analog_programmer wrote on 2024-10-11, 07:50:

Unnecessary fake cache chips as L2 cache is integrated into CPU:
1. PCChips/Hsin Tech M666 (there are some plastic fake cache "chips" on the board, but L2 cache is actually integrated in PII Xeon CPU)

I don't know which is more shocking to me.

1) PCChips actually sold a Slot-2 dual Xeon motherboard

2) Somebody who was deep enough into PCs to actually be in the market to buy a Slot-2 dual Xeon thought it should have external cache chips on it.

EDIT:
are those 2 chips between the CPUs actually fake cache chips? The picture isn't detailed enough to see what they say.
I know the TRW page says it has fake cache, but it looks like it's listing every possible "caveat" they have in their database, including references to Ni-Cd batteries, tantalum caps, and the i820 chipset which doesn't agree with the picture. Looks like a glitch.

You can see that the chips on the M666 are those I’ve just posted for the M919. They say “write back” on them.

shamino wrote on 2024-11-06, 08:16:

I don't know which is more shocking to me.

1) PCChips actually sold a Slot-2 dual Xeon motherboard

2) Somebody who was deep enough into PCs to actually be in the market to buy a Slot-2 dual Xeon thought it should have external cache chips on it.

I'm in favour of:

3) Every moron in ECS/PCChips marketing department thought, that somebody who was deep enough into PCs to actually be in the market to buy a Slot-2 dual Xeon thought it should have external (L3 ???) cache chips on it. (For a very long time engineers don't have the final word on what and how to be produced.)

shamino wrote on 2024-11-06, 08:16:

EDIT:
are those 2 chips between the CPUs actually fake cache chips? The picture isn't detailed enough to see what they say.
I know the TRW page says it has fake cache, but it looks like it's listing every possible "caveat" they have in their database, including references to Ni-Cd batteries, tantalum caps, and the i820 chipset which doesn't agree with the picture. Looks like a glitch.

Yeah, there's a ton of not so correct or verified info on the TRW site. But after some rotating and zooming, the picture is "clear" enough to see "WRITE BACK" molded inscription - check it out what it means 😉

Back in the days my best friend and I both had almost identical 486DX2-66 setup, with the same amount of cache or so we thought... But we could not understand why my computer was systematically faster in all benchmarks. It's only thanks to this site that years later I got the explanation: his computer had fake cache chips!

Retrospectively it is really sad because it's not only the manufacturer to be blamed, I am pretty sure the entire supply chain down to the local computer shop at the corner of the street who knew what was going on, but still preferred to sell the mobo and get the dirty money.

Turns out Octek wasnt alone! Found another vendor supporting EDRAM in a "History of the DRAM" document https://site.ieee.org/pikespeak/files/2020/08 … untain-DRAM.pdf

"Ramtron Developed a Custom Chipset Based Upon Intel FlexLogic FPGA", "Won First Taiwan Motherboard Design with Digicom"

Sure enough "QUICKCACHE EDRAM, MEMORY USING EDRAM ONLY" sticker over appropriately sized chip https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/digicom-digis-486el
Silcon-Mountain-DRAM.pdf has picture of another Digicom board with this additional Intel FPGA

Btw Iv never ever saw any gear with Intel FlexLogic FPGA, Intel FPGAs totally failed in the market in the nineties.

Shame on PCChips.
I had a M577 at the time with K6-II then upgraded to K6-III and the system always seemed to lack power. I wonder if the mobo cache was also fake. In case of fake chips, are they still detected by benchmarks and system test softwares?

You do realize that the M666 is an easter egg on TRW that doesn't actually exist, right?

Xanxi wrote on 2024-11-15, 21:35:

In case of fake chips, are they still detected by benchmarks and system test softwares?

Sure, you can use some system diagnostic software that can test/report the motherboard's cache.

watson wrote on 2024-11-15, 21:39:

You do realize that the M666 is an easter egg on TRW that doesn't actually exist, right?

Nope, but I thought someone overdid it with the board's defects list.

I don't know what kind of joke this is, as if the remaining inaccurate or misleading information on the website is not enough.

So, this fake board TRW article reminds me of another "phantom" motherboard. Has anyone heard of PCChips M569 mobo? I can't find a trace of such model all over the internet, except that rmay635703 mentions it a couple of times in other forum's topics and also in some other retro PC forums.

thanks

analog_programmer wrote on 2024-11-15, 23:33:

Sure, you can use some system diagnostic software that can test/report the motherboard's cache. […]
Show full quote

Xanxi wrote on 2024-11-15, 21:35:

In case of fake chips, are they still detected by benchmarks and system test softwares?

Sure, you can use some system diagnostic software that can test/report the motherboard's cache.

watson wrote on 2024-11-15, 21:39:

You do realize that the M666 is an easter egg on TRW that doesn't actually exist, right?

