Multiplier 1.5 is remapped to 3.5 in MMX chips.

If you can overclock from 200 to 233, that's fine if your cooling is sufficient. It probably is.

I don't get what you mean about the RAM. I think it will work with more than 64MB anyway. Whether performance will be good, that may depend on the specific motherboard. But if you want performance, why a Pentium MMX and not Pentium 2/3 + a more modern motherboard?

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere.
Early revisions have it on a cache module. Later revisions have it soldered on the board.
One W24129AK supports 256k cache which can cache 64Mb. (My guess is this is what you have unless you have an early version with a missing cache module.)
To cache more than 64Mb you need two W24129AK and different cache chips.
.

bakcom wrote:

If you can overclock from 200 to 233, that's fine if your cooling is sufficient. It probably is.

I don't get what you mean about the RAM. I think it will work with more than 64MB anyway. Whether performance will be good, that may depend on the specific motherboard. But if you want performance, why a Pentium MMX and not Pentium 2/3 + a more modern motherboard?

I do have both p2 and p3 motherboards. i intend to play some dos/early windows games on it. It's just I never had got a chance to build a at computer.

PCBONEZ wrote:

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere. Early revisions have it on a cache […]
Show full quote

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere.
Early revisions have it on a cache module. Later revisions have it soldered on the board.
One W24129AK supports 256k cache which can cache 64Mb. (My guess is this is what you have unless you have an early version with a missing cache module.)
To cache more than 64Mb you need two W24129AK and different cache chips.
.

There is a socket module which it has 28 pins next to the soldered one

cnpr wrote:

PCBONEZ wrote:

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere. Early revisions have it on a cache […]
Show full quote

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere.
Early revisions have it on a cache module. Later revisions have it soldered on the board.
One W24129AK supports 256k cache which can cache 64Mb. (My guess is this is what you have unless you have an early version with a missing cache module.)
To cache more than 64Mb you need two W24129AK and different cache chips.
.

There is a socket module which it has 28 pins next to the soldered one

That is where the other W24129AK TAG RAM would go - but you also need the correct cache chips.
Depending on the revision of the board the other cache chips may be soldered on -or- on an add-in module the looks kind of like a stick of RAM.
.
A photo of the board would help us help you if you dunno how to tell.
.

here is the link. I don't have it yet

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gigabyte-GA-586HX-REV … WQAAOSwDNdV7G1j

cnpr wrote:

here is the link. I don't have it yet

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gigabyte-GA-586HX-REV … WQAAOSwDNdV7G1j

Your board seems to not have the Coast slot soldered onto it, which usually means the (HX) board already has 512KB cache, but in the top right corner are 2 cache sockets (I presume these are for the TAG bit) and one of the sockets is empty and I don't know if the one cache chip is enough to cache the memory above 64MB

If it doesn't, you could in theory get one from ebay perhaps or you could just cannibalize a chip from a 486 board.

edit:

PCBONEZ wrote:

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere. Early revisions have it on a cache […]
Show full quote

The Winbound W24129AK-12 is just the Ram Tag. The cache (if you have any) will be elsewhere.
Early revisions have it on a cache module. Later revisions have it soldered on the board.
One W24129AK supports 256k cache which can cache 64Mb. (My guess is this is what you have unless you have an early version with a missing cache module.)
To cache more than 64Mb you need two W24129AK and different cache chips.
.

Seems you'll need a second cache chip anyway if you intend to use more than 64MB, thanks for sorting this out PCBONEZ 😀
endedit.

Your board does seem to have this Dallas-like thingy which usually is the battery (this was done a lot in those days, it basically replaces the coin cell battery socket) and unless the seller already replaced it, it's probably empty and replacing it with a Dallas-like thingy which still has a charge might be a bit of an extra hassle.

