VOGONS


So you want a Cyrix 5x86-133?

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I've been running my Cyrix 5x86-100 S1R3 for quite a while at 120MHz at 3.45V, and I haven't encountered any stability problems yet. Though I am using a cooling fan in addition to the stock heatsink.

I'm definitely not going to be qualifying for the world's fastest 5x86-120 though, as I'm using a motherboard without support for linear burst and L1 WB cache.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 21 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

That is good to know. Maybe I'll setup my S1R3 Cyrix 5x86-100 on my backup MB8433-UUD at 120 MHz and fire up branch prediction.

Unfortunately this backup system only seems to work with 3-2-2 RAM setting w/512KB cache installed, though it works with 2-1-1 and 256 KB cache though. Odd how one MB-8433UUD v3.0 and another seem to support such different caching speeds.

How long has your S1R3 Cyrix 5x86-100 been running stable at 120 MHz?

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 22 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I've have only tested the Cyrix 5x86 overclocked to 120MHz for about 3 weeks or so, but I have actually not had it crash on me even once. Though I am only running 32-bit dos extender games. I have not yet had a chance to test windows as I am currently without a serial mouse. I'd really like to run Windows NT 4.0 on this system. I guess I'd probably want a larger and faster HDD as well. I only have 2GB at the moment.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 23 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

You can dual boot DOS and NT 4.0. NT 4.0 has its own boot manager; just install DOS first.

I usually use a 4 GB SCSI partition in NT 4.0, but if you aren't running servers and an e-mail database, a 2 GB partition should be fine. On my backup 486, I tri-boot Win98SE, WinNT4.0, and W2K -- all updates installed. Caviat: If you multi-boot w/NT4.0, be sure that the first OS is readable by NT 4.0. So your DOS or Win98SE partition need be FAT, not FAT32, or else NT4.0 won't boot.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 24 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

GOOD NEWS FOR ALL - CYRIX 5X86-120/133 UPDATE

Well, all this talk about running a Cyrix 5x86-120 at 133 MHz made me do it again. I've established some stable settings for this configuration, and they are as follows (btw, I am posting from this system):

MOTHERBOARD: MB8433-UUD v3.0
BIOS: AWARD UUD960326S (26/03/1996)
CHIPSET: UMC 8881F/8886BF
RAM: 1 stick of 64 MB FPM (60ns), 1ws/0ws (read/write)
CACHE: 15 ns ISSI, 512KB, 3-2-2
FSB: 66 MHz
CLKMUL: 2X
OS: W2K sp4 w/all post service pack updates installed
CPU: Cyrix 5x86-120 or IBM 5x86C-100HF
CPU VOLTAGE: 4V EDIT: 3.85 V preferred.
FSB-to-PCI: 1:1/2 EDIT: 1:2/3 (44 MHz PCI) works ok if you don't have a PCI 3Com network card on the PCI bus, as I do.

On my tri-boot system, Win98SE/WinNT4.0/Win2000, I was successfully able to boot into W2K and am writing this post using IE6. The 66 MHz RAM makes the system feel increadibly fast. I can also play 256 kbps mp3's at ~70% with the DirectSound output driver in W2K (~50% in NT4 and ~65% in Win98SE).

The system has been stable for at least 1 hour playing the same mp3 on repeat. The northbridge on the motherboard (memory controller) does NOT feel hot to the touch. A temperature element on the northbridge indicates it is 33 C, while the ambient case air temperature is 29 C. The CPU has a heatsink/fan and does NOT feel very hot when touching the base of the heatsink. I'll probably replace the CPU with an IBM branded on as they are far less rare. EDIT: Replaced. Running the IBM 5x86C at 3.70V. An element at the base of the CPU indicates the temperature as 35 C.

With the PCI at 33 MHz, my 3Com 10/100, Adaptec LVD SCSI, and Matrox PCI Video card work without any reason for concern.

