VOGONS

Search

Common searches

486 board identification and cache

Topic actions

First post, by walterg74

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hi all, I got this board which I will be turning into a “classic” Intel DX2-66 system.

Trying to identify it, From what I see it’s an m912 v1.4 (the only difference is that the picture at elhvb shows the chips at “pc chips” and mine says UMC (and the specs do say it is UMC)

Does this look right to you? I see there is another M912 “fake” that has fake cache but version number is different, and mine does seem to be the “deep green” one too anyway, right?

I plan to run DOS and Windows 3.11 on this (not sure if it’s worth also sticking 95?), so any “drivers” I may need at all for that..?

Going back to cache, in theory I have real cache there? According to the jumper settings, seems to be wired for 128KB (is that appropriate?) but the chips themselves seem to be 256KB? Not really sure what to make of this...

Anyway, appreciate your insights!

Reply 1 of 3, by The Serpent Rider

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Soldered cache = fake.
1.4 is not compatible with late AMD CPUs, at least on paper.
M912 was always UMC.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 2 of 3, by walterg74

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
The Serpent Rider wrote:

Soldered cache = fake.
1.4 is not compatible with late AMD CPUs, at least on paper.
M912 was always UMC.

That’s fine, as I wrote on my post, this will be used with an Intel DX2-66, so I really don’t care about late AMD CPUs... (I have a 3.4 for that)

Reply 3 of 3, by amadeus777999

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Maybe post a picture of the board?

As far as I know explicit drivers were not developed/needed for chipsets of that era(I remember Win98 detecting the UMC chipset though... but could also have been the SiS49x). Components like sound/gfx/etc. are of course another issue alltogether.

What programs/applications are you planning to run on it? Going cacheless maybe a bit harsh in Win95 at 66/33.

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Back to General Old Hardware
Close window
Close window