....looking at the picture I posted, I just noticed it’s missing the Tag cache chip... I think I know where I can buy it today/tomorrow at a walk in electronics place, but what exactly would I need for the specs? Based on what’s in there now? I think 128kb, thanks.

2nd option if I can’t get some immediately, could I go down to 64kb and use one of the chips as tag? So I’d be filling 2 banks, and using a 3rd as the TAG. At least I’d retain some cache performance while I wait 5 years to receive cache in the mail.

Just found this on Jamesco Electronics, can I use it?

SRAM Asynchronous Memory 256KB (32Kx8) Parallel 15ns DIP-28

https://www.jameco.com/z/CY7C199-55PC-Cypress … 28_2302863.html

Or this one from Digikey?

SRAM - Asynchronous Memory IC 256Kb (32K x8) Parallel 15ns 28-PDIP

https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/alli … 07-5-ND/4498986

I feel like Dr.Hardware lies... either that or there is something seriously wrong with my system heh... look at the scores for my DX2... they don’t even match Dr.Hardwares DX2 comparison... and the speed is rated at 40-55mhz it can’t seem to decide. I used Version 3.5, so maybe it was too new? I’ve checked all the CPU Jumpers, and when it boots it detects as a DX2-66.

Okay, I just built a 1993/94 486 computer.

Here is what is 1993

If you go with a 486 then this is a good build.
486dx2-66
256kb cache or more
16mb ram
410mb harddrive
Cirrus logic 5428 2mb or Tseng ET4000 2mb
Sound Blaster 16 with Yamaha OPL3
Sound Blaster Pro 2.0
Media Vision PAS16
2x CDROM drive but hard to find a good one so I would just settle for a 4x or faster.
DOS/Win3x

1994
Cirrus Logic 5429 2mb
4x CDROM
Hard drive size ? ( Not sure )

I gave up on Dr.Hardware because it kept reporting incorrect CPU speed, but... seems like the system has a few issues I can’t seem to iron out.

1) For the last 2 hours the system boot screen was showing it as a DX2/66, but now it’s reporting it as a DX2/16. 16MHz! Ok... I’ve reset the BIOS to defaults, pulled the BIOS battery, I reseated the CPU, I reseated the RAM, I tried different ram, I pulled out everything but the board, CPU, and Video Card, and Ram. I checked and rechecked the jumper settings, and then some. I pulled the Cache I had in there to test without. I made sure the jumpers were set ok. I even removed the FSB jumpers completely and it still reported as a DX2/16MHz...

2) I got the CF Card attached, and set the parameters in the Bios as per the IDEINFO utility. DOS 6.22 partitions the hard drive, formats it, but then says it can’t write to it. What’s up with that?

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-27, 20:17:

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-27, 20:04:

In 1994 Intel released the famous 486 DX4/100!
It was very expensive when it came out, but now it would not be a problem anymore 😁
when you say 1993 then it would be 486 DX/66 or Pentium 60/66 (when you want high end, but not so easy to get now)

Period correct to me isn't what was necessarily available due to release date, but what was actually being used in a given year by the majority of people, and more so what was the affordable norm!

Period correct to me has nothing to do with affordable at that time.
In fact, I kept 486 machines, that would have been incredible expensive when they came out. So I have one 486-computer with 64MB 30-pin RAM (16 x 4 MB), and one 486 machine with 112MB RAM (8 MB onboard, 4 72 pin modules: 32MB + 32MB +32MB + 8MB), and - of course - only SCSI disks.
I aim into the opposite direction.

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-28, 20:19:

....looking at the picture I posted, I just noticed it’s missing the Tag cache chip... I think I know where I can buy it today/tomorrow at a walk in electronics place, but what exactly would I need for the specs? Based on what’s in there now? I think 128kb, thanks.

2nd option if I can’t get some immediately, could I go down to 64kb and use one of the chips as tag? So I’d be filling 2 banks, and using a 3rd as the TAG. At least I’d retain some cache performance while I wait 5 years to receive cache in the mail.

FB4950AB-8E6E-40EC-A1C2-C0C40B630CC7.jpeg

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM.

And no you can't use 2 pieces only to get 64kB cache, for 64kB cache you need 9 pieces of 8kx8 SRAM.

Also funny, the guy who took out the SRAMs, did it randomly, so you have now 2 pieces in bank 0 and 2 pieces in bank 1 😀 and as you already said no tag RAM.

EDIT:
Some more remarks: As you can already see by yourself, a 486 machine without L2 cache is crap.

