For one thing, this card and many others from this generation have tantalum caps which can be gone bad by now. And as for "fully tested" maybe the seller just put the card on a working computer and it displays the boot screen. Done, it’s working.

dominusprog wrote on 2023-09-23, 17:26:

For one thing, this card and many others from this generation have tantalum caps which can be gone bad by now. And as for "fully tested" maybe the seller just put the card on a working computer and it displays the boot screen. Done, it’s working.

Would there be any good way to test it directly? To see if what you said about the caps is true for this board? If not, then I suppose just going after a new video card would be the next best option.

You should replace electrolytic and tantalum caps all together. Keep in mind that any of the five (memory and the processor) chips can also be the cause.
Last month, I purchased a Trident 9680 and one of the tantalum caps short the +5V to the ground immediately after I turned on the power supply.

dominusprog wrote on 2023-09-23, 20:20:

You should replace electrolytic and tantalum caps all together. Keep in mind that any of the five (memory and the processor) chips can also be the cause.
Last month, I purchased a Trident 9680 and one of the tantalum caps short the +5V to the ground immediately after I turned on the power supply.

Soldering is a bit out of my range of experience, so I may still have to invest in a different card. Don't have the proper kit to do this sort of work, either. At least not at the moment.

The card will have to go into dry storage, I think, for now. I may repair it at a later date when I feel more comfortable doing that sort of thing. Thank you for the quick responses!

Usually boards from this era require you to disable the onboard graphics (by changing a jumper or DIP switch) before using a separate card. Otherwise it will always try to initialize the onboard video BIOS first.

Are you sure the onboard graphics isn't local bus? If that's the case, it should be much faster than any ISA card you may add. Post pictures of the motherboard if you're unsure.

Right now don't worry about tantalums (if one was shorted, it would have either exploded or prevented your machine from turning on) or Windows drivers (get it working under DOS first).

TheMobRules wrote on 2023-09-23, 20:58:

Usually boards from this era require you to disable the onboard graphics (by changing a jumper or DIP switch) before using a separate card. Otherwise it will always try to initialize the onboard video BIOS first.

Are you sure the onboard graphics isn't local bus? If that's the case, it should be much faster than any ISA card you may add. Post pictures of the motherboard if you're unsure.

Right now don't worry about tantalums (if one was shorted, it would have either exploded or prevented your machine from turning on) or Windows drivers (get it working under DOS first).

Here's the 6384 board I mentioned in the first post (see attached).

Also, I am unaware of jumper settings. Documentation is "thin" for this board, sadly.

It is (very briefly) documented on page 2 here: https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/with … book/vpbook.pdf
The onboard is ISA, but it's an ET4000 w/ 1MB already. Are you sure you need to upgrade it?

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 21:11:

It is (very briefly) documented on page 2 here: https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/with … book/vpbook.pdf
The onboard is ISA, but it's an ET4000 w/ 1MB already. Are you sure you need to upgrade it?

Right? It's a very good chip. I don't know about Cirrus Logic but it performs better than Trident 8900.

dominusprog wrote on 2023-09-23, 21:46:

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 21:11:

It is (very briefly) documented on page 2 here: https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/with … book/vpbook.pdf
The onboard is ISA, but it's an ET4000 w/ 1MB already. Are you sure you need to upgrade it?

Right? It's a very good chip. I don't know about Cirrus Logic but it performs better than Trident 8900.

Yeah, and in fact, the data book shows that the contemporaneous 386 model came with an onboard CL-GD5422, so the CL-GD5420 would have been a "downgrade" anyway.

Have you tried running any other discrete ISA graphics card on the system? If not, my first suspect would be some kind of incompatibility between motherboard integrated graphics and the ISA discrete graphics. Would be good to be able to double cross-test, i.e. test that graphics card on another mobo, and test another graphics card on that mobo.

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 21:11:

It is (very briefly) documented on page 2 here: https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/with … book/vpbook.pdf
The onboard is ISA, but it's an ET4000 w/ 1MB already. Are you sure you need to upgrade it?

I missed the ET4000 1MB on-board video chip, which is certainly my bad. If that's the case, might just remove it anyway.

I looked through that document before, but for the proper CPU upgrades supported for the board, but didn't think to look through it again for on-board video specs. Was hoping, at the time, that it would support a DX4. No such luck, heh.

Orzene wrote on 2023-09-23, 22:04:

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 21:11:

It is (very briefly) documented on page 2 here: https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/with … book/vpbook.pdf
The onboard is ISA, but it's an ET4000 w/ 1MB already. Are you sure you need to upgrade it?

I missed the ET4000 1MB on-board video chip, which is certainly my bad. If that's the case, might just remove it anyway.

I looked through that document before, but for the proper CPU upgrades supported for the board, but didn't think to look through it again for on-board video specs. Was hoping, at the time, that it would support a DX4. No such luck, heh.

