀

I have a Socket 5 PC that I bought 2nd hand back in the early 2000s, an LPX-based Desktop. I didn't know it was a Socket 5 until I got it home and had a look. It had a Pentium 75MHz CPU originally and being Socket 5 did limit the upgrade options somewhat. Ultimately I ended up putting in an IDT WinChip C6 200MHz (about Pentium 133MHz level performance). It couldn't cache 128MB RAM, so I settled for 64MB + 8MB onboard, which it seems happy with.

I remember running Windows XP on this PC back in the early 2000s. Painful experience to actually use it, but a lot of fun to get it running on the oldest & slowest compatible system I had. 🤣

If I didn't already own a Socket 5 PC though, I wouldn't bother going to the trouble of building one. Sockets 3 & 7 are certainly more interesting alternatives.

Well I just found out that I have another socket 5: Intel Zappa with a p90. I have the components so I might build a system around it.

I don't believe I ever bought upgrades for my P75 back in the days.

Socket 5 is not even interesting from a historical perspective; if you want to build the first Pentium pc, then you need socket 4.

Socket 5 motherboards are also currently not cheaper than socket 7. Searching on ebay for socket 5 yesterday resulted in only a few hits and it seems like socket 5 was mainly used by OEM's (perhaps due to the high price).

So really only if you insist on building a period correct 1995ish Pentium pc, then this is the socket for you.

Apart from all the disadvantages, it's still a socket with plenty of flexibility if you act like socket 7 doesn't exist. You can build a high end DOS pc and/or an early 3D game pc by using anything from a Pentium 75 up to a Pentium Overdrive MMX 200. PCI opens the gate to many graphics cards, the Pentium CPU's are dirt cheap and 72-pin SIMM's are everywhere.