Also I doubt that you have 8 MB RAM, because you have 4 pieces of 30pin ones. 2MB modules are very rare, so you have either 4 MB or 16MB, I guess. Funny, that you posted a screenshot, where we can't see how much RAM is detected 😁
It's always a good practice to hide information.

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 10:48:

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM. […]
Show full quote

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-28, 20:19:

....looking at the picture I posted, I just noticed it’s missing the Tag cache chip... I think I know where I can buy it today/tomorrow at a walk in electronics place, but what exactly would I need for the specs? Based on what’s in there now? I think 128kb, thanks.

2nd option if I can’t get some immediately, could I go down to 64kb and use one of the chips as tag? So I’d be filling 2 banks, and using a 3rd as the TAG. At least I’d retain some cache performance while I wait 5 years to receive cache in the mail.

FB4950AB-8E6E-40EC-A1C2-C0C40B630CC7.jpeg

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM.

And no you can't use 2 pieces only to get 64kB cache, for 64kB cache you need 9 pieces of 8kx8 SRAM.

Also funny, the guy who took out the SRAMs, did it randomly, so you have now 2 pieces in bank 0 and 2 pieces in bank 1 😀 and as you already said no tag RAM.

EDIT:
Some more remarks: As you can already see by yourself, a 486 machine without L2 cache is crap.

Also I doubt that you have 8 MB RAM, because you have 4 pieces of 30pin ones. 2MB modules are very rare, so you have either 4 MB or 16MB, I guess. Funny, that you posted a screenshot, where we can't see how much RAM is detected 😁
It's always a good practice to hide information.

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mhz. I downloaded one of our member’s benchmarking software, and ran LM60... as well a 3rd benchmarking utility. Everything reports the speed of this PC below that of a 386DX... somewhere around a 286.
I know the lack of Cache will affect it, but this CPU still has L1 Cache, albeit only 8KB. How can this PC run like a 286 without any external L2... when they sold these PC’s back in the day with the fake L2 cache chips, so no L2 cache... surely people would have noticed the crap performance?

Additionally, the LM60? Benchmarking software reports my Cirrus Logic 5429 as being worst than any ISA card, it has about 10% perforamance of the lowest ISA card in the benchmarking list. As well, my I/O throughput is around 6MB/s...

I’m not sure what’s going on with this system, but I can’t believe that even without VLB I/O and a VLB Video Card, this system run’s like pure garbage. And I can’t see it being 100% due to not having any L2 Cache right now... had I bought this system back in the day, I would have returned it for a 386.
I thought the first utility I ran Dr.Hardware was lying... but numerous utilities report the same findings, CPU performance is that matching a 286, Video Card performance is horrible, and I/O is 🙁

At this point, after checking jumpers, reseating parts, and defaulting and adjusting bios settings, I’m starting to eyeball my Pentium 75. If I invest probably $30-40 in L2 Cache, is that really going to turn everything around, because I can’t see it. Maybe the CPU will improve, but they sold 486’s with Fake L2 Cache, and surely those systems didn’t have the performance of a 286.

I think it’s time I start looking for a PCI based 486 motherboard, because I have an AMD 586/133 CPU that would like to see some use 😀 I’m just not sure how much better L2 Cache is going to turn things around, because at the end of the day, it still says my 5429 (which was one of the faster if not fastest ISA cards) is worse than the worse ISA card... and then there’s the LGS 16bit ISA Controller card with it’s 6MB/s throughtput.

Pentium... is that you I hear in the corner calling me?

I have fully assembled Pentium 100 system running Windows 95B, running amazing...

- Intel Pentium 100
- ASUS TX97-E
- 16MB EDO
- ATI Rage3D II 4MB PCI (3D Charger)
- SB 16 with Yamaha OPL-3 chip
- 40GB IDE 7200 (brand new drive, very nice performance heh)
- 52x CDROM
- evga 450w bronze, which will never die nor work a day in it’s life 😁

Overall, not my ideal retro PC since the ATI card and the ASUS board weren’t released until 1997... but at least this PC is hassle and problem free, not to mention run’s Quake like a dream!

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 11:31:

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mh […]
Show full quote

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 10:48:

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM. […]
Show full quote

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-28, 20:19:

....looking at the picture I posted, I just noticed it’s missing the Tag cache chip... I think I know where I can buy it today/tomorrow at a walk in electronics place, but what exactly would I need for the specs? Based on what’s in there now? I think 128kb, thanks.

