Disruptor wrote on 2024-08-06, 23:06:

For me and beside the cacheable area, your L2 Cache and DRAM performance looks like it may be optimized to faster settings.

Yeah, should be around 65mbs and 37mbs so it’s like the board is setup for 50mhz FSB

In Bios:
DRAM Slow Refresh adds ~5% performance
CPU Burst Write adds performance

Don't know about 67MB/s, but for L2 ~50MB/s is normal for 33MHz bus. 25-35MB/s RAM. In CacheChk not Speedsys.

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-08-07, 05:13:

Disruptor wrote on 2024-08-06, 23:06:

For me and beside the cacheable area, your L2 Cache and DRAM performance looks like it may be optimized to faster settings.

Yeah, should be around 65mbs and 37mbs so it’s like the board is setup for 50mhz FSB

I have tried to set FSB on 50 mhz, but windows does not want to launch. Currently I have 33 mhz.

The Speedsys memory benchmark still seems very slow to me. My socket 3 board (when running @33 MHz) does ~48 MB/s on L2 cache speed vs 24 on your board, and memory throughput is 31.12 MB/s vs 20 on your board. Also, VESA (?) memory speed (left above) is 6947 kB/s which again seems slow compared to my (real, budget) Vesa Local Bus video card that does 11610 kB/s according to Speedsys.
Also, the blue line on the graph (indicating write speed) seems very low, my board does around 62 MB/s.

Maybe there are (hidden) wait states. You could also try to manually adjust your memory timings (I saw it was on auto in one of your screen shots). You could try settings it to manual and then enabling the fastest possible settings.

digistorm wrote on 2024-08-07, 12:45:

The Speedsys memory benchmark still seems very slow to me. My socket 3 board (when running @33 MHz) does ~48 MB/s on L2 cache speed vs 24 on your board, and memory throughput is 31.12 MB/s vs 20 on your board. Also, VESA (?) memory speed (left above) is 6947 kB/s which again seems slow compared to my (real, budget) Vesa Local Bus video card that does 11610 kB/s according to Speedsys.
Also, the blue line on the graph (indicating write speed) seems very low, my board does around 62 MB/s.

Maybe there are (hidden) wait states. You could also try to manually adjust your memory timings (I saw it was on auto in one of your screen shots). You could try settings it to manual and then enabling the fastest possible settings.

In BIOS if I change from auto-configuration to manual, I can just change DRAM speed from Faster (on auto) to Fastest, but results in sppedtest are the same

I tried with just 64 mb (2x32mb) and results the same

Marcin1199 wrote on 2024-08-07, 07:35:

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-08-07, 05:13:

Disruptor wrote on 2024-08-06, 23:06:

For me and beside the cacheable area, your L2 Cache and DRAM performance looks like it may be optimized to faster settings.

Yeah, should be around 65mbs and 37mbs so it’s like the board is setup for 50mhz FSB

I have tried to set FSB on 50 mhz, but windows does not want to launch. Currently I have 33 mhz.

You have understood him wrong.
You should NOT set your FSB to 50 MHz because you overclock your Overdrive then.
He meant you may have most conservative settings (which are used for a 486 DX 50) in your BIOS.
Try to use the settings that are recommended for 33 MHz, or perhaps 25 MHz, so you may try faster access times and lower waitstates.

Disruptor wrote on 2024-08-07, 13:49:

You have understood him wrong. You should NOT set your FSB to 50 MHz because you overclock your Overdrive then. He meant you may […]
Show full quote

Marcin1199 wrote on 2024-08-07, 07:35:

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-08-07, 05:13:

Yeah, should be around 65mbs and 37mbs so it’s like the board is setup for 50mhz FSB

I have tried to set FSB on 50 mhz, but windows does not want to launch. Currently I have 33 mhz.

You have understood him wrong.
You should NOT set your FSB to 50 MHz because you overclock your Overdrive then.
He meant you may have most conservative settings (which are used for a 486 DX 50) in your BIOS.
Try to use the settings that are recommended for 33 MHz, or perhaps 25 MHz, so you may try faster access times and lower waitstates.

Can you tell me how to do this?

Please post the BIOS settings (advanced settings & chipset settings).

My BIOS seems rather simple. Moreover I have tried with CPU Burst Write and DRAM Slow Refresh as enable, but speedtest was the same and I had impression that W98 is working slower.

