rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-15, 09:37:

"im in the process of getting together a P120"

Yes, that's what he said, he is "in the process of getting together a P120". Though he mentioned also a P133, so my understanding was that his question is a bit broader.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-15, 09:37:

Except for the games that wont run in virtual machine or native in modern computer.

It seems like here also we have a different interpretation. You're right, some vintage games need a vintage hardware to work correctly, but the thing is that even if considering gaming as a serious use of computers, still, all this vintage hardware is an old junk that due to its age may fail any given second so for me it's hard to take it seriously.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-15, 09:37:

You still dont get it. Let me spell it for you: Putting >64MB in socket 5 motherboard (except some limited number of 430HX models with option to add second tag ram or special COAST module) SLOWS DOWN whole computer to the level of performance without any cache at all, 10-20% drop. Your desire to have a bigger number made that P120 system perform like P100 now. On the other hand P120 system on a rare socket 7 motherboard able to cache all the ram with >64MB fitted will NOT speed ANYTHING game related at all compared to same system with 64MB. I will even question any measurable difference against a system with 32MB.

Well, it seems like it is actually you who don't get what I'm trying to say. There are many different motherboards and each motherboard has its technical specifications which mentions the maximum amount of memory that it is designed to work with. So, if you have a motherboard that is designed to use more than 64MB of RAM, why not to use the maximum possible amount of RAM? In case there will be any problems with system performance, you can always reduce the amount of your RAM. But why to reduce it from the start if motherboard is designed to work with more RAM?

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-15, 09:37:

If you are maximizing ram why not max the CPU while we are at it? Stick Pentium MMX OverDrive 200MHz and Voodoo 5 5500 PCI 😀

Maybe because kennyPENTIUMpowers wants to build a period correct machine? 😀

Anyway, I'm not into arguing here with you. Although you see things differently, it seems like you have some knowledge and experience. So I'm sure that some of your advices for sure will be useful for building kennyPENTIUMpowers's Christmas '95 late present machine.

I read the earlier part of this thread and wondered why the 486 hate? I had a 486dx2/66 that had i think 8mb ram and a 420mb hdd. Was a great w3.1 machine, though it was slow as molasses with w95. Web browsing was slow, but so was the 28.8 connection. Civilization ii was a different experience. Take my turn, press enter, go get a drink or a snack, return and see if the CPU characters had finished, play my turn, do a few homework problems... 1990s problems as a middle schooler. Things were slower, but there was no impatience the same as now for it. It was just accepted as normal unless you were "super rich" and could afford a 133mhz or (wow) a 166mhz pentium. Would 16 or 32mb of ram have helped that pc? Surely. Later I bought a 133mhz overdrive for it, because it was cheaper to upgrade at that point than ram, which was expensive then. Honestly, 8mb of ram is probably plenty for DOS, more than 16 for dos is definitely overkill imo, except if you have a good use for a huge smart drive cache or a ram drive. 8 to 16 is a big help for w95, 32 is nice for w95/98, I would want 32/64 for winme if I had the choice. But that's all IMO .

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-15, 12:39:

Well, it seems like it is actually you who don't get what I'm trying to say. There are many different motherboards and each motherboard has its technical specifications which mentions the maximum amount of memory that it is designed to work with. So, if you have a motherboard that is designed to use more than 64MB of RAM, why not to use the maximum possible amount of RAM?

because it: "SLOWS DOWN whole computer to the level of performance without any cache at all, 10-20% drop"
there is "being able to utilize up to xxx MB" and there is "being able to cache up to xxMB"

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-15, 12:39:

In case there will be any problems with system performance, you can always reduce the amount of your RAM.

how? by constantly opening computer up and pulling parts out?

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-15, 12:39:

But why to reduce it from the start if motherboard is designed to work with more RAM?

because it: "SLOWS DOWN whole computer to the level of performance without any cache at all, 10-20% drop"

As I said before I understand the urge to maximize a number, but by doing so you are not gaining _anything_ other than that bigger number on the boot screen and slower computer. Now Disk is another story, I would definitely stick couple hundred GB drive seeing REMOVED. Of course if we only count games up to 1996 we should fit in under 200GB with everything packed. Curate the list of games you want to play and a $15 chinese 128GB SSD with $5 PATA converter will do you nicely.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-16, 11:27:

because it: "SLOWS DOWN whole computer to the level of performance without any cache at all, 10-20% drop" there is "being able t […]
Show full quote

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-15, 12:39:

Well, it seems like it is actually you who don't get what I'm trying to say. There are many different motherboards and each motherboard has its technical specifications which mentions the maximum amount of memory that it is designed to work with. So, if you have a motherboard that is designed to use more than 64MB of RAM, why not to use the maximum possible amount of RAM?

because it: "SLOWS DOWN whole computer to the level of performance without any cache at all, 10-20% drop"
there is "being able to utilize up to xxx MB" and there is "being able to cache up to xxMB"

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-15, 12:39:

In case there will be any problems with system performance, you can always reduce the amount of your RAM.

how? by constantly opening computer up and pulling parts out?