The board doesn't seem to have any visual damage, but the seller seems to have 9 more so the board you're getting probably isn't the one pictured. If the seller is indeed selling old stock, he probably wouldn't have replaced the Dallas thingy (lol) I think.
What I like a lot about that board is it's 6 SIMM sockets (usually AT Pentium boards came with only 4 sockets) and there is a chance your board could actually offer CPU voltages at around 2.2v, but unofficially (the VRM could get very hot if you did though, but if you intend to stick with the Intel Pentium chip, that's usually not of any concern anyway).

So you never build an AT rig before? Watch out for those sharp edges 🤣!

I hope you give us some pics to enjoy after your build is done! 😁

The cache slot is missing. That's only the solder points for one.

Looks to me like it has 256k as 512k requires both Tag-RAMs.

To upgrade to 512k you would need to:
1- Add the slot and hope other parts aren't missing.
2- Put a 256KB Pipeline cache module in the slot.
3- Add the second Tag-RAM.

It -might- work to upgrade (swap) the cache chips to larger ones and add the second Tag-RAM.
I am not certain that will work.
.

.

PCBONEZ wrote:

The cache slot is missing. That's only the solder points for one. […]
Show full quote

The cache slot is missing. That's only the solder points for one.

Looks to me like it has 256k as 512k requires both Tag-RAMs.

To upgrade to 512k you would need to:
1- Add the slot and hope other parts aren't missing.
2- Put a 256KB Pipeline cache module in the slot.
3- Add the second Tag-RAM.

It -might- work to upgrade (swap) the cache chips to larger ones and add the second Tag-RAM.
I am not certain that will work.
.

GA-HX.jpg

.

I read the manual located here http://download1.gigabyte.eu/Files/Manual/mot … _ga-586hx_e.pdf
and it seems you are correct, the board does have 256KB and not the 512KB I suspected earlier.
The board will apparently still cache up to 512MB with only the 256KB cache on the motherboard, provided the second cache socket is also filled (see page 17 bottom half. Both sockets need the cache chip installed to be able to cache over 64MB).

I still think that no slot = 512Kb cache already installed. Notice that the the case of absence of a COAST slot does not appear in the manual. Gigabyte didn't and wouldn't do this kind of cost-cutting, not back then.

With HX boards you need two TAG RAM modules to cache over 64MB. Not that you need over 64MB RAM. So if you have trouble finding a TAG module, just do not install more than 64MB - it's a totally huge amount of memory for a desktop Pentium already - and keep casually looking for a dead 486 or 430FX board to salvage the chip. You need 128Kb or 256Kb module with access time of 15ns or less.

But be warned - you won't see much of a difference between 64MB and 512MB on a Pentium.

RacoonRider wrote:

I still think that no slot = 512Kb cache already installed. Notice that the the case of absence of a COAST slot does not appear in the manual. Gigabyte didn't and wouldn't do this kind of cost-cutting, not back then.

But if they were busy not cost-cutting they would have included the other Tag-RAM if it had 512k.
.
I think it's simply a 256k cache version of the board because, as you said, 512k wasn't needed by most people back then.
.

RacoonRider wrote:

I still think that no slot = 512Kb cache already installed. Notice that the the case of absence of a COAST slot does not appear in the manual. Gigabyte didn't and wouldn't do this kind of cost-cutting, not back then.

This is why I suspected the board to have 512KB in the first place (iirc the ASUS HX boards were like this), but we can only be 100% sure when the board arrives.
I don't even think it matters that much, I'm a bit curious about the battery also 😜

Are you planning to use the board for DOS or Win98? How important is >64MB cacheable for you?

Tetrium wrote:

RacoonRider wrote:

I still think that no slot = 512Kb cache already installed. Notice that the the case of absence of a COAST slot does not appear in the manual. Gigabyte didn't and wouldn't do this kind of cost-cutting, not back then.

This is why I suspected the board to have 512KB in the first place (iirc the ASUS HX boards were like this), but we can only be 100% sure when the board arrives.
I don't even think it matters that much, I'm a bit curious about the battery also 😜

Maybe but no kind of RAM was cheap in the mid 90's. I recall paying $175 for 8Mb of FPM and that was a good deal at the time.
I can't see Gigabtye putting on 512k cache without the Tag-RAM to support it because then they not could claim the benefits of the 512k to hike the price.

