VOGONS


WIN95 16/32MB performance difference much?

Topic actions

Reply 80 of 102, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 14:54:

Intel 430NX Chipset- Release date: 1994-03 (period correct), Supports Pentium 90 to 133 MHz CPUs, Cacheable memory - up to 512 Mb. 🙂

Of course certain chipsets could cache more than 64 MB. No one was claiming otherwise. The 430HX is another such example.

My point was that the 430TX (as well as the slightly older 430FX and 430VX) were limited to 64 MB of cacheable memory, despite supporting more. And that exceeding the cacheable amount of RAM on such motherboards would result in slower system performance.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / OPTi 82C930 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 1700+ / Abit KT7A / Voodoo3 / Audigy1 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy1
PC#4: i5-3550P / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 650Ti / X-Fi

Reply 81 of 102, by ThinkpadIL

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:15:
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 14:54:

Intel 430NX Chipset- Release date: 1994-03 (period correct), Supports Pentium 90 to 133 MHz CPUs, Cacheable memory - up to 512 Mb. 🙂

Of course certain chipsets could cache more than 64 MB. No one was claiming otherwise. The 430HX is another such example.

My point was that the 430TX (as well as the slightly older 430FX and 430VX) were limited to 64 MB of cacheable memory, despite supporting more. And that exceeding the cacheable amount of RAM on such motherboards would result in slower system performance.

Your example was a non-period-correct 430TX chipset supporting up to 64 MB of cacheable memory. My example is a period-correct 430NX chipset supporting up to 512 MB of cacheable memory. So what's your point? 🙂

By the way, 430HX is also a non-period-correct example. 😉

Reply 82 of 102, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:25:

Your example was a non-period-correct 430TX chipset supporting up to 64 MB of cacheable memory. My example is a period-correct 430NX chipset supporting up to 512 MB of cacheable memory. So what's your point? 🙂

The point was that certain chipsets made during that time had a limited amount of cacheable memory, and that adding more than that would decrease performance. If you want an example that is closer to 1995 (or whatever year you deem more period correct) the 430FX is a chipset made in early 1995 which could only cache 64 MB.

Again, no one is disputing the fact that some other chipsets from the same time period could cache more than that.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / OPTi 82C930 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 1700+ / Abit KT7A / Voodoo3 / Audigy1 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy1
PC#4: i5-3550P / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 650Ti / X-Fi

Reply 83 of 102, by ThinkpadIL

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:36:
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:25:

Your example was a non-period-correct 430TX chipset supporting up to 64 MB of cacheable memory. My example is a period-correct 430NX chipset supporting up to 512 MB of cacheable memory. So what's your point? 🙂

The point was that certain chipsets made during that time had a limited amount of cacheable memory, and that adding more than that would decrease performance. If you want an example that is closer to 1995 (or whatever year you deem more period correct) the 430FX is a chipset made in early 1995 which could only cache 64 MB.

Again, no one is disputing the fact that some other chipsets from the same time period could cache more than that.

So why do you argue with me? Maybe it's better us to try and find a suitable period correct motherboard with 430NX chipset (which supports up to 512MB of cacheable memory) instead? Or as a Christmas late present you would prefer a computer with the worst possible chipset? Is that your point?🙂

Reply 84 of 102, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:44:

So why do you argue with me? Maybe it's better us to try and find a suitable period correct motherboard with 430NX chipset (which supports up to 512MB of cacheable memory) instead? Or as a Christmas late present you would prefer a computer with the worst possible chipset? Is that your point?🙂

Again, the point was that some chipsets have limits on cacheable memory which differ from their maximum supported memory amount. So it's not a good idea to fully max out the memory on a motherboard from that era before checking if the chipset that it uses can actually cache it.

Whatever chipset the OP ends up using is up to them of course. I'm not arguing in favor of one over the other, just pointing out that certain limitations exist.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / OPTi 82C930 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 1700+ / Abit KT7A / Voodoo3 / Audigy1 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy1
PC#4: i5-3550P / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 650Ti / X-Fi

Reply 85 of 102, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:25:

Your example was a non-period-correct 430TX chipset supporting up to 64 MB of cacheable memory. My example is a period-correct 430NX chipset supporting up to 512 MB of cacheable memory. So what's your point? 🙂

great example for someone who doesnt know who Anand is ;---)
430NX is a nice chipset, too bad it was a workstation/server oriented design used exclusively on dual socket motherboards and in industrial applications. There were no desktop motherboards manufactured with it ever.

Reply 86 of 102, by ThinkpadIL

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:54:
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:44:

So why do you argue with me? Maybe it's better us to try and find a suitable period correct motherboard with 430NX chipset (which supports up to 512MB of cacheable memory) instead? Or as a Christmas late present you would prefer a computer with the worst possible chipset? Is that your point?🙂

Again, the point was that some chipsets have limits on cacheable memory which differ from their maximum supported memory amount. So it's not a good idea to fully max out the memory on a motherboard from that era before checking if the chipset that it uses can actually cache it.