BTW does someone know what is the difference between Turbo and DE-Turbo?

This is weird too - sometimes I have Clock Speed on 80+ and sometimes (even juest after computer launch) I have half of it. I don't know jet what determines it

It looks like you have a gimped bios with a simplified user friendly setup menu.

If a better bios or a Mr Bios doesn’t exist you would need to use old utilities to unlock hidden settings to see what the actual timings are.

It’s possible the bios is poorly designed when combined with a p24t or it’s possible your ram or cache is too slow at faster speeds.

The best bios will allow you to set things manually even into an unstable configuration.

Do you think that config.sys could have an influence on the performance? Maybe there is something to optimize? I am using Qemm. It looks like this:

DEVICE=C:\QEMM\QEMM.SYS RAM ROM
DOS=HIGH
Buffers=15.0
Files=25
FCBS=4,0

Like rmay635703 said, I recommend a BIOS with more options too.

I am not sure is it a Bios issue....f.e in win XP my benchmak are still ok. The problem is in win98se

MikeSG wrote on 2024-08-07, 05:42:

In Bios: DRAM Slow Refresh adds ~5% performance CPU Burst Write adds performance […]
Show full quote

In Bios:
DRAM Slow Refresh adds ~5% performance
CPU Burst Write adds performance

Don't know about 67MB/s, but for L2 ~50MB/s is normal for 33MHz bus. 25-35MB/s RAM. In CacheChk not Speedsys.

Revisiting this agree with above

Similar situation here but different board

486 cache/ram speed issue with write-back

Burst should be enabled
Slow refresh enabled
L1 should be write through
L2 should be write back

Once he does this retest.

His pod might be overclock able to a 40mhz FSB if he does the regulator mod which would also be interesting to test.

Once upon a time I had a board with the stupid simple bios he has and fastest wasn’t actually the fastest (upon testing)

So he will likely have to run through all the setting combinations including auto to see what type of memory speeds he can get with the board configured in all the different ways.

If I were him I would install an AMD 5x86 and run the memory and cache tests then do the same for the p24t.
Some 486 board/bios combinations gimp the p24t compare to normal 486 chips

Marcin1199 wrote on 2024-08-07, 21:49:

This is weird too - sometimes I have Clock Speed on 80+ and sometimes (even juest after computer launch) I have half of it. I don't know jet what determines it

The score in the benchmark is not the clock speed of the processor, but a general score that describes the system performance. The system performance does not only depend on the processor clock speed (which is displayed as 83.3 MHz some lines above), but it also depends on the memory speed. As already mentioned in this thread, depending on cache configuration (WB/WT), only the first 16 or 32MB of your memory is accelerated by being cached in the L2 cache. It is expected that the computer runs slower if it accesses memory at higher addresses than the cache can cover. After running Windows 95 for some minutes, you have virtually no control over what part of memory gets allocated to which task, so it's a game of chance whether the benchmark operates in fast cached memory or slow uncached memory. I am quite confident that this is the real reason why you get those inconsistent benmark scores.

Try running the system with only 16MB of RAM (or 32MB if you can make sure the the L2 cache operates in WT mode). If you always get good integer performance in that case, you can be sure the that the low score is indeed caused by noncacheable memory.

To run Windows XP, you clearly want as much memory as possible (and even more if you dare to try XP SP2), but for consistent performance in Windows 95, not exceeding the cacheable area of the L2 cache is highly recommended.

I have made a few test and I get the best performance (Win98SE) for 32 mb RAM:

CPU Burst - enabled (E)
Slow refresh - enabled (E)
L1 - WB
L2 - WT

Moreover I found the reason why in WiN98SE I had such slow CPU clock - it was because of pendrive pluged in (!). Without it CPU clock is normal in Win98se- 83. I had nusb36e driver

I attach benchamarks for different combinations - it was prepared for Quake 1, 1280x1024 (16 bit) resolution. The first digit is fps

Do you know why when I set jumper on 40mhz FSB (trying to overclock POD83), any windows will not boot? How to do this in a right way?

Marcin1199 wrote on 2024-08-19, 13:46:

Do you know why when I set jumper on 40mhz FSB (trying to overclock POD83), any windows will not boot? How to do this in a right way?

You will have to change settings in bios, for ISA, wait states etc. for 40 MHz. Also on some cards.