Nope, but I thought someone overdid it with the board's defects list.

I don't know what kind of joke this is, as if the remaining inaccurate or misleading information on the website is not enough.

Disclaimer

The info found in this page might not be entirely correct. Check out this guide to learn how you can improve it.

analog_programmer wrote on 2024-11-15, 23:33:

So, this fake board TRW article reminds me of another "phantom" motherboard. Has anyone heard of PCChips M569 mobo? I can't find a trace of such model all over the internet, except that rmay635703 mentions it a couple of times in other forum's topics and also in some other retro PC forums.

Apart from those few posting the illusive M569 bios never seems to have been actually posted.

This link here is a copy of the original AJZchips database, he had by far the most complete collection in existence at the time. As you can see there is no M569 bios in there only up to M567:
https://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/Archive/PcChip … M569/index.html
as you can see that number limit was chosen rather arbitrary:
https://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/Archive/PcChip … M5xx/index.html

So without any other info, I think the M569 simply doesn't exist and it was confused with the M596 which does have the same chipset. As for the extra ISA slot, the M571 V1.3 has 4 instead of 3 like the other revisions.

evasive wrote on 2026-04-01, 17:21:

Disclaimer […]
Show full quote

analog_programmer wrote on 2024-11-15, 23:33:

Sure, you can use some system diagnostic software that can test/report the motherboard's cache. […]
Show full quote

Xanxi wrote on 2024-11-15, 21:35:

In case of fake chips, are they still detected by benchmarks and system test softwares?

Sure, you can use some system diagnostic software that can test/report the motherboard's cache.

watson wrote on 2024-11-15, 21:39:

You do realize that the M666 is an easter egg on TRW that doesn't actually exist, right?

Nope, but I thought someone overdid it with the board's defects list.

I don't know what kind of joke this is, as if the remaining inaccurate or misleading information on the website is not enough.

Disclaimer

The info found in this page might not be entirely correct. Check out this guide to learn how you can improve it.

analog_programmer wrote on 2024-11-15, 23:33:

So, this fake board TRW article reminds me of another "phantom" motherboard. Has anyone heard of PCChips M569 mobo? I can't find a trace of such model all over the internet, except that rmay635703 mentions it a couple of times in other forum's topics and also in some other retro PC forums.

Apart from those few posting the illusive M569 bios never seems to have been actually posted.

This link here is a copy of the original AJZchips database, he had by far the most complete collection in existence at the time. As you can see there is no M569 bios in there only up to M567:
https://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/Archive/PcChip … M569/index.html
as you can see that number limit was chosen rather arbitrary:
https://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/Archive/PcChip … M5xx/index.html

So without any other info, I think the M569 simply doesn't exist and it was confused with the M596 which does have the same chipset. As for the extra ISA slot, the M571 V1.3 has 4 instead of 3 like the other revisions.

Hi, evasive,
I'm sorry for my long time delayed answer! I had a long time "ai" script moderation restriction for posting.

There is no PCChips M569 motherboard ever existed. I was mislead by some posts about the non-existing M569 BIOS (and mobo), when I searched for BIOS replacement with better RAM support for my Elpina BA E-VO 9825 ver. 3.2A (rebranded PCChips M571 v.3.2A) mobo. I also think, that it comes to PCChips M567 model with the same SiS 5598 chipset and the same I/O UMC UM8670F chip, but without the on-board C-Media CMI8330 audio.

As for TRW's M666 PCChips mockery... This is not funny at all. I really don't understand the ones belonging to "PCChips/ECS haters club", as if other board manufacturers hadn't ever made very bad motherboard models. For example, the much-hyped Octec manufacturer had openly lied about the L2 cache in several of its well-known motherboard models:

analog_programmer wrote on 2024-10-11, 07:50:

DCA sticker, cache upgrade is impossible: 1. Octek HIPPO DCA 1 rev. 1.x (claims DCA(1) support, seems like it can't use special […]
Show full quote

DCA sticker, cache upgrade is impossible:
1. Octek HIPPO DCA 1 rev. 1.x (claims DCA(1) support, seems like it can't use special EDRAM modules (fast DRAM with some tiny amount of SRAM cache))
2. Octek HIPPO VL (claims DCA(1) support, seems like it can't use EDRAM modules)
3. Octek HIPPO VL+ (claims DCA(1) support, seems like it can't use EDRAM modules)

Upgradable with EDRAM module:
1. Digicom DIGIS-486EL (probably it can use EDRAM modules)
2. Octek HIPPO DCA II (claims DCA2 support, possibly it can use EDRAM modules)

See, there's even no option to fix these Octec boards, unlike the problematic PCChips ones, but nobody hates Octec due to this fact.