VOGONS


First post, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

the sis 551x has a few different features compared to intel:

- FPM interleaving, sticks need to be same size, both single- or double-sided, and both symmetric or asymmetric,
- 7-bit tag mode, supposedly runs faster than 8-bit but cuts down cacheable area by half. unlike intel cacheable area is also determined by L2 cache size, 64mb for 256kb, 128mb for 512kb and 256mb for 1mb,
- async PCI clocking, silkscreen for the jumper says FSB/2 or 32 mhz,
- single SIMM operation, won't benchmark this but it's there.

interleaved FPM might be faster than EDO here, most timings seem to be faster according to the datasheet. 60ns FPM is a bit hard to come by though, especially in larger sizes. with 60ns EDO/256k async L2, despite showing better transfer numbers than an OEM 430NX board with the usual 256kb async, quake benched slower (20.3 untweaked/21.1 fast timings/21.3 fast timings+next address enable vs. 21.8 default/22.7 fast timings via tweakbios on 430NX, P90 with a matrox millennium). doom was about 1 FPS faster though.

oddly, the spec sheet mentions the cacheable size per L2 size to be specifically for async SRAMs, i'm not sure if the same applies to PB cache or not. also, the 8-bit tag bit length option did not work. maybe this needs a seperate SRAM to store the dirty bit and that's not present on this board? it shouldn't even have the BIOS option in that case though.

win95 felt much snappier than on the 430NX using the same drive, the 5513 IDE controller here is a lot better than an RZ1000 even in PIO, additionally DMA is supported out of the box on 95b. the speedsys numbers are nearly 10 mb/s buffered read vs 5.3 mb/s on the RZ1000. have also tried running the DOS busmastering driver via loadsys, but saw no improvement, the buffered read actually dropped by 0.5 mb/s. need to see if that's the case for loading via config.sys as well.

the chipset has a hidden IDE prefetch option, activating this with tweakbios immediately shot the MBR, good reminder that some bios settings are hidden for a reason. COM/LPT ports still appear in windows when disabled in the bios, which is an odd oversight for being the latest bios version.

Reply 1 of 12, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Nice notes. Single SIMM is slooow. If you want worst possible performance, get a 5511 board with UMA and 620x VGA chip. Then run that with single SiMM πŸ˜‰

Out of interest, why compare to i430NX? That was contemporary with the SiS 501; I'd compare the 5511 with i430FX or VX (where its regular EDO memory performance isn't great by comparison, but agree that that interleaved FP mode might be interesting, haven't looked into that)

Reply 2 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

i think 430NX was recent enough to be still relevant, the plato board was common and i've seen it referenced in 1995 magazine benchmarks (my board isn't the plato though). plus i'm assuming the 551x boards were cheaper than 430FX. so i think a comparison with intel's previous gen offering is not unwarranted. about 50x, don't have a board with that to compare. there was also 510x and 550x, don't have these either. all 4 of these sis chipsets supposedly came out in 1995.

430FX performs poorly with async cache and can even drop below 430NX according to benchmarks on this forum, btw. so for that, i guess you'd have to compare PB cache for both and find out if FPM or EDO is faster on 551x.

edit: this is what the board manual says about cache installation:

The attachment p55sp4 cache.png is no longer available

so they just assume the halved cacheable sizes from 7-bit tag operation - supports the idea that the bios option to change that shouldn't exist. and it seems to be implied these sizes are for both async and PB. the remaining question is whether it keeps using the onboard tag SRAM (a 16kx8 right now, though they only mention 8kx8 and 32kx8 as possible options a page later), or whether it can use the tag chip on the COASt.

Reply 3 of 12, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
auron wrote on 2025-01-29, 14:17:

i think 430NX was recent enough to be still relevant, the plato board was common and i've seen it referenced in 1995 magazine benchmarks (my board isn't the plato though). plus i'm assuming the 551x boards were cheaper than 430FX. so i think a comparison with intel's previous gen offering is not unwarranted. about 50x, don't have a board with that to compare. there was also 510x and 550x, don't have these either. all 4 of these sis chipsets supposedly came out in 1995.

5511 came out in Q4 1995, 5501 in Q1 1995 - as did i430FX (i430VX was released in February 1996, so just weeks after the 5501). Wikipedia says the SiS501 was a 1995 chipset but I strongly doubt that. In mid January 1995 I bought a P60 system with SiS 501 chipset that was old stock being sold off cheaply - which isn't really compatible with the idea it was released on January 9th 1995; that is the date of the latest release of documentation for it, but the chipset was older - I see a lot of images online of 85C501 chips dating to 1994, the earliest Q3 1994. i430NX was from March 1994. 6 months was a long time in the mid 1990s.

