there are patches for a lot of different motherboards.
it's easier if you ask us if your motherboard supports them.

weldum wrote:

there are patches for a lot of different motherboards.
it's easier if you ask us if your motherboard supports them.

Okay, I have allot of motherboards with ALI and VIA chipsets.
AGP, PCI, ISA slots and PC-133 ram.

FIC VA-503+
Soyo SY-5EHM ver 1.1

and IBM Aptiva computers with AMD K6-2-333.

http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/J.Steunebrink/k6plus.htm

in that page there are modified bios for a lot of motherboards
the processor may work if certain conditions are meet

Selection for 2.0V or 2.1V CPU Core Voltage
100MHz Front Side Bus
K6-2+/III+ BIOS support

i think that both the fic and the soyo are compatible, depending on revision of the motherboard

weldum wrote:

http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/J.Steunebrink/k6plus.htm […]
Show full quote

http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/J.Steunebrink/k6plus.htm

in that page there are modified bios for a lot of motherboards
the processor may work if certain conditions are meet

Selection for 2.0V or 2.1V CPU Core Voltage
100MHz Front Side Bus
K6-2+/III+ BIOS support

i think that both the fic and the soyo are compatible, depending on revision of the motherboard

Yes, I have updated the BIOS's already. And the CPU's are recognized correctly and working fine. I just want to know if there are any Win98se patches to make these CPU's perform better.

there are patches for windows 95, because it fails to boot on k6-2 or newer processors
for 98 and newer supports the processor correctly, the extra features (integrated L2 cache) work well

Intel486dx33, you have a remarkable ability to phrase your questions in a very abstruse and incomprehensible manner.

Was it very hard explain properly in the first post of your thread what the hell you meant? I guess when you are using an iPad, the best computer in the world, long posts are hard to type.

Those cpus werent meant to perform at all, AMD K6-3+ was released for embedded/laptop market. Not to mention brand new low end at the time was ~ Celeron 600/Duron 600, both significantly (30-50% clock for clock) faster. Performance was the last thing on the minds of people buying SS7 in 2000. Most distributors didnt even carry SS7 motherboards that late.

I should have been more clear on “patches” I was thinking operating system patches but BIOS updates are just as important. I just went with the AMD K6-3+ and SS7 motherboard because it’s versatility. With these SS7 motherboards you get allot of versatility ( APG, PCI, ISA, ATX, AT, 32-pin and 72-pin ram slots ).
Also the K6 can be made to run at 300mhz. To play some old DOS games.
I think this setup has the most versatility for playing old games that require a slow CPU speed and yet I can run at 500mhz also to play more modern games. And supports PC-133 ram.

This is just a versatile computer build for playing old DOS games. Yes, for a reliable productivity computer build I would have went with an Intel CPU. But these AMD Athlon CPU’s perform well too.

rasz_pl wrote:

Those cpus weren't meant to perform at all, AMD K6-3+ was released for embedded/laptop market. Not to mention brand new low end at the time was ~ Celeron 600/Duron 600, both significantly (30-50% clock for clock) faster. Performance was the last thing on the minds of people buying SS7 in 2000. Most distributors didn't even carry SS7 motherboards that late.

I don't understand the relevance to the OP. In any case, laptop CPUs with drop-in compatibility for desktop boards can be great choices when they have enough performance for their application; usually lower power and lower heat or better overclocking. The "embedded/laptop" Athlon XP-M chips were the best binned, multiplier unlocked and almost guaranteed to get 2.4Ghz. The K6-3+ were a good upgrade option on their release, offering 180nm CPUs to existing Socket 7 users.

Intel486dx33 wrote:

I should have been more clear on “patches” I was thinking operating system patches but BIOS updates are just as important. I jus […]
Show full quote

I should have been more clear on “patches” I was thinking operating system patches but BIOS updates are just as important. I just went with the AMD K6-3+ and SS7 motherboard because it’s versatility. With these SS7 motherboards you get allot of versatility ( APG, PCI, ISA, ATX, AT, 32-pin and 72-pin ram slots ).
Also the K6 can be made to run at 300mhz. To play some old DOS games.
I think this setup has the most versatility for playing old games that require a slow CPU speed and yet I can run at 500mhz also to play more modern games. And supports PC-133 ram.

This is just a versatile computer build for playing old DOS games. Yes, for a reliable productivity computer build I would have went with an Intel CPU. But these AMD Athlon CPU’s perform well too.

You can go even lower than 300 on a K6-III+. Just drop the bus speed down to 66Mhz. With a 2.5x multiplier, that would give you a speed of 165Mhz.

Edit... actually, you can only go down to 3x... so 198Mhz.

BushLin wrote:

rasz_pl wrote:

Those cpus weren't meant to perform at all, AMD K6-3+ was released for embedded/laptop market. Not to mention brand new low end at the time was ~ Celeron 600/Duron 600, both significantly (30-50% clock for clock) faster. Performance was the last thing on the minds of people buying SS7 in 2000. Most distributors didn't even carry SS7 motherboards that late.

I don't understand the relevance to the OP.

