VOGONS


Reply 160 of 412, by karakarga

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Nevertheless, the second way seemingly did the job.

- Make sure you have extracted a fresh copy of the zip archive.
- Open build.cmd and remove/comment the line "del bin\* /Q"
- Remove/comment all lines starting with "%NASM_LOCATION%"
- Start build.cmd for a refresh without recompiling the assembler code.

Reply 161 of 412, by karakarga

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Operation finished successfully! 😀 Thanks again Deniz....

Attachments

  • 20221129_235833.jpg
    Filename
    20221129_235833.jpg
    File size
    556.67 KiB
    Views
    1912 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception
  • 20221129_235908.jpg
    Filename
    20221129_235908.jpg
    File size
    1.11 MiB
    Views
    1912 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 163 of 412, by GL1zdA

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
DenizOezmen wrote on 2022-11-27, 00:14:
The others were easier due to their extremely similar codebase. […]
Show full quote

The others were easier due to their extremely similar codebase.

GL1zdA wrote on 2022-11-26, 22:58:

I'm running the CUBX-L version with a C3-733 MHz CPU, that's running either at 550 (100 MHz FSB) or 366 (66 MHz FSB) and it reports only 64 kB of cache and no L2 cache. This CPU apparently has 64 kB L1 instruction cache, 64 kB L1 data cache and 64 kB L2 cache. Could this mean, this BIOS is missing something?

Hi,

to run the processor at 733 MHz, you will have to use manual mode and set the FSB to 133MHz. (The CUBX-L BIOS defaults to offering only FSB 66 and FSB 100 speed options, since FSB 133 is technically out of spec for the chipset.)

Where do you see the L1/L2 cache information? (The "Cache Memory" line during POST actually shows the amount of L2 cache. L1 is not reported at all.)

If in doubt: Can you read out the processor's CPUID? Judging from the data at cpu-world.com, 733 MHz variants of the VIA C3 were produced either as "C3-733MHz" with a Samuel core (CPUID 66x, no L2 cache) or as "C3-733AMHz" with a Samuel 2 core (CPUID 67x with x<8, 64 KB L2 cache) If it's an "A" part, it should also say so during POST.

Unfortunately, I don't have complete datasheets for all types of C3 cores, so it's entirely possible there's something missing.

Okay, but can I see the L2 "in action"? The problem is, I don't see any difference is SPEEDSYS or Cache Check with L2 enabled. It's a 733A, HWINFO sees the L2, so I assume it's present.

getquake.gif | InfoWorld/PC Magazine Indices

Reply 164 of 412, by DenizOezmen

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
GL1zdA wrote on 2022-11-30, 11:09:

Okay, but can I see the L2 "in action"? The problem is, I don't see any difference is SPEEDSYS or Cache Check with L2 enabled. It's a 733A, HWINFO sees the L2, so I assume it's present.

So you cannot reproduce the results from this post by toggling the L2 Cache Enable/Disable option? That is weird. The relevant code hasn't really changed since then. Could you post the CPUID as reported by Speedsys?

Reply 165 of 412, by karakarga

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Asus CUBX-L is a Socket 370 based mainboard. I have checked CPU support page, there is no Cyrix processor support for your mainboard at all. Their cache amount is different from time to time. For example: Cyrix 386 processors have 1kb cache, but Intel and AMD has not any at that time. If your mainboards bios + engineering not build for that, there might be misinformation at bios screen. There are special jumpers on various slot 1 to socket 370 adapters for Cyrix processor support. Some of those are only for Samuel, not for Mojave. There might be more options from other vendors as well. Only bios modification may not help for full support! Here on the picture, there are 3 special jumpers seen on Soltek adapter.

Note: Those voltage part of jumper setting are the same for Asus S370-L (if jumpers present), S370-133 and S370-DL adapters, if one needs to set 1.3 to 1.45 Volt & 2.7 to 3.5 Volt for those Asus adapters, they can look on this Soltek's "SL-02A++" adapter picture as a reference.

Attachments

  • 20221130_180155.jpg
    Filename
    20221130_180155.jpg
    File size
    319.87 KiB
    Views
    1864 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 169 of 412, by DenizOezmen

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
karakarga wrote on 2022-12-09, 08:50:

Previous build was 20221129 and this new one 20221203. What is the difference?

The differences are

  • removed unnecessary microcodes (see below)
  • a small improvement for Via CPU L2 detection (just to be on the safe side)
  • general code cleanup for an easier build process

You don't need to flash the new version; there are no changes that would affect your system.

karakarga wrote on 2022-12-09, 09:02:

I see the new one has 19 microcodes, but the older one has 28 microcodes. Are those crapped ones for 66 MHz bus?

Exactly; the microcodes for Klamath-core Pentium IIs, Mendocino-core Celerons and Pentium II Overdrives have been omitted.