So the timeline was:
i430NX (March 1994)
SiS 501 (September 1994 or earlier)
i430FX (February 1995)
SiS 5501 (1995 week 13 or earlier)
SiS 5511 (September 1995)
i430VX (February 1996)

430FX performs poorly with async cache and can even drop below 430NX according to benchmarks on this forum, btw.

Not so sure about that. I did memory performance benchmarks and i430FX blows i430NX out of the water, even with asynch (let alone PLB).

See: http://dionb.eu/chipset1.html
(look at P-INT MEM bench, Biostar MB-8500TEC scores 40% faster than Intel Plato II)

so for that, i guess you'd have to compare PB cache for both and find out if FPM or EDO is faster on 551x.

Does 5511 support PLB? In async, it scored 8% worse than i430FX with asynch (and 46% worse than i430FX with PLB), at least with EDO.

Note that these are synthetic RAM benches which give stronger results than more general (game) benchmarks, and there are big differences between boards with the same chipset, so I'd take any comparison of just a single board (including my own) with a pinch of salt.

edit: this is what the board manual says about cache installation:

p55sp4 cache.png

so they just assume the halved cacheable sizes from 7-bit tag operation - supports the idea that the bios option to change that shouldn't exist. and it seems to be implied these sizes are for both async and PB. the remaining question is whether it keeps using the onboard tag SRAM (a 16kx8 right now, though they only mention 8kx8 and 32kx8 as possible options a page later), or whether it can use the tag chip on the COASt.

I'd also be careful of taking anything a manual says as the be-all and end-all of this sort of question. Cache limits are complex and motherboard vendors feel the pressure to simplify the situation as much as possible. This looks like the manual just taking the most conservative option and not mentioning the fact things may be more forgiving with different BIOS settings.

Reply 4 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

i have another one of these boards with an asus PB stick instead of async cache, and looking at that answered my own question - it has no tag ram in the socket, so it needs COASt modules with that on it (don't know if a tag on the board+no tag COASt is a valid setup). anyway, i've swapped that board in for testing and ran into a roadblock, even though it boots and runs a memtest fine, once the win95 setup comes up there is a short flash on the screen and then a hardlock. have tried a number of things and so far no success.

dionb wrote on 2025-01-29, 23:38:
Not so sure about that. I did memory performance benchmarks and i430FX blows i430NX out of the water, even with asynch (let alon […]
Show full quote

430FX performs poorly with async cache and can even drop below 430NX according to benchmarks on this forum, btw.

Not so sure about that. I did memory performance benchmarks and i430FX blows i430NX out of the water, even with asynch (let alone PLB).

See: http://dionb.eu/chipset1.html
(look at P-INT MEM bench, Biostar MB-8500TEC scores 40% faster than Intel Plato II)

i was referring to the various results posted in this thread: Re: Early Pentium Chipset Comparison

dionb wrote on 2025-01-29, 23:38:

Does 5511 support PLB? In async, it scored 8% worse than i430FX with asynch (and 46% worse than i430FX with PLB), at least with EDO.

it does, as you can see in the manual excerpt i posted. in fact it says you can load it up with a 1 meg PB COASt, if such a thing even exists (would be quite specialized because any intel chipset board would have been out).

dionb wrote on 2025-01-29, 23:38:

Note that these are synthetic RAM benches which give stronger results than more general (game) benchmarks, and there are big differences between boards with the same chipset, so I'd take any comparison of just a single board (including my own) with a pinch of salt.

in mpe's results, it's especially quake where the 430FX with async does really bad, other applications fare better. quake is also where my 430NX board outperformed the newer 551x despite the latter using EDO. i think i do have a 430FX that i could put async cache in so could add more data on that in the future.

yes, different boards often perform differently, but have people ever tried taking two boards with same CPU, RAM, chipset stepping etc., ensuring the bios settings are the same via tweakbios or one of the bios editors and comparing that? i think that should make things very close, only thing i can think of is things like onboard memory buffers having an effect.

dionb wrote on 2025-01-29, 23:38:

so they just assume the halved cacheable sizes from 7-bit tag operation - supports the idea that the bios option to change that shouldn't exist. and it seems to be implied these sizes are for both async and PB. the remaining question is whether it keeps using the onboard tag SRAM (a 16kx8 right now, though they only mention 8kx8 and 32kx8 as possible options a page later), or whether it can use the tag chip on the COASt.

