alfer wrote on 2020-09-22, 10:22:Correct! Thanks for clearing the confusion, mate. No 3D chess here :-). […]
Show full quote
Warlord wrote on 2020-09-21, 20:59:
Btw I do not know what VLB 66 and I never heard of it.
chinny22 wrote on 2020-09-22, 08:49:
I think he means how smooth is a VLB system with a DX/66 vs ISA system with the same CPU or a 33
Correct! Thanks for clearing the confusion, mate. No 3D chess here 😀.
I thought that DX2-66 is more suitable for an ISA build, that's all. But some smart people (including you) already stated that such a system would not be ideal, if only for the potential bottleneck.
Regardless of the CPU, ISA would be a bottleneck. Even in 386-period, ISA bus was the bottleneck. That's why MCA and EISA were developed.
In 486-period, VLB was introduced very early on in 1992 and became the de-facto standard by 1993. DX/2-66 was also a 1992 part, so it was a logical pairing - but particularly in the low end non-VLB boards persisted longer, and once the DX/4 parts (and P54 Pentiums) became mainstream, the DX/2 persisted in the low-end as it was the last 5V CPU that could run on the cheapest of motherboards.
So, if you're looking for a 1993-era high-end build, a DX/2-66 with VLB would be the obvious choice, and DX/2-66 with ISA wouldn't make sense - no one in 1993 choosing a very expensive DX/2-66 would par it with an old board. But a 1995 low-end build would very likely have a DX/2-66 on it, not necessarily with VLB (as if you wanted to pay for performance you would have gone 3.3V DX4 or Pentium).