It depends, 430HX maximum cacheable memory size is 512MB, with 512KB of PB L2 cache. I would say Intel 430HX is the best Socket 7 chipsets up to Pentium MMX. Only 430FX/VX/TX support up to 64MB cacheable memory size.

I believe the later VIA MVP3 and ALi Aladdin V Super 7 chipsets are somewhat equivalent to Intel 430HX in quality, and they support AMD K6-2+ and K6-3 which have CPU L2 cache and MTRR support for write-combined memory. So the impact of chipset cacheability memory size no longer matters for AMD CPUs that have L2 cache.

64Mb cacheable range wasn't a problem back in the middle and late 1990's. Most people had 64Mb or less.

DOS couldn't use more than 64Mb anyway. Windows 95 was just fine with 64Mb. