are there jumper settings for the cache?

Yes there are. The jumper settings for the cache are set appropriately for 1024 KB cache. POST shows 1024 KB cache.

Have you made sure you're using the right cache chips?? Sorry, but don't have any other ideas right now. The 32p cache chips also come in "half" size but look the same

I am using 8 ISSI cache chips with part number IS61C1024-15N and a TAG by Winbond, with part number W24512AK-15.

The ISSI manual states, "The ISSI IS61C1024 and IS61C1024L are very high-speed, low power, 131,072-word by 8-bit CMOS static RAMs."

I don't see what I'm missing. How do you tell what a "half" size is?

What if I use another one of the IS61C1024-15N (128Kx8) pieces as the TAG even though the manual calls for the Winbond I'm using (64Kx8).

The only thing I can think of is that HOT-433 with its BIOS and/or chipset did not correctly implement 1 MB cache operation due to limited demand. Maybe my board's memory controller is bad? This is why I'm asking if anyone else out there has had any success with this. This has potential to be the ultimate 486 system if I can get this working -- 4 PCI slots and 1 MB cache in WB mode w/128 MB EDO RAM. W00t!

feipoa wrote:

ISSI IS61C1024

Good guess is you got the correct parts. Couldn't help you more as I didn't know the part numbers in my previous post 😉

A better question might be, has anyone had success with any PCI-based 486 motherboard and 1 MB of L2 cache?

feipoa wrote:

I am using 8 ISSI cache chips with part number IS61C1024-15N and a TAG by Winbond, with part number W24512AK-15. […]
Show full quote

I am using 8 ISSI cache chips with part number IS61C1024-15N and a TAG by Winbond, with part number W24512AK-15.

The ISSI manual states, "The ISSI IS61C1024 and IS61C1024L are very high-speed, low power, 131,072-word by 8-bit CMOS static RAMs."

I don't see what I'm missing. How do you tell what a "half" size is?

What if I use another one of the IS61C1024-15N (128Kx8) pieces as the TAG even though the manual calls for the Winbond I'm using (64Kx8).

The only thing I can think of is that HOT-433 with its BIOS and/or chipset did not correctly implement 1 MB cache operation due to limited demand. Maybe my board's memory controller is bad? This is why I'm asking if anyone else out there has had any success with this. This has potential to be the ultimate 486 system if I can get this working -- 4 PCI slots and 1 MB cache in WB mode w/128 MB EDO RAM. W00t!

What on Earth could you possibly run on a 486 system that needs 128mb RAM? It's not likely to run any faster with that much RAM.

That isn't really the question of concern, but I'll answer anyway.

Boot Windows NT 4.0; 60 MB of RAM is sucked up already. Open IE 6 to check your company's webmail using online outlook, another 25 MB is sucked up. Now play a little Subspace, another 30 MB is sucked up. Open Photoshop 4, another 12 MB gone.

I've used a 486 in NT 4.0 for the past 10+ years and have found that 128 MB is the sweet spot. Given the above typical scenerio, 128 MB RAM runs much faster than 64 MB RAM (less swapping).

Now, if you are going to ask this kind of a question, then you just as well ask "why bother with retro computing" to everyone on this forum. Why not just use a early Pentium to play these old DOS games? What is the point in collecting CPUs? Where does this bring you in life? You can attempt to rationalise these answers all you want, but it often boils down to: because we can, and we enjoy it.

feipoa wrote:

Now, if you are going to ask this kind of a question, then you just as well ask "why bother with retro computing" to everyone on this forum. Why not just use a early Pentium to play these old DOS games? What is the point in collecting CPUs? Where does this bring you in life? You can attempt to rationalise these answers all you want, but it often boils down to: because we can, and we enjoy it.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to scold you or anything 😉

I myself have never attempted 1MB cache on any 486 board, but that's partly because I think I don't even have the right chips laying around 😜

Maybe I should get some sleep!

feipoa wrote:

Maybe I should get some sleep!

It's the 486 that's starting to get the better of you 🤣 😜
Those old bastards are tricky...you try to outsmart them, but they are cunning as a fox!!1 😜

feipoa wrote:

That isn't really the question of concern, but I'll answer anyway. […]
Show full quote

That isn't really the question of concern, but I'll answer anyway.

Boot Windows NT 4.0; 60 MB of RAM is sucked up already. Open IE 6 to check your company's webmail using online outlook, another 25 MB is sucked up. Now play a little Subspace, another 30 MB is sucked up. Open Photoshop 4, another 12 MB gone.

I've used a 486 in NT 4.0 for the past 10+ years and have found that 128 MB is the sweet spot. Given the above typical scenerio, 128 MB RAM runs much faster than 64 MB RAM (less swapping).

Now, if you are going to ask this kind of a question, then you just as well ask "why bother with retro computing" to everyone on this forum. Why not just use a early Pentium to play these old DOS games? What is the point in collecting CPUs? Where does this bring you in life? You can attempt to rationalise these answers all you want, but it often boils down to: because we can, and we enjoy it.