Reply 170 of 412, by B24Fox

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I hope my question doesn't come off as dumb, or something like that (especially since it's kinda late night, and also I haven't read through the whole thread)
Anyway..
regarding this fix: "fixed Hardware Monitor errors and erroneous readings ("-6.14V") when using modern PSUs without a -5 V rail"

have you (ore anyone) probed with a multimeter on the Mobo ATX connector where the white wire (-5V rail) should have been, in order to check if maybe... by some chance.. the mobo circuitry does some weird stuff, and there IS actually -6V there (even though maybe at a very low Amperage) ..??

Also, does this fix: "support of additional voltage ranges to suppress Hardware Monitor errors at bootup" ACTUALLY adds more voltage options that the hardware could actually provide? or is it just a variable added to make the Hardware Monitor shut up?

Same question about the verification of this fix: "unlocked core voltages for undervolting"

So basically my question is that, with the modifications that could affect voltages; were the voltages checked afterwords to confirm the actual values presented in the BIOS?

Great work @DenizOezmen btw!
And thank you!

Reply 171 of 412, by DenizOezmen

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
B24Fox wrote on 2022-12-28, 04:19:

I hope my question doesn't come off as dumb, or something like that (especially since it's kinda late night, and also I haven't read through the whole thread)

No worries ... 😀 I haven't explained most of the changes in detail yet.

B24Fox wrote on 2022-12-28, 04:19:

Anyway..
regarding this fix: "fixed Hardware Monitor errors and erroneous readings ("-6.14V") when using modern PSUs without a -5 V rail"

have you (ore anyone) probed with a multimeter on the Mobo ATX connector where the white wire (-5V rail) should have been, in order to check if maybe... by some chance.. the mobo circuitry does some weird stuff, and there IS actually -6V there (even though maybe at a very low Amperage) ..??

I assume that not to be the case, but personally haven't ruled it out.

This is what happens on the monitoring side: The onboard hardware monitoring chip outputs voltage readings as a single byte with a resolution of 16 mV. Ordinarily, this means a range of 0 mV to 255 * 16 = 4080 mV can be monitored on each input. Since this is obviously not suitable for the +/-5 V and +/-12 V rails, resistors are added to the appropriate inputs of the monitoring chip to reduce the voltages to the acceptable input range. The BIOS knows the values of these resistors and converts the single-byte reading accordingly:

v5neg = -r * 16 * 909 / 604

The weird values depend on the resistors. It seems like ASUS has followed the recommendations of the manufacturer as documented in the datasheet.

With this shift in place, the new range is now 0 mV to approx. -6140 mV (= -255 * 16 * 909 / 604). And this is where the "-6.14V" display comes from: It basically means that the monitoring chip outputs a value at the edge of its range. This also implies: If the PSU attached to the board actually did have a -5 V rail that had gone completely out of spec (let's say to -10 V), the BIOS would never show a more extreme value than -6.14 V.

So, in theory, there might actually be a weird voltage in place of the -5 V rail, but it doesn't necessarily have to be around -6 V.

On the other hand, the monitoring chip also seems to output maximum readings if there's nothing at all connected to the corresponding input: Regarding the fans, the ASUS stock BIOS interprets a speed reading of 255 as "no fan connected" and displays "N/A", even though this value could also be interpreted as a speed of around 1300 RPM. I simply applied the same logic to the -5 V rail display.

In any case, the -5 V rail patch does not change the voltage on that rail, so whatever the situation, it doesn't get worse due to the mod. The only drawback: Since the monitoring circuit cannot differentiate between a missing voltage and a voltage that is way out of spec, and the mod now decides on "no voltage present", you won't get a hardware monitor error anymore for an old PSU with a -5 V rail that has suddenly strayed to -6.14 V or beyond. That might be something to keep in mind.

B24Fox wrote on 2022-12-28, 04:19:

Also, does this fix: "support of additional voltage ranges to suppress Hardware Monitor errors at bootup" ACTUALLY adds more voltage options that the hardware could actually provide? or is it just a variable added to make the Hardware Monitor shut up?

It's the latter. The hardware monitor code checks the actual VCore reading against a hard-coded list of voltage ranges depending on the processor type. If the reading does not fall into the expected range for the processor that has been detected, the logic signals an error. The mod only extends this list with new ranges appropriate for Tualatin cores, Pentium Pros and the various Via C3 cores.

(Side note: Newer builds like that on the P3C-E seem to work differently here and determine the appropriate range dynamically, possibly in reference to the voltage requested by the CPU itself. I haven't looked into that thoroughly, though.)

B24Fox wrote on 2022-12-28, 04:19:

Same question about the verification of this fix: "unlocked core voltages for undervolting"

This is the only part of the mod that actually changes a voltage, though not as extreme as it might sound: The BIOS keeps a list of the possible core voltages the onboard power controller chip can provide. Depeding on the processor, an excerpt of this list is presented to the user in the BIOS setup menu. In the stock BIOS, these are just the CPU's nominal voltage as well as a few overvolting options. The power controller chip is instructed to output the voltage chosen by the user.

The mod extends the excerpt of the list displayed in the setup menu to include all undervolting options down to 1.30 V. The way the power controller is instructed to apply the voltage is unchanged, however.

