Do you use the agp port driver?

Does the same happen with Windows 98 SE? It is a lot closer to ME under the hood than 98 FE.
It it does not, I'd guess it is either something on the background (System Restore, etc.) or some built in driver (ME replaced most VxD drivers with newer WDM versions).

Did some tests, might be not very comparable but gives some insight. I happen to have A DFI mvp3 system that came with winME installed so i gave it go.

mvp3 1mb cache
k6-2 500mhz
128mb (1 stick, cl2 fastest timings)

I benchmarked sandra and when compared to sandra's own results for a k6-2 400mhz (also mvp3) it scored faster in every cpu benchmark but 20% slower in memory: around 100mb/s vs 80mb/s

I also have a k6-3+@550 on an ali board and win98se

ali5 512kb cache
k6-3+@550mhz
128mb (1 stick, cl2 fastest timings)

In sandra it is ofcourse even faster but also in memory speed it beats the k6-2 400 numbers by 50%: around 150mb/s. I don't know if this is because of ali, win98se or the fact that is a k6-3 and higher clocked.

3dmark99

windowsME mvp3, k6-2 500, nvidia tnt2 agp 3dmark99: cpu 5400, 3dmarks 2400 (800x600)
windows98se ali5, k6-3+ 550. v2 sli: 3dmark99: cpu 7200, 3dmarks 3400 (800x600) geforce2gts: 3dmarks 3500 (800x600)
on some old notes i found: windows98se, ali5, k6-2 450, 128mb cl2, nvidia tnt2 ultra agp: 3dmarks 2667

the k6-2 450 is a little faster but that was with an ultra and i don't know wich driver.

Conclusion: performance from both windows versions should be pretty close? Only thing really slower was sandra's memory benchmark (don't know why)

Thank you for the tests!

Mine are: 5AGM2 MVP3 512Kbyte L3 / 384MB PC100 C2 / K62-500 / Voodoo3 3000 AGP / Win ME: 3dmark99 800x600: CPUmarks 5286 3dmarks 2040

Sisoft Sandra 99 on the cpu bench is a bit bigger than default K62-400 results but as you sais I get around 70MB/S on memory benchmark... 🙁

I think this is why the general feeling of slowness also in the real usage.

386SX wrote:

Thank you for the tests! […]
Show full quote

Thank you for the tests!

Mine are: 5AGM2 MVP3 512Kbyte L3 / 384MB PC100 C2 / K62-500 / Voodoo3 3000 AGP / Win ME: 3dmark99 800x600: CPUmarks 5286 3dmarks 2040

Sisoft Sandra 99 on the cpu bench is a bit bigger than default K62-400 results but as you sais I get around 70MB/S on memory benchmark... 🙁

I think this is why the general feeling of slowness also in the real usage.

You need to use your K6-3 as your board with MVP3 chipset can only cache 128MB with 512KB cache.

With the K6-3 running at 100 MHz FSB you should get between 130 and 160 MB/s in the Sisoft Sandra 99 memory benchmark if everything is working correctly

I have to push 7W more on the motherboard then... 😁

I still can't decide if I should let L3 enabled in that case or not...

Well, after the change with the K63-400 I can post results:

5AGM2 MVP3 512Kbyte L3 / 384MB PC100 C2 / K63-400 / Voodoo3 3000 AGP / Win ME: 3dmark99 800x600: Cpu marks 6166 3dmarks 2795

Nice jump! Still Sisoft sandra 99 is a bit lower than expected but definetely better: 125MB/S.

For comparison you should have tried the k6-2 with 128mb. You said you also had tried a k6-3 so i assumed the cacheable area wasn't the problem.

If you got 70mb/s with the k6-2 and 384mb then my numbers are pretty low. Since i have a 1mb board that should cache even 256mb, so with 128mb it should be faster than the 80mb/s i got. strange....

386SX wrote:

Well, after the change with the K63-400 I can post results:

5AGM2 MVP3 512Kbyte L3 / 384MB PC100 C2 / K63-400 / Voodoo3 3000 AGP / Win ME: 3dmark99 800x600: Cpu marks 6166 3dmarks 2795

Nice jump! Still Sisoft sandra 99 is a bit lower than expected but definetely better: 125MB/S.

Well the 130 - 160 MB/s number came streight out of my bum so 125 MB/s is probably OK, its definitely better than 70 MB/s 😀

The next time im tinkering with one of my PC Chips M577 boards with VIA MVP3 chipset I will see what memory speed I get, the M577 has 1MB cache though.