Whatever chipset the OP ends up using is up to them of course. I'm not arguing in favor of one over the other, just pointing out that certain limitations exist.

I completely agree with you that before maxing out the memory on a motherboard it's worth to read a manual. I also agree that there are many specialists claiming that using more memory than a maximum cacheable memory supported may slow down your system.

What I'm trying to say here is that if certain motherboards with certain chipsets support more than 64 MB of cacheable memory why not to use all of the cacheable memory available and not only up to 64 MB of it? And if memory nowadays is relatively cheap, why not to buy the maximum possible memory to be able to check if it really slows down, and how much it slows down the system? You always can reduce memory to the maximum amount of cacheable memory and to keep the rest of memory as a spare.

Reply 88 of 102, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 16:14:

What I'm trying to say here is that if certain motherboards with certain chipsets support more than 64 MB of cacheable memory why not to use all of the cacheable memory available and not only up to 64 MB of it? And if memory nowadays is relatively cheap, why not to buy the maximum possible memory to be able to check if it really slows down, and how much it slows down the system? You always can reduce memory to the maximum amount of cacheable memory and to keep the rest of memory as a spare.

If the motherboard can cache all the installed memory, I see no harm in using it. Whether it would be beneficial or not depends on the use case, I suppose.

There are some DOS games (e.g. Aladdin) which don't like too much RAM, but those would also have problems with 64 MB, and some workarounds are available to remedy that.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / OPTi 82C930 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 1700+ / Abit KT7A / Voodoo3 / Audigy1 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy1
PC#4: i5-3550P / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 650Ti / X-Fi

Reply 89 of 102, by ThinkpadIL

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 16:49:
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 16:14:

What I'm trying to say here is that if certain motherboards with certain chipsets support more than 64 MB of cacheable memory why not to use all of the cacheable memory available and not only up to 64 MB of it? And if memory nowadays is relatively cheap, why not to buy the maximum possible memory to be able to check if it really slows down, and how much it slows down the system? You always can reduce memory to the maximum amount of cacheable memory and to keep the rest of memory as a spare.

If the motherboard can cache all the installed memory, I see no harm in using it. Whether it would be beneficial or not depends on the use case, I suppose.

There are some DOS games (e.g. Aladdin) which don't like too much RAM, but those would also have problems with 64 MB, and some workarounds are available to remedy that.

It seems like we finally have managed to understand each other. 🙂

Reply 90 of 102, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 15:15:
ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 14:54:

Intel 430NX Chipset- Release date: 1994-03 (period correct), Supports Pentium 90 to 133 MHz CPUs, Cacheable memory - up to 512 Mb. 🙂

Of course certain chipsets could cache more than 64 MB. No one was claiming otherwise. The 430HX is another such example.

My point was that the 430TX (as well as the slightly older 430FX and 430VX) were limited to 64 MB of cacheable memory, despite supporting more. And that exceeding the cacheable amount of RAM on such motherboards would result in slower system performance.

Depends on what you were trying to do. If you are actually using that much ram it may be faster to have some uncached ram than to be using a swap file.

Sphere's PCB projects.
-
Sphere’s socket 5/7 cpu collection.
-
SUCCESSFUL K6-2+ to K6-3+ Full Cache Enable Mod
-
Tyan S1564S to S1564D single to dual processor conversion (also s1563 and s1562)

Reply 91 of 102, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-16, 17:50:

If you are actually using that much ram it may be faster to have some uncached ram than to be using a swap file.

ThinkpadIL can we have a list of things that would still swap out with 64MB of ram, but would run fine on 120MHz CPU otherwise?
You can put it right next to your excellent NX server chipset example.

Reply 92 of 102, by ThinkpadIL

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-17, 03:23:
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-16, 17:50:

If you are actually using that much ram it may be faster to have some uncached ram than to be using a swap file.

ThinkpadIL can we have a list of things that would still swap out with 64MB of ram, but would run fine on 120MHz CPU otherwise?
You can put it right next to your excellent NX server chipset example.

We? I see only one person who seems to know everything and doesn't need any help from others, so please help yourself. 🙂

Reply 93 of 102, by Intel486dx33

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

In 1993 computer manufactures first started adding 2x CDROM drives and 16 bit Sound Cards ( Sound Blaster16 , Media Visison PAS 16, etc )
To computers with a 486dx-33 and 4mb of Memory and 14.4 dial up modems with SVGA video cards.

They Called these computers “MultiMedia computers”
And they cost about $2,300 to build.

Back then 1mb of Memory costs about $100 USD.

Around 1995 with the Release of Windows-95 computer manufactures built computers with the “Pentium” CPU
75mhz thru 133mhz.

Allot of Pentium 90 and 100mhz computers were manufactured.
These computers had about 8mb of memory as memory was still very expensive.