I'd also be careful of taking anything a manual says as the be-all and end-all of this sort of question. Cache limits are complex and motherboard vendors feel the pressure to simplify the situation as much as possible. This looks like the manual just taking the most conservative option and not mentioning the fact things may be more forgiving with different BIOS settings.

i understand that issue more as a 0/1 thing rather than what you implied, which seems to be a stability issue, because if the board doesn't have a method to store the dirty bit other than stealing 1 bit from the tag SRAM, it wouldn't work at all. this needs more testing or clarification from somebody more technically versed though.

i've also found this post, suggesting that one could use 8-bit mode for the larger cacheable area but would need to set the slower WT mode. i don't see that in the spec sheet, but anyway, i don't think i tested 8-bit with WT, so that could well be right. or additionally, according to that post it could use a second tag chip to run 8-bit in WB, but the question here is whether a board could use the tag from the COASt or not.

i couldn't even say for sure if it's safe to put a tag in the slot with the async cache jumpered to on, and having the COASt at the same time. my board with the COASt actually came with the async cache jumpered to on but since there's nothing in those sockets it doesn't make a difference.

Reply 5 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

the windows setup hang turned out to be a ps/2 mouse related problem. it actually runs until the mouse is moved, that's where it freezes. confirmed the same with a 98se disc as well.

ps/2 mouse is on in the bios and the mouse lights up correctly. i guess i'll look for any kind of damage around the amikey-2 chip, but will probably have to test the other board with async cache jumpered off, if i want to test PB cache.

edit: well, found the issue - there is a jumper for the ps/2 mouse function and it's jumpered off by default, guess to not use the IRQ. of course only saw that after having unplugged everything already...

Reply 6 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

have tested the DOS DMA drivers (SISDR.SYS) with loading from config.sys, same results as mentioned before. speedsys results from a p133@90, 256kb PB:

The attachment SISPIO.png is no longer available
The attachment SISDMA.png is no longer available

it's still a bit slower with DMA enabled, also had a system hang while exiting a game with the DMA driver loaded, so these drivers might not be very stable. i'm not aware of a good method to test CPU load during HDD transfers in DOS, but game benchmarks didn't show a difference between these. by the way, the IDE prefetch option is said to cut down IDE cycles by half, i'm not going to try that anymore though because i don't want to reformat my hard drive every time. but i'd be interested to know if anyone can get this option to work.

tweakbios exposes some other settings similar to later intel chipsets, peer concurrency and delayed transaction, but enabling these didn't improve performance at all. interestingly, tweakbios also exposes a USB option for the southbridge. that would seem like a mistake and obviously the board doesn't have any header for this, also the chipset spec sheet doesn't mention it.

EDO+PB performance can be called lackluster once moving to a p133, for instance with everything tweaked to the fastest (except the CPU-to-PCI posting rate, which didn't run at 3t using the p133) i'm getting merely 72.1 FPS in doombench, which is firmly at the bottom for p133 scores, though i guess something like the ark cards would actually perform a bit better than the matrox here. and pcpbench was still 0.3 FPS or so below the medium score for a p133. i think the memory write and video transfer performance are primarily to be blamed for this, these show no improvement at all over 430NX. looking at the spec sheet, this chipset really seems like it's modeled after 430NX but with some features added to it, using the same names for some components.

there is one other inconsistency about this board - i've noticed that on rev 1.4 two of the four jumpers that are supposed to control voltage are hardwired. the manual doesn't address this, despite addressing other 1.4 differences. so it's not clear if the other two are enough to switch between standard/VRE or not.

Reply 7 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

running adaptec threadmark, pentium 133 using a quantum 1280at drive, the numbers are 2.80 mb/s and 52.92% CPU load with PIO, 2.38 mb/s and 32.20% CPU load with DMA. so while DMA works, as with speedsys peak transfer rate is slower for some reason. this reinforces the idea that the aforementioned hidden BIOS options are needed in order to attain full performance from the IDE controller.

the built-in driver in win95 OSR2 was used for this (which does recognize the southbridge as a sis one, not the northbridge though) instead of the vendor driver, because in the driver readme file sis itself recommended to use built-in drivers for osr2/win98 over their own drivers. these drivers also come with a fix that one is supposed to run before installing win98, in case of experiencing hangs.

some old results that i took from a p133 as well but on a 430FX board using the very same drive: 2.18mb/s and 35.61% CPU load with DMA off vs. 2.51mb/s and 17.97% CPU load with DMA on.