2nd option if I can’t get some immediately, could I go down to 64kb and use one of the chips as tag? So I’d be filling 2 banks, and using a 3rd as the TAG. At least I’d retain some cache performance while I wait 5 years to receive cache in the mail.

FB4950AB-8E6E-40EC-A1C2-C0C40B630CC7.jpeg

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM.

And no you can't use 2 pieces only to get 64kB cache, for 64kB cache you need 9 pieces of 8kx8 SRAM.

Also funny, the guy who took out the SRAMs, did it randomly, so you have now 2 pieces in bank 0 and 2 pieces in bank 1 😀 and as you already said no tag RAM.

EDIT:
Some more remarks: As you can already see by yourself, a 486 machine without L2 cache is crap.

Also I doubt that you have 8 MB RAM, because you have 4 pieces of 30pin ones. 2MB modules are very rare, so you have either 4 MB or 16MB, I guess. Funny, that you posted a screenshot, where we can't see how much RAM is detected 😁
It's always a good practice to hide information.

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mhz. I downloaded one of our member’s benchmarking software, and ran LM60... as well a 3rd benchmarking utility. Everything reports the speed of this PC below that of a 386DX... somewhere around a 286.
I know the lack of Cache will affect it, but this CPU still has L1 Cache, albeit only 8KB. How can this PC run like a 286 without any external L2... when they sold these PC’s back in the day with the fake L2 cache chips, so no L2 cache... surely people would have noticed the crap performance?

Additionally, the LM60? Benchmarking software reports my Cirrus Logic 5429 as being worst than any ISA card, it has about 10% perforamance of the lowest ISA card in the benchmarking list. As well, my I/O throughput is around 6MB/s...

I’m not sure what’s going on with this system, but I can’t believe that even without VLB I/O and a VLB Video Card, this system run’s like pure garbage. And I can’t see it being 100% due to not having any L2 Cache right now... had I bought this system back in the day, I would have returned it for a 386.
I thought the first utility I ran Dr.Hardware was lying... but numerous utilities report the same findings, CPU performance is that matching a 286, Video Card performance is horrible, and I/O is 🙁

At this point, after checking jumpers, reseating parts, and defaulting and adjusting bios settings, I’m starting to eyeball my Pentium 75. If I invest probably $30-40 in L2 Cache, is that really going to turn everything around, because I can’t see it. Maybe the CPU will improve, but they sold 486’s with Fake L2 Cache, and surely those systems didn’t have the performance of a 286 😁

I think it’s time I start looking for a PCI based 486 motherboard, because I have an AMD 586/133 CPU that would like to see some use 😀 I’m just not sure how much better L2 Cache is going to turn things around, because at the end of the day, it still says my 5429 (which was one of the faster if not fastest ISA cards) is worse than the worse ISA card... and then there’s the LGS 16bit ISA Controller card with it’s 6MB/s throughtput 😁

Pentium, with your zero issues... is that you I hear in the corner calling me?

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a really bad combination. I also think buying SRAMs does not make too much sense. If you get hands on a used probably faulty 486 mainboard, you might get 9 pieces of 32kx8 ....

But I suggest that you play around (at least a little bit) with the bios settings before you throw away the board. Set everything to fastest, 0 WS and so on, and check if it is stable AND how much the benchmarks improve. If you see a good improvement, then it makes sense to populate the L2 cache.

By the way, what is your RAM now really? Amount? 60ns? 70ns? 80ns? Can you show us some pictures?

EDIT:
I forgot, maybe that's the main point!!!

What about turbo? Do you have a jumper on the turbo switch?
If not, well yes, then you have about 286 to 386 performance.

So first make sure, that the board runs in turbo mode, and then play with bios settings!

ONE MORE EDIT:
Your 486 is from Asus, too. 486 SV2 Rev.3.1. Lack of Vesa is bad, but still not the worst board out there!
So you will still find documentation about it.

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 11:54:

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a […]
Show full quote

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 11:31:

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mh […]
Show full quote

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 10:48:

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM. […]
Show full quote

Yes, the link you posted is of the right SRAM type, you need 5 more pieces of 32Kx8 high speed SRAM.

And no you can't use 2 pieces only to get 64kB cache, for 64kB cache you need 9 pieces of 8kx8 SRAM.

Also funny, the guy who took out the SRAMs, did it randomly, so you have now 2 pieces in bank 0 and 2 pieces in bank 1 😀 and as you already said no tag RAM.

EDIT:
Some more remarks: As you can already see by yourself, a 486 machine without L2 cache is crap.

