thanks!!!

@rg100

Why do you consider the 128 MB tests to be risky?

The difference between 3.0 and 3.1 was that 3.1 has the SST style BIOS update (I think it has an eyelet on the BIOS chip) and 3.0 has the intel-style update (no eyelet). 3.1 has a socketed RTC, while 3.0 is soldered. Our BIOS revision dates are the same.

I haven't noticed any benchmark differences between RAM of the same speed rating and different densities. I think your low POD scores are due to us having different user-based BIOS settings: Bus Park and you are using DRAM 1 WS for the POD.

I'm not sure if I share the viewpoint of having more than 32 MB of ram as being artificially slow. < 32 MB of RAM on Win98SE is generally not desirable.

Unfortunately I cannot add your X5-200 tests as they are incomplete and under different test conditions. The chart is a CPU comparison, not a system comparison. When I get my SMDs in to mod the Biostar motherboard, I'll try out my ADW on the Biostar at 200 Mhz. If I cannot get it working, I'll remove the column. I'm not in a particular hurry as I'm also waiting on the AMD DX4-120 cpu as well. Did you use 2-1-1-1 and 0/0 WS on your X5-200?

I have also gotten my 386 box back out from the lonely closet. I've put in a Texas Instruments (Cyrix) TX486DLC/E-40GA, which is 386-socket, 486 hybrid that I may add to the list in place of the X5-200. It is supposed to have 1KB of L1 cache, but Speedsys and cachechk do not pick it up.

>> When I get my SMDs in to mod the Biostar motherboard, I'll try out my ADW on the Biostar at 200 Mhz.

Good luck! 😀

>> Why do you consider the 128 MB tests to be risky?

It was just a reference to more testing. I'm happy with the 32MB tests. I didn't want to repeat them again with more RAM. I'm worried that with more testing, I might fry the chip! It's absolutely fine to omit this data from the results table.

>> Did you use 2-1-1-1 and 0/0 WS on your X5-200?

I think it was 2-1-1-1 and 1/0 WS, with the X5-200. I used 2-1-1-1 and 0/0 WS with the POD83.

Continued work on this project can be found in a new thread here,
Re: The Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison