I fix that, thank you.

Graphics chip not displaying name..

Intel 386SX 16MHz

With 1 waitstate:

With 0 waitstate:

Nice, thank you. I appreciate because I know how Windows 95 runs (crawls ?) on a 386SX, especially at 16 MHz.

It's interesting. Some clicks take minutes, but for the most part it's surprisingly fast. And this is with only 5MB RAM. I guess having an accelerated graphics card helps a lot

Here are my Windows 98SE results. Pretty vanilla system so no surprises here:

Hi CuPid,

Thank you for releasing this program.

I have a question for you about the inbuilt benchmarks. Do these use MMX or 3dnow? I'm testing a wide range of CPUs and interested to know how the benchmark functions.

Here are some examples of the benchmarks: https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Super_So … ge_Edition_1.03

Thanks

mwdmeyer wrote on 2021-04-12, 08:50:

Hi CuPid, […]
Show full quote

Hi CuPid,

Thank you for releasing this program.

I have a question for you about the inbuilt benchmarks. Do these use MMX or 3dnow? I'm testing a wide range of CPUs and interested to know how the benchmark functions.

Here are some examples of the benchmarks: https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Super_So … ge_Edition_1.03

Thanks

hello !
No, the bench does not use any instruction set.
Interesting work on merging the results !

IBM 486SLC2 @66MHz
L1 Cache should be 16KB, and there is 128K L2 cache which is not detected.
Socket type should be QFP-100, the same as the 386SX chips.

On my Epox MVP3G-M I discovered that if ACPI is enabled in the CMOS settings, CPU Z locks up Windows 98 and I have to hit reset. With ACPI disabled version 1.03 works fine.

Schule04 wrote on 2021-04-25, 00:41:

IBM 486SLC2 @66MHz L1 Cache should be 16KB, and there is 128K L2 cache which is not detected. Socket type should be QFP-100, the […]
Show full quote

IBM 486SLC2 @66MHz
L1 Cache should be 16KB, and there is 128K L2 cache which is not detected.
Socket type should be QFP-100, the same as the 386SX chips.

IMG_20210425_011331b.jpgIMG_20210425_011416b.jpg

Yes the detection if the IBM 486SLC is problematic under Windows 9x. I did not find a reliable method yet.
So the program assumes this is a 486 w/o FPU (an SX then), and is wrong on everything (cache, clock speed, socket ...).

Pentium MMX 200 overclocked to 300 MHz (from 66MHz to 100 MHz FSB) with default P55C 2.8V VCore, also Prime stable.

the_ultra_code wrote on 2020-10-29, 21:42:

Hello! […]
Show full quote

Hello!

I noticed this little project of yours, so I decided I'd check out Vintage Edition v1.02 on my Pentium III-S 1.4Ghz rig to see how it stacks up against one of the last versions of CPU-Z supported by Win98SE that I know of (v1.57). I will say, I love the improvements to the readability of the text (I increased the size of the text in the .inf file for v1.57 for the text to be more readable) as well as some minor layout improvements. I also see that some more information is being displayed in the VE than in the older version. Keep up the great work!

To further help, I did notice one regression between v1.57 and VE v1.02 that I would like to report. It has to do with the VE not reporting my mainboard's "LCPIO", whatever that is. 😀

Here's the missing information from the VE report that's in the report from v1.57:

Copy code to clipboard

1LPCIO Vendor		AsusTek
2LPCIO Model		AS99127F
3LPCIO Vendor ID		0x5CA3
4LPCIO Chip ID		0x59
5LPCIO Revision ID	0x53
6Config Mode I/O address	0x2E
7Config Mode LDN		0xB
8Config Mode registers	
9		00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 
10	00	FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 0B FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
11	10	FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
12	20	59 53 FF FE 80 00 00 FF 00 0C 7C F0 1F 00 00 FF 
13	30	00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
14	40	FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
15	50	FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
16	60	00 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 
17	70	00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 

I have included both reports as well as the above screenshot in the zip file attached for your assistance. If there's anything else you need from me, feel free to ask.

Just checked with the latest vintage edition - still displaying the same issue of not displaying LPCIO:

the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-01, 20:55:

I have included both reports as well as the above screenshot in the zip file attached for your assistance.

I just looked at the SPD in WIN98SE_TUSL2-C_1-57.txt and it's reporting Data width 16448 bits which must be wrong, further the checksum is incorrect so I suspect your SPD data is wonky.

red-ray wrote on 2021-05-02, 11:19:

the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-01, 20:55:

I have included both reports as well as the above screenshot in the zip file attached for your assistance.

I just looked at the SPD in WIN98SE_TUSL2-C_1-57.txt and it's reporting Data width 16448 bits which must be wrong, further the checksum is incorrect so I suspect your SPD data is wonky.

IDK. This is a newer module from the mid-2000s I think. It is MemTest stable.

the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-02, 21:24:

IDK. This is a newer module from the mid-2000s I think. It is MemTest stable.

MemTest does not test the SPD. I looked some more and what CPUZ reported is:

Data width 16448 bits
Correction None
Registered no
Buffered no
EPP no
XMP no
JEDEC timings table CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-tRC @ frequency
JEDEC #1 2.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz
JEDEC #2 3.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz

DIMM # 1
SPD registers
-- 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 40 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01

The 40 at offset 07 should be 00 so either your SPD is corrupt or CPUZ misread that byte. SIV32 does not report SPD in W98, but if you can boot NT4, W2K or WXP it will. HWiNFO32 should report SPD on W98.

red-ray wrote on 2021-05-03, 08:52:

MemTest does not test the SPD. I looked some more and what CPUZ reported is: […]
Show full quote

the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-02, 21:24:

IDK. This is a newer module from the mid-2000s I think. It is MemTest stable.

MemTest does not test the SPD. I looked some more and what CPUZ reported is:

Data width 16448 bits
Correction None
Registered no
Buffered no
EPP no
XMP no
JEDEC timings table CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-tRC @ frequency
JEDEC #1 2.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz
JEDEC #2 3.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz

DIMM # 1
SPD registers
-- 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 40 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01

The 40 at offset 07 should be 00 so either your SPD is corrupt or CPUZ misread that byte. SIV32 does not report SPD in W98, but if you can boot NT4, W2K or WXP it will. HWiNFO32 should report SPD on W98.

If you are curious, I got a HWINFO32 report and debug file from the system.

the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-05, 04:19:

I got a HWINFO32 report and debug file from the system.

It looks like CPUZ messed up the SMBus SPD reading as looking in the .DBG file SPD offset 07 is 00 which is what it should be, further the SPD checksum is correct.

SMB:0:50
..... 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 0123456789ABCDEF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000: 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 00 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01 € @ÿuTÿ‚ÿ

It would not surprise me if you re-ran the CPUZ save and the value was then as it should be.

red-ray wrote on 2021-05-05, 09:14:

It looks like CPUZ messed up the SMBus SPD reading as looking in the .DBG file SPD offset 07 is 00 which is what it should be, f […]
Show full quote

the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-05, 04:19:

I got a HWINFO32 report and debug file from the system.

It looks like CPUZ messed up the SMBus SPD reading as looking in the .DBG file SPD offset 07 is 00 which is what it should be, further the SPD checksum is correct.

SMB:0:50
..... 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 0123456789ABCDEF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000: 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 00 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01 € @ÿuTÿ‚ÿ

It would not surprise me if you re-ran the CPUZ save and the value was then as it should be.

There you go.

Although not sure how this pertains to the VE 1.3.

Another motherboard-focused question. CPU-Z (both the modern version and vintage edition) is unaware of my FIC PN-6210 dual-Pentium Pro motherboard.