Also I doubt that you have 8 MB RAM, because you have 4 pieces of 30pin ones. 2MB modules are very rare, so you have either 4 MB or 16MB, I guess. Funny, that you posted a screenshot, where we can't see how much RAM is detected 😁
It's always a good practice to hide information.

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mhz. I downloaded one of our member’s benchmarking software, and ran LM60... as well a 3rd benchmarking utility. Everything reports the speed of this PC below that of a 386DX... somewhere around a 286.
I know the lack of Cache will affect it, but this CPU still has L1 Cache, albeit only 8KB. How can this PC run like a 286 without any external L2... when they sold these PC’s back in the day with the fake L2 cache chips, so no L2 cache... surely people would have noticed the crap performance?

Additionally, the LM60? Benchmarking software reports my Cirrus Logic 5429 as being worst than any ISA card, it has about 10% perforamance of the lowest ISA card in the benchmarking list. As well, my I/O throughput is around 6MB/s...

I’m not sure what’s going on with this system, but I can’t believe that even without VLB I/O and a VLB Video Card, this system run’s like pure garbage. And I can’t see it being 100% due to not having any L2 Cache right now... had I bought this system back in the day, I would have returned it for a 386.
I thought the first utility I ran Dr.Hardware was lying... but numerous utilities report the same findings, CPU performance is that matching a 286, Video Card performance is horrible, and I/O is 🙁

At this point, after checking jumpers, reseating parts, and defaulting and adjusting bios settings, I’m starting to eyeball my Pentium 75. If I invest probably $30-40 in L2 Cache, is that really going to turn everything around, because I can’t see it. Maybe the CPU will improve, but they sold 486’s with Fake L2 Cache, and surely those systems didn’t have the performance of a 286 😁

I think it’s time I start looking for a PCI based 486 motherboard, because I have an AMD 586/133 CPU that would like to see some use 😀 I’m just not sure how much better L2 Cache is going to turn things around, because at the end of the day, it still says my 5429 (which was one of the faster if not fastest ISA cards) is worse than the worse ISA card... and then there’s the LGS 16bit ISA Controller card with it’s 6MB/s throughtput 😁

Pentium, with your zero issues... is that you I hear in the corner calling me?

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a really bad combination. I also think buying SRAMs does not make too much sense. If you get hands on a used probably faulty 486 mainboard, you might get 9 pieces of 32kx8 ....

But I suggest that you play around (at least a little bit) with the bios settings before you throw away the board. Set everything to fastest, 0 WS and so on, and check if it is stable AND how much the benchmarks improve. If you see a good improvement, then it makes sense to populate the L2 cache.

By the way, what is your RAM now really? Amount? 60ns? 70ns? 80ns? Can you show us some pictures?

EDIT:
I forgot, maybe that's the main point!!!

What about turbo? Do you have a jumper on the turbo switch?
If not, well yes, then you have about 286 to 386 performance.

So first make sure, that the board runs in turbo mode, and then play with bios settings!

I noticed the turbo jumper and had the same thought... maybe that was causing speed issues. I only had the jumper on their briefly to see if it fixed the reported Post speed of 16MHz, but I will add the jumper and see if that works.

As for my ram, here it is. I added another 4 sticks for 8MB total, they seem to both be 70ns.

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 12:10:

I noticed the turbo jumper and had the same thought... maybe that was causing speed issues. I only had the jumper on their brief […]
Show full quote

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 11:54:

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a […]
Show full quote

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 11:31:

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mh […]
Show full quote

Thanks for the reply. I finally got the machine to post again at DX2/66Mhz, although Dr.Hardware still reports the speed as 55mhz. I downloaded one of our member’s benchmarking software, and ran LM60... as well a 3rd benchmarking utility. Everything reports the speed of this PC below that of a 386DX... somewhere around a 286.
I know the lack of Cache will affect it, but this CPU still has L1 Cache, albeit only 8KB. How can this PC run like a 286 without any external L2... when they sold these PC’s back in the day with the fake L2 cache chips, so no L2 cache... surely people would have noticed the crap performance?

Additionally, the LM60? Benchmarking software reports my Cirrus Logic 5429 as being worst than any ISA card, it has about 10% perforamance of the lowest ISA card in the benchmarking list. As well, my I/O throughput is around 6MB/s...