I have determined that RAM wait states of 2ws/1ws (read/write) to be quite stable so far. 1ws/0ws will boot into W2K, but IE crashed upon loading google.ca, so there may still be a faster stable setting between 1ws/0ws and 2ws/1ws. 1ws/0ws will run all the DOS benchmark programs from the U4BC report. EDIT: 1ws/1ws seems stable.

Everything seems to be running well, everybody can run a Cyrix 5x86-120 at super fast 133 MHz speeds, right? Almost. Windows98SE did not boot. It begins to boot, then complains that your registry is bad, does a backup/restore, and asks you to reboot. But if you F8 at Win98SE boot, you can go into DOS fine. I'm going to test out WinNT 4.0 for stable booting now. WinNT 4.0 is often ~40% faster than W2K.

Good luck, I hope there are more success stories like this soon.

SECOND UPDATE - SOLVED:

I'm now posting from Win98SE. In my first post, I was using 2 sticks of 32 MB EDO RAM, which wouldn't boot into either WinNT4.0, nor Win98SE. I am now using a single stick of 64 MB (60 ns) FPM RAM and everything works fine (Win98SE/WinNT4.0/W2K). The IBM branded 5x86C-120 also works with this 133 MHz configuration.

Winamp 2.95 in WinNT4.0 uses about 50% CPU power while W2K consumes ~70%. I can rather confidently announce that W2K is now quite usable on a 486 (speed-wise). Everyone with a Cyrix 5x86-120 can now rule the retro world with the world's fastest 486. Just based on CPUMark99 alone in WinNT4.0, I noticed an 18% speed boost when using 66x2 vs 33x4. This suddenly makes the Cyrix cpus marked 5x86-133/4X a lot less valuable for retro users (though not necessarily for collectors).

WARNING:

The Cyrix 5x86 series is very thermally sensitive, unlike the AMD X5 which has a 3-5V tolerance. Running your chip above 3.6V is generally considered to be out of spec, however due to variations in the fabrication process, you may get lucky with running one at 4V, but I do not know how long it will last like this.

It may also be that your particular Cyrix 5x86-120 just barely passed thermal spec and you may need to run your chip at ~3.7V. If my chip runs fine at 4 V for several hours, I'll probably want to find the lower voltage threshold for which it still works stably and modify the core voltage to run at this lower, yet stable, voltage. It may very well be 3.7-3.9V. You definately want to run this configuration with thermal paste (not necessarily thermal epoxy) and a heatsink w/fan.

EDIT: As was the case with an official Cyrix 5x86-133/4X, the IBM 5x86C-120/133 has also been deemed operable at 3.85 V. The termal issues witnessed yesturday are no longer apparent. I do not recommend running this CPU at 4.0V. I have taken some photos during my motherboard surgery process and will be writing up on how to perform CPU core voltage modifications. I'm still on a mission to discover the most stable combination of BIOS settings, Cyrix register enhancements, and CPU core voltage which yields a long-term stable system.

INSERT YOUR Cyrix 5x86-133 SUCCESS STORY HERE ------->
...

Last edited by feipoa on 2011-11-23, 18:04. Edited 17 times in total.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 25 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Is your IBM 5x86C actually a 120MHz part, or is it just a 100MHz part with one of those yellow gainberry stickers on it?

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 26 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The employed IBM 5x86C is that shown in the image on page 1 of this post. It is a 100HF model and was from Gainbery in a box stating that it is a 120 MHz part. I'm not sure if it ever had a yellow sticker on it, it has been too long since I bought these, but if it means anything, I do not specifically remember a yellow sticker.

The fact that the heatsink says 3V3 seems to imply that IBM tested these a 3.3V, but at what frequency? I'm guessing 100 MHz. That is about 0.15V better than the markings on most Cyrix-branted Cyrix 5x86-100's. This seems to be in line with the thought that IBM kept a tight tolerance on these chips. That said, I may begin efforts to modify my motherboard to run at 3.80V.

After extensive testing, I beleive the processor may overheat slightly a 4.0V. I say this because after running about 30 benchmark tests from the U4BC, the system will hang on test #58 (WinBench99 - FPU WinMark99). Reboots still result in a crashed test. I tried reboots and waiting a minute, but still crashes. I then left the computer off for 7 hours, turned it on, and test #58 immediately passed.

When I'm finished testing, I'll post some scores and update the U4BC to reflect this super Cyrix 5x86-133.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 27 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Ok. I just wanted to make sure, because an actual 120MHz 5x86C does exist. Apparently it is quite rare though. The only one I've ever seen (on the internet) came without a heatsink.

I would really like to get my hands on an IBM 5x86C-100 that was a stepping 1. All of the ones I have seen so far have been stepping 0.

Also, did you know that IBM produced a surface mount 5x86C-100 rated at 3.2V? Somebody at CPU World bought one that was mounted on a PGA converter.

Last edited by Anonymous Coward on 2011-11-02, 00:31. Edited 1 time in total.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 28 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

You are right, I see it now on chipdb,
http://www.chipdb.org/img-ibm-5x86-3v3120gf-3378.htm

Not surface mount either! That is indeed rare; I don't think I'd part with my Cyrix 5x86-133/4X for one. Perhaps I have one looming under one of my plastered heatsinks and don't know it. The 100HF on the heatsink would have to be incorrect for that to happen though, but who knows 'eh?

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 29 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

IBM_5x86-3V2100QF_PQFP_ct.jpg

Here's a photo of that surface mount chip (3.2V, rather than 3.3V). My theory is that IBM must have stopped producing the PGA version of the 5x86C sometime in 1996, as I have never seen one from a later date. However, they seemed to have continued production of the QFP version until 1998. Who knows, maybe they got some of the bugs worked out by then.

I used to have a Cyrix 5x86-120 in QFP on a PGA adapter. I could never get the thing working though. I don't know if it was fake or fried or what. I ended up selling it to a collector. I was really hoping that it was going to turn out to be a S1R3 chip, but apparently those don't exist in 120MHz parts so nothing much was lost I guess.

I still want an S1R3 IBM 5x86C-100 chip though. I'm quite sure they exist, and probably your best bet to get going at 133MHz with branch prediction.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 30 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I've never been much of an SMD fan.

The 4% average advantage of branch prediction over LOOP and RSTK isn't terribly motivating, I must say, but the 5-18% advantage of 2x66 vs 4x33 is very attractive. I tend to run things on the slow and cautious side, so once I fine-tune my IBM 5x86-133's core voltage (I'll start out at 3.8V) and have it running smoothly, I'll work my way onto my only S1R3 Cyrix 5x86-100 for 133 MHz BTB operation.

I have some Cyrix 5x86-80's with S1R3. I wonder how those will OC to 133 MHz? It seems very curious that the S1R3's I have are from Week 35-44 1995 and the numerous S0R5's I have are from Week 49 1995 thru Week 7 1996. It almost seems as if S0R5 is a later revision, or perhaps it is an older revision that was kept because it would clock up to 120/133 MHz ok. Perhaps S1R3 w/BTB doesn't clock up well to 133 MHz? Perhaps Cyrix scrapped S1R3 because BWRT wasn't Windows stable?

What is your latest S1R3 chip? Anything that extends past Week 49 of 1995?

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 31 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The bottom of my Cyrix 5x86 100 S1R3 reads "G5L8538L"

Does that mean it's a week 38, 1995?

Maybe we can track down an ex-Cyrix employee to ask what was going on over there.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 32 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Yes, the 38 is for week 38. The 5 just prior to the 38 is for 1995. I have a Cyrix 5x86-80 which is week 39 of 1995. This processor must have badly failed characterisation at 100 MHz and they tried to salvage it at 80 MHz.

I've often thought about googling down an ex-Cyrix CPU architect and then weezling my way into an interview. The names Darrell Benke and Tom Brightman come to mind. I'm not sure if they'd be pleased or entirely discusted with our modern day Cyrix whoriness.

In hindsight though, I'd be kicking myself for ceasing production of the 5x86. The AMD X5's success was greatly amplified by the lack of a high-end 486 competitor, and the X5's popularity greatly assisted in AMD's financial success.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 33 of 104, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'm not terribly surprised that a 5x86-80 is really a 100MHz part that didn't cut the mustard. Even at the time the 80MHz part was released it was absurdly slow.

So whatever happened with that 1.33X CPU interposer you had mentioned a while back? I think it sounds like a great idea. One of my Cx486SLC dinguses for a 286 system has such an adapter, and it works quite well.

I tried to get my Cyrix chips going at 2x66MHz on my motherboard. The chips work, the vga works, but the board itself doesn't like running at that speed, even with all timings on their slowest settings.

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 34 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

@Anonymouse Coward
What symptoms do you receive at 2x66? What voltage are you supplying? Your problems may be entirely thermal.

Cyrix/IBM 5x86 Thermal Considerations

As a bedtime story, I've been reading thru some of the old IBM 5x86C thermal literature. I beleive most or all instability associated with the IBM/Cyrix 5x86 series is due to extreme thermal sensitivity above the rated voltage. Even 0.1 V differance seems to have a noticable impact. I've even starting to wonder if branch prediction on S0R5 processors is thermally related as well.

For example, with my 2x66 133 MHz IBM 5x86C, I can have branch prediction enabled and am able to run all of the U4BC Windows benchmarks if the CPU hasn't been turned on for very long. If it is on for more than about 10-20 min., select benchmark tests will crash (noteably test #58-64) with BTB enabled.

DOS branch prediction has always been stable for me on S0R5 chips with BTB and RSTK enabled, and LOOP disabled. In fact, if the CPU isn't on for too long, I can run the U4BC Windows tests with BTB and RSTK enabled. Note that for S1R3 chips, BTB is more successful with RSTK disabled.

Once I've updated the U4BC, I'm planning on soldering on a 5K multi-turn variable resistor to the 4V jumper voltage regulator on the MB8433-UUD. This will enable me to set anywhere from 0-5V to the CPU with great precision. It is my aim to narrow in on an optimal voltage to run these chips at to enable stable operation.

Custom PLL Interposer for Cyrix/IBM 5x86

As for the 1.33X PLL interposer... what we'd really like to do is leave the Cyrix on 2X or 3X. This means that,

33.33 MHz x 1.33 x 3 = 133.33 MHz

33.33 MHz x 2.00 x 2 = 133.33 MHz

40 MHz x 1.11 x 3 = 133.33 MHz

40 MHz x 1.66 x 2 = 133.33 MHz

2 and 3 are the motherboard's CLKMUL jumper; 33.33 and 40 are the motherboard FSB setting, and the other decimal is the desired PLL clock multiplier.

So for ease of use, we need a PLL that can do any one of these:
1.33x, or 2.0x, or 1.11x, or 1.66x. In PLL terms, that works out to 1:4/3, 1:2/1, 1:10/9, or 1:5/3. Rearrange, 4:3, 1:2, 9:10, or 3:5.

So let's see, how about setting the system up for a 66 Mhz CPU (2x33) and multiplying by 2.0? A 1:2 PLL is very common. So let's look again at all our requirements for this PLL,
3 - 5.5 V range
200 MHz max - I figure 200 MHz is a good limit, and will allow for AMD X5-200's
1:2 multiplier

This leaves 3 readily available options,
ICS512MLFT $3.49
ICS512MLF $3.08
NB3N502DG (190 MHz only, but it can also divide clocks) $3.74

That is the cheap part of the project, the expensive part is a PCB interposer prototype. In Canada, I've had some single units made for around ~$1000 each, but people have been shifting towards China. They will do a prototype for $300, inclusive of shipping. Once funding has been acquired, then the circuit simulation can begin. Once a simulated circuit is successful, its time for a benchtop breadboard-like setup. I have found that the simulation model can be overly simplistic and a lot more work need be done at the benchtop stage. Once the benchtop stage is confirmed, i.e. with an oscilliscope, PCB layout can begin. Once this is confirmed, it need be sent off to the "overseas printer". At this stage, it is sometimes needed to re-route wires depending on the complexity, cost, and if a 3D PCB is required.

Is there sufficient demand here to pursue this?

Long story short, it is not a quick job for the home retro hobbiest, nor would it be cheap. It may be possible to hack the gainbery interposer with an external 1:2 PLL, having ghetto wires going everywhere. With my next digikey order, I'll add one of the above mentioned 1:2 PLL's. Although it is SMD, I've had some patient success soldering to an SOIC package. I do have some 1:4 PLL's at home, but they are not rated above 18 MHz.

If somebody knows of an existing interposer with a 2x, 1.33x, 1.66x, or 1.11x PLL onboard, please let me know so that I can have a look at 'em.

@Anonymous Coward
Where did you get the interposer with the 386 PLL? Do you have any socket 3 interposers with frequency manipulation onboard? If so, which ones and where did you find 'em? I figure any socket 3 interposer containing a PGA AMD X5 that was focused on updgrading early 486 DX-33/DX2-66 motherboards must have a 2x or 1.33x PLL on board. Perhaps this is the way to go, google/ebay searching.

EDIT1: I managed to slap 2 of NB3N502DG onto an existing backorder I had with futureelectronics.com Unfortunately, they did not have ICS512MLF. FYI, Future Electronics and Mouser Electronics are often significantly cheaper than Digikey.

EDIT2: An interposer board may not be required. I've found a very suitable location on the Biostar motherboard where the PLL can be inserted. The surface mount resistor, R79, can be desoldered and connected into the ICS512 multipler PLL circuit. The path can then be reconnected through the other R79 solder pad. Alternately, a jumper block or SPDT switch can be used to switch between this extra 2X PLL or not using it. This is now a very simple operation. The ICS512 is convenient in that at 2X, you just leave the selector pins floating! It becomes as simple as connecting 5V, GND, Clock IN and Clock OUT. Just add a decouling capacitor (0.01 uF) between 5 V and GND, and a 33-ohm terminating resistor.

Last edited by feipoa on 2011-12-08, 05:41. Edited 4 times in total.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 35 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

LET'S POPULATE THE WORLD WITH SUPER 486's!

Can we call them Super3's, analogous to Super7's?

As was the case with an official Cyrix 5x86-133/4X, the IBM 5x86C-120/133 has also been deemed operable at 3.70-3.80 V. The termal issues witnessed yesturday are no longer apparent. I do not recommend running this CPU at 4.0V. I have taken some photos during my motherboard surgery process and will be writing up on how to perform CPU core voltage modifications. I'm still on a mission to discover the most stable combination of BIOS settings, Cyrix register enhancements, and CPU core voltage which yields a long-term stable system.

Now I don't need to be the only one with the world's fastest 486. Anyone with a Cyrix/IBM 5x86-120 and a UMC 8881/8886 motherboard can join in!

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 36 of 104, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
feipoa wrote:
GOOD NEWS FOR ALL - CYRIX 5X86-120/133 UPDATE […]
Show full quote

GOOD NEWS FOR ALL - CYRIX 5X86-120/133 UPDATE

Well, all this talk about running a Cyrix 5x86-120 at 133 MHz made me do it again. I've established some stable settings for this configuration, and they are as follows (btw, I am posting from this system):

MOTHERBOARD: MB8433-UUD v3.0
BIOS: AWARD UUD960326S (26/03/1996)
CHIPSET: UMC 8881F/8886BF
RAM: 1 stick of 64 MB FPM (60ns), 1ws/1ws (read/write)
CACHE: 15 ns ISSI, 512KB, 3-2-2
FSB: 66 MHz
CLKMUL: 2X
OS: W2K sp4 w/all post service pack updates installed
CPU: Cyrix 5x86-120 or IBM 5x86C-100HF
CPU VOLTAGE: 4V (3.45V being insufficient) EDIT: 3.70-3.80 V preferred.
FSB-to-PCI: 1:1/2 EDIT: 1:2/3 (44 MHz PCI) works ok if you don't have a PCI 3Com network card on the PCI bus, as I do.

On my tri-boot system, Win98SE/WinNT4.0/Win2000, I was successfully able to boot into W2K and am writing this post using IE6. The 66 MHz RAM makes the system feel increadibly fast. I can also play 256 kbps mp3's at ~70% with the DirectSound output driver in W2K (~50% in NT4 and ~65% in Win98SE).

The system has been stable for at least 1 hour playing the same mp3 on repeat. The northbridge on the motherboard (memory controller) does NOT feel hot to the touch. A temperature element on the northbridge indicates it is 33 C, while the ambient case air temperature is 29 C. The CPU has a heatsink/fan and does NOT feel very hot when touching the base of the heatsink. I'll probably replace the CPU with an IBM branded on as they are far less rare. EDIT: Replaced. Running the IBM 5x86C at 3.70V. An element at the base of the CPU indicates the temperature as 35 C.

With the PCI at 33 MHz, my 3Com 10/100, Adaptec LVD SCSI, and Matrox PCI Video card work without any reason for concern.

I have determined that RAM wait states of 2ws/1ws (read/write) to be quite stable so far. 1ws/0ws will boot into W2K, but IE crashed upon loading google.ca, so there may still be a faster stable setting between 1ws/0ws and 2ws/1ws. 1ws/0ws will run all the DOS benchmark programs from the U4BC report. EDIT: 1ws/1ws seems stable.

Everything seems to be running well, everybody can run a Cyrix 5x86-120 at super fast 133 MHz speeds, right? Almost. Windows98SE did not boot. It begins to boot, then complains that your registry is bad, does a backup/restore, and asks you to reboot. But if you F8 at Win98SE boot, you can go into DOS fine. I'm going to test out WinNT 4.0 for stable booting now. WinNT 4.0 is often ~40% faster than W2K.

Good luck, I hope there are more success stories like this soon.

SECOND UPDATE - SOLVED:

I'm now posting from Win98SE. In my first post, I was using 2 sticks of 32 MB EDO RAM, which wouldn't boot into either WinNT4.0, nor Win98SE. I am now using a single stick of 64 MB (60 ns) FPM RAM and everything works fine (Win98SE/WinNT4.0/W2K). The IBM branded 5x86C-120 also works with this 133 MHz configuration.

Winamp 2.95 in WinNT4.0 uses about 50% CPU power while W2K consumes ~70%. I can rather confidently announce that W2K is now quite usable on a 486 (speed-wise). Everyone with a Cyrix 5x86-120 can now rule the retro world with the world's fastest 486. Just based on CPUMark99 alone in WinNT4.0, I noticed an 18% speed boost when using 66x2 vs 33x4. This suddenly makes the Cyrix cpus marked 5x86-133/4X a lot less valuable for retro users (though not necessarily for collectors).

WARNING:

The Cyrix 5x86 series is very thermally sensitive, unlike the AMD X5 which has a 3-5V tolerance. Running your chip above 3.6V is generally considered to be out of spec, however due to variations in the fabrication process, you may get lucky with running one at 4V, but I do not know how long it will last like this.

It may also be that your particular Cyrix 5x86-120 just barely passed thermal spec and you may need to run your chip at 3.7V. If my chip runs fine at 4 V for several hours, I'll probably want to find the lower voltage threshold for which it still works stably and modify the core voltage to run at this lower, yet stable, voltage. It may very well be 3.7-3.9V. You definately want to run this configuration with thermal paste (not necessarily thermal epoxy) and a heatsink w/fan.