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-15, 12:39:

But why to reduce it from the start if motherboard is designed to work with more RAM?

because it: "SLOWS DOWN whole computer to the level of performance without any cache at all, 10-20% drop"

As I said before I understand the urge to maximize a number, but by doing so you are not gaining _anything_ other than that bigger number on the boot screen and slower computer. Now Disk is another story, I would definitely stick couple hundred GB drive seeing REMOVED is at almost 600GB and REMOVED 20 at ~400GB. Of course if we only count games up to 1996 we should fit in under 200GB with everything packed. Curate the list of games you want to play and a $15 chinese 128GB SSD with $5 PATA converter will do you nicely.

It's pointless. I'm not going to argue with you, I'll just put it here:

O'REILLY FUCKED UP!!! THAT'S NOT A NUTSHELL!!!

64MB was ANYWHERE but "typical" in Win95's day, and seems to also not regard the ram prices dropping for ME's numbers either especially as they consider 128MB "heavy" for that. The writers also probably didn't regard the aforementioned (and VERY REAL) caching issues from excess memory contrary to all of the aggressive ram marketing in the turn of the millennium.

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 12:27:

It's pointless. I'm not going to argue with you, I'll just put it here:

Publication date 2003 😀 still ThinkpadIL check out page 33

https://books.google.pl/books?redir_esc=y&hl= … ance%22&f=false

not cache memory above 64 MB (check the motherboard/chipset manual), which means that increasing memory beyond 64 MB can actually decrease performance

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:06:

Publication date 2003 😀 still ThinkpadIL check out page 33

https://books.google.pl/books?redir_esc=y&hl= … ance%22&f=false

Yes, that's right, this books is published in 2003 ... and your current post is published in 2022. 😉

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:08:

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:06:

Publication date 2003 😀 still ThinkpadIL check out page 33

https://books.google.pl/books?redir_esc=y&hl= … ance%22&f=false

Yes, that's right, this books is published in 2003 ...

means they didnt write it with 8 year old systems in mind

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:08:

and your current post is published in 2022. 😉

so did you read page 33? 😜

Chipsets from that era could only cache a certain amount of RAM, even though you could install more than that. Uncached memory slows down system performance.

Here's a period correct article which laments the fact that Intel's 430TX chipset could only cache 64 MB RAM.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:11:

means they didnt write it with 8 year old systems in mind

Can you read minds? 😄

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:11:

so did you read page 33? 😜

Yes, I did. And you? 🙂

It's written there "The downsides are that many older systems do not cache memory above 64 MB (check the motherboard/chipset manual),...". MANY not ALL!!! Do you know the difference between MANY and ALL? 😃

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:12:

Chipsets from that era could only cache a certain amount of RAM, even though you could install more than that. Uncached memory slows down system performance.

Here's a period correct article which laments the fact that Intel's 430TX chipset could only cache 64 MB RAM.

Article about one specific chipset from some unknown website (anandtech.com? what's that?) dated August 1, 1997 is period correct for the year 1995 and a book from a well known publisher dated 2003 is not period correct? Come on! 😄

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:31:

Article about one specific chipset from some unknown website (anandtech.com? what's that?) dated August 1, 1997 is period correct for the year 1995 and a book from a well known publisher dated 2003 is not period correct? Come on! 😄

The 1997 article is period correct for the Intel 430TX chipset which came out that year. It was meant as an example of a chipset which can only cache 64 MB RAM, despite supporting more than that.

Not sure if you're honestly not aware of Anandtech and its significance during the late 90s, or if you're joking. It was a very prominent hardware review website back in the day. And it's one of the few online resources from that time that are still available today.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:40:

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:31:

Article about one specific chipset from some unknown website (anandtech.com? what's that?) dated August 1, 1997 is period correct for the year 1995 and a book from a well known publisher dated 2003 is not period correct? Come on! 😄

The 1997 article is period correct for the Intel 430TX chipset which came out that year. It was meant as an example of a chipset which can only cache 64 MB RAM, despite supporting more than that.