I’m not sure what’s going on with this system, but I can’t believe that even without VLB I/O and a VLB Video Card, this system run’s like pure garbage. And I can’t see it being 100% due to not having any L2 Cache right now... had I bought this system back in the day, I would have returned it for a 386.
I thought the first utility I ran Dr.Hardware was lying... but numerous utilities report the same findings, CPU performance is that matching a 286, Video Card performance is horrible, and I/O is 🙁

At this point, after checking jumpers, reseating parts, and defaulting and adjusting bios settings, I’m starting to eyeball my Pentium 75. If I invest probably $30-40 in L2 Cache, is that really going to turn everything around, because I can’t see it. Maybe the CPU will improve, but they sold 486’s with Fake L2 Cache, and surely those systems didn’t have the performance of a 286 😁

I think it’s time I start looking for a PCI based 486 motherboard, because I have an AMD 586/133 CPU that would like to see some use 😀 I’m just not sure how much better L2 Cache is going to turn things around, because at the end of the day, it still says my 5429 (which was one of the faster if not fastest ISA cards) is worse than the worse ISA card... and then there’s the LGS 16bit ISA Controller card with it’s 6MB/s throughtput 😁

Pentium, with your zero issues... is that you I hear in the corner calling me?

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a really bad combination. I also think buying SRAMs does not make too much sense. If you get hands on a used probably faulty 486 mainboard, you might get 9 pieces of 32kx8 ....

But I suggest that you play around (at least a little bit) with the bios settings before you throw away the board. Set everything to fastest, 0 WS and so on, and check if it is stable AND how much the benchmarks improve. If you see a good improvement, then it makes sense to populate the L2 cache.

By the way, what is your RAM now really? Amount? 60ns? 70ns? 80ns? Can you show us some pictures?

EDIT:
I forgot, maybe that's the main point!!!

What about turbo? Do you have a jumper on the turbo switch?
If not, well yes, then you have about 286 to 386 performance.

So first make sure, that the board runs in turbo mode, and then play with bios settings!

I noticed the turbo jumper and had the same thought... maybe that was causing speed issues. I only had the jumper on their briefly to see if it fixed the reported Post speed of 16MHz, but I will add the jumper and see if that works.

As for my ram, here it is. I added another 4 sticks for 8MB total, they seem to both be 70ns.

A618B8D0-77B4-4E30-AAB3-698C14FE8F40.jpeg

The RAM looks good, that should run with fastest timings on that board, that might bring 10 or 20% more performance.
But check with turbo 😁 you will see the difference.

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 12:14:

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 12:10:

I noticed the turbo jumper and had the same thought... maybe that was causing speed issues. I only had the jumper on their brief […]
Show full quote

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 11:54:

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a […]
Show full quote

The memory speed of your system (timings!) seem to be very bad, too. So having only 5Megabyte /s memory speed + no L2 cache is a really bad combination. I also think buying SRAMs does not make too much sense. If you get hands on a used probably faulty 486 mainboard, you might get 9 pieces of 32kx8 ....

But I suggest that you play around (at least a little bit) with the bios settings before you throw away the board. Set everything to fastest, 0 WS and so on, and check if it is stable AND how much the benchmarks improve. If you see a good improvement, then it makes sense to populate the L2 cache.

By the way, what is your RAM now really? Amount? 60ns? 70ns? 80ns? Can you show us some pictures?

EDIT:
I forgot, maybe that's the main point!!!

What about turbo? Do you have a jumper on the turbo switch?
If not, well yes, then you have about 286 to 386 performance.

So first make sure, that the board runs in turbo mode, and then play with bios settings!

I noticed the turbo jumper and had the same thought... maybe that was causing speed issues. I only had the jumper on their briefly to see if it fixed the reported Post speed of 16MHz, but I will add the jumper and see if that works.

As for my ram, here it is. I added another 4 sticks for 8MB total, they seem to both be 70ns.

A618B8D0-77B4-4E30-AAB3-698C14FE8F40.jpeg

The RAM looks good, that should run with fastest timings on that board, that might bring 10 or 20% more performance.
But check with turbo 😁 you will see the difference.

TURBO!!!! 😁

I feel like an idiot, because I had a jumper on the Turbo switch initially, but only when I was trouble-shooting the reported POST Clock speed of 16MHz. Then I took it off and started running the benchmarks... anyways, here are the new results with a jumper on the Turbo switch. Still not perfect, but maybe that cache will help afterall...

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-28, 20:19:

....looking at the picture I posted, I just noticed it’s missing the Tag cache chip... I think I know where I can buy it today/tomorrow at a walk in electronics place, but what exactly would I need for the specs? Based on what’s in there now? I think 128kb, thanks.