B24Fox wrote on 2022-12-28, 04:19:

So basically my question is that, with the modifications that could affect voltages; were the voltages checked afterwords to confirm the actual values presented in the BIOS?

The first two changes are more cosmetical in nature. The last change has been independently checked by various people. User BitsUndBolts has made a video using the mod to undervolt a Pentium II, in which he measures the core voltage externally:

BitsUndBolts wrote on 2022-11-21, 11:13:

I recently made a video (Undervolted Pentium II) undervolting a Pentium II 400. The minimum voltage I can select is 1.55V - and the CPU is still stable.

B24Fox wrote on 2022-12-28, 04:19:

Great work @DenizOezmen btw!
And thank you!

Appreciated, thanks!

Reply 172 of 412, by RaVeNsClaw

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Dear DenizOezmen,

thank you for your great efforts!

I have encountered a problem with the Beta 1008cu004_20221210.1 of the ASUS CUBX 1.02 when using a modified Tualatin 1.4GHz SL5XL.
The CPU works on my other boards.

The problem:
The VCORE is automatically set to 1.98V and cannot be changed.

IMG_20230106_201702.jpg
Filename
IMG_20230106_201702.jpg
File size
144.87 KiB
Views
1547 views
File license
Public domain

When opening the VCORE menu, you only get a graphic error and the left side of the menu disappears.

IMG_20230106_201711.jpg
Filename
IMG_20230106_201711.jpg
File size
124.49 KiB
Views
1547 views
File license
Public domain
IMG_20230106_201716.jpg
Filename
IMG_20230106_201716.jpg
File size
94.9 KiB
Views
1547 views
File license
Public domain

With a Pentium III 933MHz, however, everything works.

Many thanks and best regards

Reply 173 of 412, by DenizOezmen

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hi,

RaVeNsClaw wrote on 2023-01-06, 19:38:

The problem:
The VCORE is automatically set to 1.98V and cannot be changed.

Wow, that is bad and shouldn't happen. Thanks for notifying.

I couldn't reproduce the problem exactly the same way, but there seems to be something wrong with the dynamic patch that determines the upper VCore limit. I've changed the code to be less intrusive. Could you try this? (Obviously, the Tualatin CPU shouldn't be running in this board with the old mod build ...)

In the meantime, I'll be pulling the other builds until we're sure the new build works.

[Edit: Moved attachment to first post.]

Last edited by DenizOezmen on 2023-01-12, 22:47. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 175 of 412, by DenizOezmen

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
maxtherabbit wrote on 2023-01-07, 02:00:

I can't seem to find the P3B-F BIOS anymore... even the version prior to the VCore change...

I was going to try flashing mine tomorrow 🤣

Sorry about that!
Until the bug has been confirmed resolved, here's the last released build before the possibly problematic change.

[Edit: removed obsolete attachment.]

Last edited by DenizOezmen on 2023-03-18, 16:29. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 176 of 412, by maxtherabbit

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
DenizOezmen wrote on 2023-01-07, 09:20:
maxtherabbit wrote on 2023-01-07, 02:00:

I can't seem to find the P3B-F BIOS anymore... even the version prior to the VCore change...

I was going to try flashing mine tomorrow 🤣

Sorry about that!
Until the bug has been confirmed resolved, here's the last released build before the possibly problematic change.

Thanks!

Reply 177 of 412, by BitsUndBolts

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hi everyone,

DenizOezmen wrote on 2022-12-28, 10:49:

User BitsUndBolts has made a video using the mod to undervolt a Pentium II, in which he measures the core voltage externally:

I have used the latest BIOS mod with unlocked voltages on an ASUS P3B-F and published the follow-up video Undervolted Pentium II - Tying up loose ends.
In this video, I could undervolt a PII and PIII to 1.45/1.50 Volts and I did not encounter any issues.

Reply 178 of 412, by RaVeNsClaw

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Dear DenizOezmen,

I will try the build, but sadly it will take a few days.

Today I recapped multiple mainboards, the CUBX among them.
Only in the middle of the second ASUS board I noticed, that the polarity markings on ASUS mainboards are all reversed.
So I pulled all the caps again and then had to order new caps (I don't reuse desoldered electrolytic caps).

Btw. I did not find a bad cap on the ASUS boards.
So that was an afternoon well wasted.

Reply 179 of 412, by maxtherabbit

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
DenizOezmen wrote on 2023-01-07, 09:20:
maxtherabbit wrote on 2023-01-07, 02:00:

I can't seem to find the P3B-F BIOS anymore... even the version prior to the VCore change...

I was going to try flashing mine tomorrow 🤣

Sorry about that!
Until the bug has been confirmed resolved, here's the last released build before the possibly problematic change.

2x115MHz FSB‼‼ Working like a charm‼‼

20230107_183814.jpg
Filename
20230107_183814.jpg
File size
1.25 MiB
Views
1435 views
File license
Public domain
20230107_183639.jpg
Filename
20230107_183639.jpg
File size
1.22 MiB
Views
1435 views
File license
Public domain