OP wanted :

Intel486dx33 wrote:

patches to make these CPU's perform better.

while particular product line wasnt "meant to perform at all", it was just filling a niche at below current lowend speeds

BushLin wrote:

The "embedded/laptop" Athlon XP-M chips were the best binned, multiplier unlocked and almost guaranteed to get 2.4Ghz.

this is correct, they were also more expensive

BushLin wrote:

The K6-3+ were a good upgrade option on their release, offering 180nm CPUs to existing Socket 7 users.

about that, K6-3+ was also more expensive, came out in April 2000 at $140-180, you could instead upgrade your system to small form factor AT BX/ZX board (~$50 Zida) with Mendocino Celeron for the same or less money. By October 2000 Celeron 700MHz was $88, 667MHz $83. K6-3+ were an upgrade option, but I wouldnt call it good.
Edit: "Bargain PCs MAY 24, 2000" might be a good place to get situated in year 2000 lowend reality, scroll down due to webrot (missing some graphics) for the comparison Tables
https://gcn.com/Articles/2000/05/24/Bargain-PCs.aspx?Page=2
https://gcn.com/Articles/2000/05/24/Bargain-PCs.aspx?Page=3

couple examples
Inmax GS-400 Web Cruiser Workstation Celeron 400 MHz NT 1.2G 64M 2 CD-ROM, 10/100 NIC, speakers $419
PowerSpec PC 4611 Celeron 466 MHz Win98 4G 32M 2 CD-ROM, 10/100 NIC, speakers, Microsoft Works $399
Z-Machine Workstation K2-6 366 MHz No 1.2G 32M 2 CD-ROM, 10/100 NIC, no keyboard, no mouse $299
TM44D K6-2 300 MHz Win98 8G 32M No 15-Inch monitor, CD-ROM, speakers $550
TM50D Celeron 400 MHz Win98 8G 32M No 15-Inch monitor, CD-ROM, speakers $590

stock Celeron 466 MHz is faster than K6-3+ @550MHz, while whole computer is merely half the cost of AMD CPU alone.
K6-3+ only makes sense as an SS7 upgrade today for a hobby dream maxed machine, not back in the day.

Intel486dx33 wrote:

With these SS7 motherboards you get allot of versatility ( APG, PCI, ISA, ATX, AT, 32-pin and 72-pin ram slots ).

flaky AGP, and still only if you are lucky in specific gpu/driver configurations

Intel486dx33 wrote:

for playing old games that require a slow CPU speed

that would be Wing Commander, unpatched Ultima and couple others? looking at https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/List_of_ … sensitive_games its not that many, and disabling cache usually puts you in that ~386 range

Intel486dx33 wrote:

But these AMD Athlon CPU’s perform well too.

sadly its not an Athlon

cyclone3d wrote:

You can go even lower than 300 on a K6-III+. Just drop the bus speed down to 66Mhz. With a 2.5x multiplier, that would give you a speed of 165Mhz.

Edit... actually, you can only go down to 3x... so 198Mhz.

2x with setmul

You can go even lower than 300 on a K6-III+. Just drop the bus speed down to 66Mhz. With a 2.5x multiplier, that would give you a speed of 165Mhz.

Edit... actually, you can only go down to 3x... so 198Mhz.

Do you physically have to change the jumpers or can you just do it with software.
By disabling cache in bios and setmul utility ?

rasz_pl wrote:

cyclone3d wrote:

You can go even lower than 300 on a K6-III+. Just drop the bus speed down to 66Mhz. With a 2.5x multiplier, that would give you a speed of 165Mhz.

Edit... actually, you can only go down to 3x... so 198Mhz.

2x with setmul

Oh, nice. I didn't know that. So you can go down to 132Mhz.

Intel486dx33 wrote:

You can go even lower than 300 on a K6-III+. Just drop the bus speed down to 66Mhz. With a 2.5x multiplier, that would give you a speed of 165Mhz.

Edit... actually, you can only go down to 3x... so 198Mhz.

Do you physically have to change the jumpers or can you just do it with software.
By disabling cache in bios and setmul utility ?

Pretty sure you can only do that with jumpers as it is motherboard, not CPU controlled... and no Socket 7 boards had BIOS fsb controls.

But, you could do what I used to do way back in the day. Make the fsb jumpers have a place on the front of your computer case so you can change them without having to open up the system. Just make sure to power down first before changing the jumper settings.

cyclone3d wrote:

Pretty sure you can only do that with jumpers as it is motherboard, not CPU controlled

mobile cpu, soft multiplier
https://youtu.be/RzpM3fj3Pbs?t=6m42s

There are tweakers for Super 7 that can boost performance depending on chipset, motherboard BIOS, video card, etc. Features such as MTRR write combining, write allocation, AGP tweaks, etc. These are capabilities that are often not optimally configured by the BIOS on Super7 boards, or the drivers for various reasons. Stability is one reason.

The most obvious boost I've seen is with video playback. For example, a system that's inefficiently configured may not be able to play DVDs on the CPU smoothly even with a K6-3+. But with the right settings it will play smoothly.

Just using a 3dfx video card will get you a pretty optimal setup though because their drivers set things up pretty nicely.