2nd option if I can’t get some immediately, could I go down to 64kb and use one of the chips as tag? So I’d be filling 2 banks, and using a 3rd as the TAG. At least I’d retain some cache performance while I wait 5 years to receive cache in the mail.

FB4950AB-8E6E-40EC-A1C2-C0C40B630CC7.jpeg

Try this
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_tr … _odkw=sdram+486

20, 15 or 10ns. Is good enough.
256kb of cache is good enough. Not much of a performance boost after 256kb.

Just get 9 pieces and use one for the tag.

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 12:43:

TURBO!!!! :D […]
Show full quote

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 12:14:

dave343 wrote on 2020-04-29, 12:10:

I noticed the turbo jumper and had the same thought... maybe that was causing speed issues. I only had the jumper on their briefly to see if it fixed the reported Post speed of 16MHz, but I will add the jumper and see if that works.

As for my ram, here it is. I added another 4 sticks for 8MB total, they seem to both be 70ns.

A618B8D0-77B4-4E30-AAB3-698C14FE8F40.jpeg

The RAM looks good, that should run with fastest timings on that board, that might bring 10 or 20% more performance.
But check with turbo 😁 you will see the difference.

TURBO!!!! 😁

I feel like an idiot, because I had a jumper on the Turbo switch initially, but only when I was trouble-shooting the reported POST Clock speed of 16MHz. Then I took it off and started running the benchmarks... anyways, here are the new results with a jumper on the Turbo switch. Still not perfect, but maybe that cache will help afterall...

50B662BB-4658-42AF-8F2F-A84007E462D2.jpeg
2F6DCF46-AB85-4473-9C3F-B92B6D3CE0BE.jpeg

Make a turbo switch from a toggle switch and power switch wire.

I ordered some 256kb of cache, given the speed had dramatically increased, hopefully the cache will boost it a little more. I found some boards online (eBay) located in the US, PCI 486 based, but with shipping it would cost roughly $130usd, and considering I already have a fully built Pentium system that I could drop in a P75, I’m second guessing putting that much $ into a 486 board. I’d essentially be spending a lot of $ to run my 586/133 with onboard IDE, 512kb cache, and PCI, everything my Asus TX97-E has, albeit newer and not “as” retro.
Anyways, I got Dos 6.22 installed on a 1GB Sandisk CF Card, for some reason Dos is giving random read/write errors to both my Trend CF 1GB x133 speed cards, even though they work fine on the Asus TX97-E board. Weird the Sandisk 1GB works, but not them... and I did try wiping the Trend cards with the WipeDisk utility.
Next up is Windows 3.11, drivers etc. See how the cache impacts stuff when I receive it, but I think I’ll leave the system as it. If games run like absolute crap, I have my Pentium 1 system which is trouble free and a speed demon (for the 1990’s 😁 )

With the L2 Cache you will get 140 with Norton SI (with fast timings), but it's a synthetic benchmark, so in "real life" application you will have only 20 to 30% more performance.

But the graphics card seems really slow, maybe you can find a Tseng ET4000 isa with 1MB ram (that will be a lot faster in throughput).

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 15:37:

With the L2 Cache you will get 140 with Norton SI (with fast timings), but it's a synthetic benchmark, so in "real life" application you will have only 20 to 30% more performance.

But the graphics card seems really slow, maybe you can find a Tseng ET4000 isa with 1MB ram (that will be a lot faster in throughput).

I’m wondering if my graphics card throughput is slower because it has a VGA bios... and maybe I’m wrong here in thinking but over at the VGA Musem site, he has the exact same card, but his bios has a SVGA sticker? I also see some .bin bios files floating around for my 5429, and I’m wondering if a) it’s possible to flash it, and b) if I can, maybe there is a newer BIOS which would improve it’s speed. I found it odd that my card’s BIOS has a sticker that says VGA & his has a SVGA bios sticker. Maybe it’s nothing...

Mine:

His from VGA Mueseum:

Hmm, I searched here on Vogons for your graphics card. Actually it should be one of the fastest ISA graphics cards ....

EDIT: Damned, got the quoting wrong again, so deleted it 😁

CoffeeOne wrote on 2020-04-29, 16:08:

Hmm, I searched here on Vogons for your graphics card. Actually it should be one of the fastest ISA graphics cards ....

EDIT: Damned, got the quoting wrong again, so deleted it 😁

From everything I’ve ready, that is also my understanding that it’s one of the faster if not fastest ISA card... which has me thinking maybe I have an older BIOS? I don’t understand why it’s performing worse than the worst ISA cards.