Not sure if you're honestly not aware of Anandtech and its significance during the late 90s, or if you're joking. It was a very prominent hardware review website back in the day. And it's one of the few online resources from that time that are still available today.

Let's look at Wikipedia...

"AnandTech is an online computer hardware magazine owned by Future plc. It was founded in 1997 by then-14-year-old Anand Lal Shimpi".

14 year old!!! Are you kidding me? "a very prominent hardware review website"🤣

By the way, this article is also written by this 14-year-old kid. 🙂

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:45:

14 year old!!! Are you kidding me? "a very prominent hardware review website"🤣

By the way, this article is also written by this 14-year-old kid. 🙂

The fact that Anand was 14 at the time doesn't reduce the prominence of his website, nor his IT competence.

What he wrote there about 64 MB being the maximum cacheable RAM amount on the 430TX is factually correct. If you need an official source, look at the Intel 430TX PCIset Desktop Design Guide page 1-5 specifically. This information is also well known on this forum, feel free to do a search on cacheable RAM.

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:45:

Let's look at Wikipedia... […]
Show full quote

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:40:

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:31:

Article about one specific chipset from some unknown website (anandtech.com? what's that?) dated August 1, 1997 is period correct for the year 1995 and a book from a well known publisher dated 2003 is not period correct? Come on! 😄

The 1997 article is period correct for the Intel 430TX chipset which came out that year. It was meant as an example of a chipset which can only cache 64 MB RAM, despite supporting more than that.

Not sure if you're honestly not aware of Anandtech and its significance during the late 90s, or if you're joking. It was a very prominent hardware review website back in the day. And it's one of the few online resources from that time that are still available today.

Let's look at Wikipedia...

"AnandTech is an online computer hardware magazine owned by Future plc. It was founded in 1997 by then-14-year-old Anand Lal Shimpi".

14 year old!!! Are you kidding me? "a very prominent hardware review website"🤣

By the way, this article is also written by this 14-year-old kid. 🙂

this is the best troll of the month on vogons!

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:53:

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:45:

14 year old!!! Are you kidding me? "a very prominent hardware review website"🤣

By the way, this article is also written by this 14-year-old kid. 🙂

The fact that Anand was 14 at the time doesn't reduce the prominence of his website, nor his IT competence.

What he wrote there about 64 MB being the maximum cacheable RAM amount on the 430TX is factually correct. If you need an official source, look at the Intel 430TX PCIset Desktop Design Guide page 1-7 specifically. This information is also well known on this forum, feel free to do a search on cacheable RAM.

IT competence of 14 year-old-kid? Ok ... 😂

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:56:

IT competence of 14 year-old-kid? Ok ... 😂

He is not wrong in this particular case.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:58:

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:56:

IT competence of 14 year-old-kid? Ok ... 😂

He is not wrong in this particular case.

With all due respect, I'd rather read the manual or a book published by some well known publisher than a review of some 14 year-old-kid.

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:59:

With all due respect, I'd rather read the manual or a book published by some well known publisher than a review of some 14 year-old-kid.

That is certainly your prerogative. I suppose you have nothing against Intel as an official source though? This is page 1-5 from the document I linked to above (emphasis mine):

Not sure why you have such a hard time believing that chipsets during that era could only cache a certain amount of RAM. This information was freely available at the time, and is reasonably well known on this forum in the present day.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-16, 14:14:

That is certainly your prerogative. I suppose you have nothing against Intel as an official source though? This is page 1-5 from […]
Show full quote

ThinkpadIL wrote on 2022-09-16, 13:59:

With all due respect, I'd rather read the manual or a book published by some well known publisher than a review of some 14 year-old-kid.

That is certainly your prerogative. I suppose you have nothing against Intel as an official source though? This is page 1-5 from the document I linked to above (emphasis mine):

430TX.jpg

Not sure why you have such a hard time believing that chipsets during that era could only cache a certain amount of RAM. This information was freely available at the time, and is reasonably well known on this forum in the present day.

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

And by the way Intel 430TX chipset was released on 1997-02 so your example is even not a period correct one. 😉

Upgrading and Repairing PCs (14th Edition) by Scott Mueller (2003), QUE