I only had 16mb in my first 486 and thought that was a lot and never ran out of memory. My old P-B Pentium 150 machine only had 48mb in it when I stopped using it, and I still never had out of memory errors. I didn't have 64mb until I got my Compaq K62-533 machine, and memory still wasn't an issue for me. The first machine I had with more than 128mb was a P4 2.4ghz with 256mb, later upgraded to 512. 128mb still seems like overkill to me with a 486.

My old P-B Pentium 150 machine only had 48mb in it when I stopped using it, and I still never had out of memory errors.

Try opening a webpage today with your P150 and 48 MB of RAM. Sit back and wait while it swaps away, that is, if it even will load. Today's webpages are bloated and you rarely find a basic HTML website anymore.

Also, back in the P150's time, everyone was used to waiting eons for webpages to load over dialup, not to mention you must have had Win95 which consumes less RAM at startup than NT4. You probably didn't have DNS, HTTP, and FTP services running in the background either (as I do).

128mb still seems like overkill to me with a 486.

It really depends on what you are doing with the machine.

I'd like to redirect this topic back to the original post. Anyone with 1 MB L2 cache in a PCI-based 486?

feipoa wrote:

Try opening a webpage today with your P150 and 48 MB of RAM. Sit back and wait while it swaps away, that is, if it even will lo […]
Show full quote

My old P-B Pentium 150 machine only had 48mb in it when I stopped using it, and I still never had out of memory errors.

Try opening a webpage today with your P150 and 48 MB of RAM. Sit back and wait while it swaps away, that is, if it even will load. Today's webpages are bloated and you rarely find a basic HTML website anymore.

Also, back in the P150's time, everyone was used to waiting eons for webpages to load over dialup, not to mention you must have had Win95 which consumes less RAM at startup than NT4. You probably didn't have DNS, HTTP, and FTP services running in the background either (as I do).

128mb still seems like overkill to me with a 486.

It really depends on what you are doing with the machine.

I'd like to redirect this topic back to the original post. Anyone with 1 MB L2 cache in a PCI-based 486?

What web browser runs under Windows 95 or NT 4.0 that is capable of displaying modern web pages? IE6 is getting it's sorry butt booted off the web for not supporting modern standards and that's an XP era browser. No browser from the 95/NT time frame is going to display a modern web page quickly or correctly regardless of how much RAM you have.

sliderider wrote:

feipoa wrote:

Try opening a webpage today with your P150 and 48 MB of RAM. Sit back and wait while it swaps away, that is, if it even will lo […]
Show full quote

My old P-B Pentium 150 machine only had 48mb in it when I stopped using it, and I still never had out of memory errors.

Try opening a webpage today with your P150 and 48 MB of RAM. Sit back and wait while it swaps away, that is, if it even will load. Today's webpages are bloated and you rarely find a basic HTML website anymore.

Also, back in the P150's time, everyone was used to waiting eons for webpages to load over dialup, not to mention you must have had Win95 which consumes less RAM at startup than NT4. You probably didn't have DNS, HTTP, and FTP services running in the background either (as I do).

128mb still seems like overkill to me with a 486.

It really depends on what you are doing with the machine.

I'd like to redirect this topic back to the original post. Anyone with 1 MB L2 cache in a PCI-based 486?

What web browser runs under Windows 95 or NT 4.0 that is capable of displaying modern web pages? IE6 is getting it's sorry butt booted off the web for not supporting modern standards and that's an XP era browser. No browser from the 95/NT time frame is going to display a modern web page quickly or correctly regardless of how much RAM you have.

But it's worth a try, not? 😁

Edit:Btw, would Opera 11 work in Windows 95 using kernelex?

It seems really silly to debate over such trivial matters. To each his own.

EDIT: Yes I use Opera on it too.

feipoa wrote:

Also, the HOT-433 AWARD BIOS doesn't seem to work well with my AMD X5-133 -- cannot POST.

Can I ask two questions about the Shuttle HOT-433 mobo please?

1) Are there 4 PCB versions of this board?
2) Do any of them support the AMD X5-133 CPU?

Thanks a lot.

I've only ever seen 2 versions -- 4.0 and the generic, which is supposedly version 1 thru 3. Version 1-3 supposedly supports 1 MB of cache and v4.0 only 512 KB single-banked.

From memory, I think some people have had success with the AMD X5, but my opinion of the board is that it is a lemon. I think 8 years ago I was using an AMD X5 in for testing purposes. It worked, but the half-dozen+ boards I've had over the years have always let me down.

I'm hoping all new chipsets as well as new pieces of the other IC's will bring them back to life. I figure that the board's hardware design and BIOS can't be all that bad since it was a popular board at one point, and there were so many of them made. This leads me to think that various people over the years must have crippled the chipsets by using the incorrect memory types.

I encourage you not to take my word on this, but to test it out for yourself. You may get lucky. You will definately want to desolder your RTC and replace it with an RTC socket and a new RTC.

If anyone has had proven success with 1 MB of cache in these boards, please report back. You must at least be able to install Windows 98SE without a hickup.

You've just reminded me that the RTC is soldered on this board, and also it doesn't like certain voltage memory, I think. However, I wonder if it's possible to actually damage the chipset with incorrect memory? Perhaps the BIOS needs wiping and reprogramming, if the wrong memory is installed? - just a complete guess. I know you posted a link to those RTC sockets in another Vogons thread. I'll find it, and put that on my to do list. Thanks a lot.