Reply 9 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

well, it's to be expected. it's using only half of the pentium memory bus after all.

though, i suppose this might be of use for slowdown purposes. the board also has deturbo functionality, which should be working on rev. 1.4 according to the manual, with jumper on being default speed. i don't think this is a given for most socket 7 boards. put a switch on that and you probably get some pretty good tweakability on this board. i just rarely play the games that need this so it's not of huge interest to me.

Reply 10 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

trying to test that FPM interleaving, realized that this is not activated by default but is yet another feature unavailable in BIOS that needs to be toggled in tweakbios. the bank numbering is also switched there. activating this for the correct bank results in a freeze, and this is with identical sticks, also tested with slowest timings and another pair. this simply does not work despite the feature being mentioned in detail in the spec sheet. i guess either something about the board design prevents this from working, or this must be activated during boot from BIOS. i suppose i could plug the bios image into award bios editor or something and see if it's in there...

the other thing is, i had major issues with the DMA checkbox activated with the default driver in osr2. i don't know if something got corrupted, but i was trying to install a driver and it would always go extremely slow, then freeze up with bluescreens and data loss messages. reverting to PIO would fix all of that (which win95 tends to do by itself anyway after crashes). this is especially odd as it was previously able to complete a full threadmark run without obvious issues. i then put on the sis driver, which seems to always activate DMA by default. this is even able to read out the manufacturer and model name of the hard drive, which is kind of unusual in windows 95. this driver seems to work stable and the threadmark numbers were 2.10 mb/s and 40.34% CPU load, though note that i reverted to the default memory timings for this as the fastest ones proved to be unstable in memtest.

Reply 11 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

i've managed to open this bios file with modbin 4.50.80c. in the register settings there is 0054, which should be the correct one for the interleave option according to the spec sheet. however this is giving a value of "XXXXXXX1", and only the 1 is editable. this is most likely just a reserve bit that is supposed to be on 1, and the interleave option uses two bits.

Reply 12 of 12, by auron

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

finishing up my testing of this board, there are still a couple of things i wanted to take a look at. tests in this post will be from a p133 again unless noted differently, 32mb edo and the 4 mb matrox millennium, however this time everything at default memory timings. everything with f8 boot to dos 7, no drivers loaded. first, WB vs. WT cache operation;

speedsys L2 average: 92.02 mb/s (WB), 89.07 mb/s (WT)
pcpbench default: 16.5 fps (WB), 16.3 fps (WT)
doom (doombench method): 71.81 fps (WB) vs. 70.46 fps (WT)

so WB has a slight edge, running WT instead doesn't seem to be a huge issue if the larger cacheable area was really needed though. next, the jumper to run the PCI bus at an asynchronous 32 mhz. first, with the CPU underclocked to 75 mhz:

doom (doombench): 48.15 fps (25 mhz), 51.68 fps (32 mhz)
quake demo1: 17.7 fps (25 mhz), 17.9 fps (32 mhz)
3dbench2: 68.6 fps (25 mhz), 72.4 fps (32 mhz)
shiny gpt14: 37-38 (25 mhz), 38 (32 mhz)
pcp default/vga: 10.6 fps / 21.2 fps (25 mhz), 10.9 fps / 21.2 fps (32 mhz)
vspeed: 26.17 mb/s vga, 30.6 mb/s LFB for both
speedsys VESA transfer rate: 30478 kb/s (25 mhz), 30611 kb/s (32 mhz)

then with the full 133 mhz:

doom: 71.88 fps (33 mhz), 70.99 fps (32 mhz)
quake: 27.7 fps (33 mhz), 27.6 fps (32 mhz)
3dbench2: 104.9 fps (33 mhz), 103.8 fps (32 mhz)
shiny gpt14: 62-63 both
pcp default/vga: 16.5 fps / 33.8 fps (33 mhz), 16.4 fps / 33.8 fps (32 mhz)
vspeed vga/lfb: 35.76 mb/s / 40.18 mb/s (33 mhz), 36.13 mb/s / 40.18 mb/s (32 mhz)
speedsys VESA transfer rate: 36827 kb/s (33 mhz), 36882 kb/s (32 mhz)

it seems that no tool is able to read out the actual PCI bus clock, but judging by the results, the jumper works as imagined - 32 mhz for 50/60 mhz FSB, FSB/2 for 66 mhz will give the best performance. i didn't expect the raw transfer rates to be unaffected, though; unlike actual applications PCI bus clock doesn't seem to be a bottleneck at all here and this is only affected by CPU and FSB clock speeds.