AMD Came out with the 5x86-133 CPU at an inexpensive price for upgrading old 486 motherboards to run Win95.
These CPU’s where usually sold as a Motherboard/CPU Upgrade package for old 386/486 computers.
These motherboards supported onboard IDE and PCI slots with a Modern bios to support the 5x86 CPU.
These also supported Newer Memory types.

There by bringing down the cost of a Win95 capable computer with less expensive Memory so you could afford 16mb of memory.

But 16mb of memory in 1995/96 was Rare.

I just finished building my Ultimate Win95 computer with Pentium MMX 233mhz CPU and 64mb of Memory.
Would have cost a small fortune back in 1997.

See my posts:
Re: Easy Win-95 era gaming PC.

Attachments

Last edited by Intel486dx33 on 2022-09-17, 05:52. Edited 3 times in total.

Reply 94 of 102, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-17, 03:23:
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-16, 17:50:

If you are actually using that much ram it may be faster to have some uncached ram than to be using a swap file.

ThinkpadIL can we have a list of things that would still swap out with 64MB of ram, but would run fine on 120MHz CPU otherwise?
You can put it right next to your excellent NX server chipset example.

I think it was someone else who did the nx chipset example.

Idk how relevant it is today or for retro but when you are setting up windows and programs and running a bunch of stuff at the same time it is pretty easy to use up a bunch of ram. Or when multi tasking. Maybe more relevant to times when these were new and people would use them for work, and play.

My bare bones windows 95 system with a pod 83 and 32mb of ram goes straight to swap file for basically anything I do 🤣. Unfortunately 32mb is max supported. Unless I am reading system monitor wrong. But it says around 36mb usually. Thankfully I am running a 15k rpm scsi :p

Sphere's PCB projects.
-
Sphere’s socket 5/7 cpu collection.
-
SUCCESSFUL K6-2+ to K6-3+ Full Cache Enable Mod
-
Tyan S1564S to S1564D single to dual processor conversion (also s1563 and s1562)

Reply 95 of 102, by Intel486dx33

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Yeah, I would say
16mb is Good and will play most DOS/Win95 games and run most programs and apps.
32mb is Better.
64mb would be considered Ultimate.

But an Fast SSD or CF Card would be just as important as Win95 likes to use the Page file. ( Hard drive Swap file, Disk Caching ).

Reply 96 of 102, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-17, 05:07:
rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-17, 03:23:
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-16, 17:50:

If you are actually using that much ram it may be faster to have some uncached ram than to be using a swap file.

ThinkpadIL can we have a list of things that would still swap out with 64MB of ram, but would run fine on 120MHz CPU otherwise?
You can put it right next to your excellent NX server chipset example.

I think it was someone else who did the nx chipset example.

ThinkpadIL

Reply 97 of 102, by kennyPENTIUMpowers

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-17, 05:07:

My bare bones windows 95 system with a pod 83 and 32mb of ram goes straight to swap file for basically anything I do 🤣. Unfortunately 32mb is max supported. Unless I am reading system monitor wrong. But it says around 36mb usually. Thankfully I am running a 15k rpm scsi :p

15k rpm scsi... is that period correct 🤣?

i just aquired 2 7200 2gb scsi drives.. they are from 95 (im pretty sure).. could i run them in parallel and get double the speed?.. of course i only have 1 scsi card with one internal connector so i guess id need another card... never had a scsi setup before, so its all new to me

Reply 98 of 102, by vstrakh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Intel486dx33 wrote on 2022-09-17, 05:44:

32mb is Better.
64mb would be considered Ultimate.

I had a period when my friend temporarily borrowed my 32MB stick for the reasons I didn't get back then, and he gave me 64MB stick instead.
I didn't feel any considerable improvements from this temporary upgrade.

But oh boy I felt it when I got my 32MB stick back, the change was quite unpleasant 😀

Reply 99 of 102, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
kennyPENTIUMpowers wrote on 2022-09-17, 08:28:
Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-17, 05:07:

My bare bones windows 95 system with a pod 83 and 32mb of ram goes straight to swap file for basically anything I do 🤣. Unfortunately 32mb is max supported. Unless I am reading system monitor wrong. But it says around 36mb usually. Thankfully I am running a 15k rpm scsi :p

15k rpm scsi... is that period correct 🤣?

i just aquired 2 7200 2gb scsi drives.. they are from 95 (im pretty sure).. could i run them in parallel and get double the speed?.. of course i only have 1 scsi card with one internal connector so i guess id need another card... never had a scsi setup before, so its all new to me

yes, a time traveler delivered it.

You would need a scsi raid card. Not all of them are raid.

Scsi is cool. Especially the old 50 pin stuff.

This is my first scsi build in like 20 years.

Sphere's PCB projects.
-
Sphere’s socket 5/7 cpu collection.
-
SUCCESSFUL K6-2+ to K6-3+ Full Cache Enable Mod
-
Tyan S1564S to S1564D single to dual processor conversion (also s1563 and s1562)