I suppose somewhere along the line someone could have swiped the other Tag-RAM for something else.
.

Good God, yes. People have forgotten how ridiculous hardware prices were for the first few generations of PCs. That's one amazing aspect of retro computing. It's possible to cheaply assemble machines which were so exclusive in their time.

gdjacobs wrote:

Good God, yes. People have forgotten how ridiculous hardware prices were for the first few generations of PCs. That's one amazing aspect of retro computing. It's possible to cheaply assemble machines which were so exclusive in their time.

Remember walking into computer stores back then and there was a chalk or dry-erase board near the cash register with "current" RAM prices on it - because the market was so volatile that prices could change several times a day?

PCBONEZ wrote:

Maybe but no kind of RAM was cheap in the mid 90's. I recall paying $175 for 8Mb of FPM and that was a good deal at the time. I […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

RacoonRider wrote:

I still think that no slot = 512Kb cache already installed. Notice that the the case of absence of a COAST slot does not appear in the manual. Gigabyte didn't and wouldn't do this kind of cost-cutting, not back then.

This is why I suspected the board to have 512KB in the first place (iirc the ASUS HX boards were like this), but we can only be 100% sure when the board arrives.
I don't even think it matters that much, I'm a bit curious about the battery also 😜

Maybe but no kind of RAM was cheap in the mid 90's. I recall paying $175 for 8Mb of FPM and that was a good deal at the time.
I can't see Gigabtye putting on 512k cache without the Tag-RAM to support it because then they not could claim the benefits of the 512k to hike the price.

I suppose somewhere along the line someone could have swiped the other Tag-RAM for something else.
.

ASUS seemed to do it that way though with their AT HX boards (leave out the TAG RAM as that stuff was indeed very expensive that way and leaving it out would save money on production cost). I think Gigabyte decided to leave it out, but also leave it as an optional upgrade as (if you read the beginning of the manual I posted earlier) Gigabyte clearly seemed to used it as a selling point for their HX board.
Lets also keep in mind that selling boards without all of it's upgrades actually already installed but having those missing upgrades as an optional thing for their customers was commonplace back in those days and there's heaps of examples of that, for instance graphics cards with only half the memory installed and the other half as empty memory sockets (or in some cases with a proprietary empty SIMM socket), the AWE 32's with their empty memory sockets (let alone none-cosupplied midi daughterboards), the 486 boards with non-maxed out cache RAM onboard.

Upgradeability was key then, even though afterwards many people found out that, at the time the owner would actually get interested in exploring it's hardware upgradeability, it would turn out it was simply cheaper to buy a new computer, partly because of how fast PC hardware evolved back then.

PCBONEZ wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

Good God, yes. People have forgotten how ridiculous hardware prices were for the first few generations of PCs. That's one amazing aspect of retro computing. It's possible to cheaply assemble machines which were so exclusive in their time.

Remember walking into computer stores back then and there was a chalk or dry-erase board near the cash register with "current" RAM prices on it - because the market was so volatile that prices could change several times a day?

🤣, I remember having bought 512MB SDRAM and a couple weeks later some Taiwanese factory got flooded or something, SDRAM prices exploded and it took years before prices would fall below the level I bought my SDRAM for.

PCBONEZ wrote:

Remember walking into computer stores back then and there was a chalk or dry-erase board near the cash register with "current" RAM prices on it - because the market was so volatile that prices could change several times a day?

Nah, I lived in the boonies.

Tetrium wrote:

🤣, I remember having bought 512MB SDRAM and a couple weeks later some Taiwanese factory got flooded or something, SDRAM prices exploded and it took years before prices would fall below the level I bought my SDRAM for.

🤣 That happened to me too! I bought a Seagate 1TB HDD for 2000 Russian rubles, and two months later the forces of nature stroke some Taiwanese factories so hard that you could not buy any hard drive for that money. By the time things got back to normal, the ruble went down already and for the same money one could buy only the cheapest 250GB models.