Get a COAST module for it as well! You'll notice quite a difference.

Maximum speed is not the goal. Otherwise I had installed an 200 MHz P55C/MMX. 😉

I'm also really interested in building a P100 or p133 system, but I feel it needs to have a motherboard that was available when the P133 represented the fastest available option from Intel. Probably either the Neptune or a 430FX. I'm probably going to go with a dual Neptune.

I own a Neptune, but that only supports P75 and P90.

So far, so good. However, L2 cache is not detected. 🤣

Could it be due to a missing TAG RAM chip? (Empty DIP socket at top-right of motherboard.)

No, TAG RAM is on-board. The socket is for a larger TAG RAM, so 512 MB instead of 64 MB can be cached.

However, I found the cause. There's a jumper right from the empty socket. I thought that's only set when populating the socket, but it must be always closed to enable cache. I guess the pre-owner had the turbo switch connected there and hence the absence of a jumper. Did the same now. 😀

Speed test is looking good:

Faster than the average P1 133.

Was thinking about which graphics card I should use. Have a pile of S3 ViRGE/DX, those are always a good choice. First however I tried a ATi 3D Rage Pro 8 MB, as I thought that one should be quite fast. Interestingly, it only did 25 MB/sec. in 16 and 32 bit transfer modes. Next I did try was a S3 Savage Pro and that immediately ended my quest for a graphics card.

(holy sh*t, still can't believe how fast it is...)

ps: yes, that's a PCI card, no AGP.

derSammler wrote:

Next I did try was a S3 Savage Pro
(holy sh*t, still can't believe how fast it is...)

Yes, thats completely reasonable. The CPU is from 1995 and the VGA from 1999:

The graphics core was clocked at 125 MHz, with the board's SDRAM clocked at either 125 MHz or 143 MHz (Savage4 Pro).

What has the CPU to do with that? I've compared the ATi 3D Rage Pro 8 MB (1998) with the S3 Savage4 Pro 8 MB (1999) and while the ATi does not even reach the speed of the average PCI VGA card, the Savage4 is 2.4x faster than the ATi and almost twice as fast as the average PCI VGA card. This is quite a surprise, as I never seen anyone recommending a Savage4 when someone asked for a fast 2D PCI card.

Yes, you're right. What i mean with the CPU is: it's not time-period combination anymore...
Yes, the ATI card is quite bad, and the S3 performs really good.

melbar wrote:

Yes, you're right. What i mean with the CPU is: it's not time-period combination anymore...

Well, the CPU has a sticker indicating it was sold in 1997. And two years later one may have upgraded the graphics card. Works for me. 😉

Just benchmarked my ViRGE/DX cards. One does 42 MB/sec., one 46 MB/sec., and one 51 MB/sec. I may use the latter one in combination with a Voodoo 1 instead, but for now I go with the Savage4 and see how it performs overall. Have no Voodoo 1 left currently anyway.

whats the difference between practical and theoretical video performance in text mode for example?
also: You might want to read up on compatibility of this card;

mrau wrote:

whats the difference between practical and theoretical video performance in text mode for example?

practical = how many characters it can display per second (relevant for DOS etc.)
theoretical = how many bytes it can transfer per second (meaning depends on usage, so this is no practical value)

but that's what i don't get: bytes copied into gpu memory are going to be displayed (usually 1 char for every 2 bytes in text mode) - but we have far more bytes copied than characters displayed - this does not make sense to me...

mrau wrote:

but we have far more bytes copied than characters displayed - this does not make sense to me...

Because it takes more to display a character than just copying bytes. Text display is handled by the BIOS, so lots of overhead.

practical is divided into direct (writing bytes/words/dwords) and bios - so theres already that distinction made; but in theoretical You have copied bytes again..

No idea how I should explain it otherwise. Maybe this way: theoretical is raw data that can be pushed, practical is real-world use with overhead etc. taken into account.