finally, i benchmarked another asus board from the exact same late 1995 time frame, a p/i-p55tp4xe with the 430fx chipset. default bios settings again, which appear to be relatively fast here, and same hardware used, the board likewise has a 256kb asus COASt. unlike the other board which has the latest 1998 bios, i've left this board at its original november 1995 version.

initial results were all over the place though and i quickly realized the board was running without the L2 cache. took a lot of reseating to get the COASt recognized, in fact i've had the exact same issues with the p55sp4 board, just in that case only after trying to run a 512 kb stick in it. in many cases the board would just not post but work after moving it a tiny bit. what is a good method to clean these COASt modules and slots, contact cleaner perhaps? anyway, since i have results with L2 off for the p55tp4xe, might as well post them:

doom: 66.86 fps
quake: 30.2 fps
3dbench2: 112.2 fps
shiny gpt14: 43
pcpbench default/vga: 15.2 fps / 30.2 fps
vspeed vga/LFB: 42.39 mb/s / 51.61 mb/s
dukebench vga: 57.5 fps
speedsys vesa transfer rate: 47009 kb/s

and finally, comparing the p55sp4 against the p55tp4xe, as before with the p133 and 256 kb PB cache:

doom: 71.88 fps (p55sp4), 73.36 fps (p55tp4xe)
quake: 27.7 fps (p55sp4), 34.4 fps (p55tp4xe)
3dbench2: 104.9 fps (p55sp4), 117.5 fps (p55tp4xe)
shiny: 62-63 (p55sp4), 64 (p55tp4xe)
pcp default/vga: 16.5 fps / 33.8 fps (p55sp4), 17.5 fps / 36.8 fps (p55tp4xe)
vspeed vga/LFB: 35.76 mb/s / 40.18 mb/s (p55sp4), 44.97 mb/s / 51.61 mb/s (p55tp4xe)
dukebench vga: 68.5 fps (p55sp4), 73.5 fps (p55tp4xe)
speedsys vesa transfer rate: 36827 kb/s (p55sp4), 47009 kb/s (p55tp4xe)

speedsys cache/memory for the p55sp4:

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”
β”‚ Read β”‚ Write β”‚ Move β”‚ Average β”‚
β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
β”‚ Cache Level 1 β”‚ 169.22 MB/sβ”‚ 42.07 MB/sβ”‚ 503.46 MB/sβ”‚ 238.25 MB/sβ”‚
β”‚ Cache Level 2 β”‚ 107.11 MB/sβ”‚ 41.76 MB/sβ”‚ 127.19 MB/sβ”‚ 92.02 MB/sβ”‚
β”‚ Memory β”‚ 80.75 MB/sβ”‚ 42.71 MB/sβ”‚ 59.25 MB/sβ”‚ 60.90 MB/sβ”‚
β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜

speedsys cache/memory for the p55tp4xe:

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”
β”‚ Read β”‚ Write β”‚ Move β”‚ Average β”‚
β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
β”‚ Cache Level 1 β”‚ 169.23 MB/sβ”‚ 84.07 MB/sβ”‚ 503.57 MB/sβ”‚ 252.29 MB/sβ”‚
β”‚ Cache Level 2 β”‚ 107.12 MB/sβ”‚ 83.35 MB/sβ”‚ 127.20 MB/sβ”‚ 105.89 MB/sβ”‚
β”‚ Memory β”‚ 69.49 MB/sβ”‚ 83.54 MB/sβ”‚ 61.12 MB/sβ”‚ 71.38 MB/sβ”‚
β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”΄β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜

the write numbers are doubled on 430FX across the board, even down to L1 cache, and this should be reflected in some of the practical results - i was rather surprised to see 430FX outperform sis in quake and 3dbench2 even without l2 cache. in comparison, the gpt14 number dropped to only p90 level according to that benchmark, suggesting that this is the most L2 reliant benchmark of all of those. on the other hand sis does actually have an advantage over intel in terms of memory reads, though, at least at default timings for these two boards.

transferring over the same win95 install to the 430FX board, the driver for every component was installed without issue, except for one thing - the floppy controller of all things, which has a yellow exclamation mark in device manager, so A: is now shown to be using ms-dos compatibility mode. does anyone know how to get this installed without doing a full win95 reinstall? it's not shown to be actually using a driver and after deleting it from device manager, it reappears in the same state.