EDIT: As was the case with an official Cyrix 5x86-133/4X, the IBM 5x86C-120/133 has also been deemed operable at 3.70-3.80 V. The termal issues witnessed yesturday are no longer apparent. I do not recommend running this CPU at 4.0V. I have taken some photos during my motherboard surgery process and will be writing up on how to perform CPU core voltage modifications. I'm still on a mission to discover the most stable combination of BIOS settings, Cyrix register enhancements, and CPU core voltage which yields a long-term stable system.

INSERT YOUR Cyrix 5x86-133 SUCCESS STORY HERE ------->
...

How did you get 2K running when it requires a Pentium?

Reply 37 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

W2K does not require a Pentium, regardless of what the "official requirements" call for. I've always been able to install W2K on a Cyrix 5x86. Installing W2K on a 486 is not grosely uncommon, and there are others out there who've done it, but such an installation has been an impracticality (speed-wise) until I tested it with this Super3.

XP does, however, require a CPU supporting the 4 extra Pentium hardware instructions.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 38 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The Super3 system has passed 3 consecutive rounds of MemTest86 v4.0 using 1ws/0ws.

EDIT1:
The Super3 system has passed 1 hour of CPU Burn-In v1.01 using branch prediction in Windows 98SE.

EDIT2:
The Super3 system has passed 1 hour of CPU Stability Test v6.0 in Windows NT 4.0

EDIT3:
Windows NT 4.0 seems the most stable of the 3 OS's. I've played the same 256 kbps MP3 for 12 hours on repeat without any BSOD's or hangups. I even threw in loading webpages during this time. W2K will eventually BSOD during this same test after about 30 minutes, as will Win98SE. W2K will idle overnight without issue.

The W2K BSOD seems to be related to the WinMgnt process being called or getting stuck. I'm not sure if this issue is related to hardware or the operating systems, though such a specific means to cause a BSOD is not a particular concern. My main interest is in NT 4.0 anyway. I suppose I could run the same CPU at 120 MHz to see if this mp3 test causes a hang-up. This will isolate the hardware or the software.

Last edited by feipoa on 2011-11-07, 02:54. Edited 3 times in total.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 39 of 104, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison (aka U4BC) has been updated to reflect reflect the following,

1) An IBM 5x86C-133 running with a 66 MHz front-side bus
2) An IBM 5x86C-133 running with a 66 MHz front-side bus with branch prediction enabled
3) Retro Games 100's amazing AMD X5-200

Running a Cyrix 5x86-133 at 2 x 66 MHz vs. 4 x 33 MHz yielded an 8% improvement in the overall score, while branch prediction added another 2% to the overall score. Lastly, branch prediction seems to add 3% to the ALU score.

In the grand scheme of things, most of you can probably get ahold of an IBM 5x86C-100HF or a Cyrix 5x86-120. If you run this CPU at 2 x 66 MHz instead of 3 x 40 MHz, you'll get a 15% speed boost (that is, 15 Pentium PR points)! I haven't tried a Cyrix 5x86-100, but it may also work if you up the voltage to 3.7-3.9V.

Hopefully others out there will be able to benefit from this Super3 486 example.

EDIT: A major source of error was just discovered in the spreadsheet's averaging divisor for ALU calculations -- all numbers displayed on the ALU bar charts are 20-30% inflated! I suppose this makes sense, an AMD DX4-120's ALU should'nt be equivalent to a Pentium 100's. I've also realised that I wasn't weighing FPU and ALU results equally for the Overall bar chart. Also, too much weight had been given to PassMark tests #75-82. Each benchmark program should be weighed equally.

I'll have to fix this up later. So there's no point in looking at the updated charts until this groose oversight is corrected. The monologue will also need re-correcting. EDIT: It's now fixed.

Last edited by feipoa on 2011-11-07, 14:06. Edited 3 times in total.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.