Speaking from experience (and others here share this), you're likely to end up building a separate "late era" 486 system anyway eventually, so you might save your DX4/5x86 and higher-end SVGA ambitions until then.

Even if you upgraded this system to a DX4 or 5x86 CPU, it would require voltage conversion rather than being able to use the bare CPU, and the chipset would fail to take full advantage of the CPU due to lack of support for write-back internal cache, and you will remain hampered by the ISA bus (and thus bench poorly on anything video related compared to typical DX4 systems) no matter what.

If I were messing with this system, beyond the 486DX2-66 CPU, maybe upgrade the RAM to 16MB if it's still 4MB, perhaps put in a sound card and CD-ROM drive, and perhaps an ethernet card, and call it a day.

Also, as a consolation prize, the CL-GD5420 could go into your future 386 build as I suspect nothing is wrong with it other than the conflict between onboard and ISA VGA card 😁

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 22:17:

Also, as a consolation prize, the CL-GD5420 could go into your future 386 build as I suspect nothing is wrong with it other than the conflict between onboard and ISA VGA card 😁

I mean, as long as the money wasn't wasted (regardless of bargain prices paid to acquire it), it's all good!

If I can find a decent board with VLB support, I may go that route for the higher-end specs (like the suggested CPUs) - As for a 386, I can't see myself justifying that right now, since I'm not certain what exactly I'd build one for, but that could change down the road! 😀 I'd wanna plan around a form-factor and CPU limitation when/if that happens.

For now, I'm glad I have this IBM machine, and a Win98 machine. My next vintage rig might actually be a Win95 era PC (so mid-range between the two I have). We'll see.

Again, thanks for all the responses! Appreciate it greatly as a newcomer! 😁

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 22:14:

Speaking from experience (and others here share this), you're likely to end up building a separate "late era" 486 system anyway […]
Show full quote

Orzene wrote on 2023-09-23, 22:04:

jakethompson1 wrote on 2023-09-23, 21:11:

It is (very briefly) documented on page 2 here: https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/with … book/vpbook.pdf
The onboard is ISA, but it's an ET4000 w/ 1MB already. Are you sure you need to upgrade it?

I missed the ET4000 1MB on-board video chip, which is certainly my bad. If that's the case, might just remove it anyway.

I looked through that document before, but for the proper CPU upgrades supported for the board, but didn't think to look through it again for on-board video specs. Was hoping, at the time, that it would support a DX4. No such luck, heh.

Speaking from experience (and others here share this), you're likely to end up building a separate "late era" 486 system anyway eventually, so you might save your DX4/5x86 and higher-end SVGA ambitions until then.

Even if you upgraded this system to a DX4 or 5x86 CPU, it would require voltage conversion rather than being able to use the bare CPU, and the chipset would fail to take full advantage of the CPU due to lack of support for write-back internal cache, and you will remain hampered by the ISA bus (and thus bench poorly on anything video related compared to typical DX4 systems) no matter what.

If I were messing with this system, beyond the 486DX2-66 CPU, maybe upgrade the RAM to 16MB if it's still 4MB, perhaps put in a sound card and CD-ROM drive, and perhaps an ethernet card, and call it a day.

I'm getting some Goldmark sticks in to put it at 16mb, from the 8mb I'm currently working with (just under certain game requirements). Hopefully things get a bit speedier!

TheMobRules wrote on 2023-09-23, 20:58:

Usually boards from this era require you to disable the onboard graphics (by changing a jumper or DIP switch) before using a separate card. Otherwise it will always try to initialize the onboard video BIOS first.

This! Cant have two ISA VGA cards in same system, so you didnt test anything yet.

Update Note: I did test the card, and while it works, it doesn't work "well", for whatever reason -- Any time I use the Cirrus Logic Drivers (VOGONs library), it gives me a corrupted screen when loading into Win 3.1, so I'm wondering if the card is, in fact, corrupted in some way.

Again, I'll be keeping it in storage for now, since there's no reason to use it. The ET4000AX chip works good enough for my purposes, so I'm not gonna worry about it.

Orzene wrote on 2024-03-13, 02:07:

Update Note: I did test the card, and while it works, it doesn't work "well", for whatever reason -- Any time I use the Cirrus Logic Drivers (VOGONs library), it gives me a corrupted screen when loading into Win 3.1, so I'm wondering if the card is, in fact, corrupted in some way.

Again, I'll be keeping it in storage for now, since there's no reason to use it. The ET4000AX chip works good enough for my purposes, so I'm not gonna worry about it.

ET4000AX is one of the better ISA chipsets, so you're not losing anything.

As for the CL card, I would recommend testing thoroughly before putting it into storage. Windows 3.1 can be a bit tricky with drivers, so I'd suggest just doing it in DOS with a tool like X-VESA.COM, that should be good enough for a 1MB card like this, at least assuming it has decent VESA support.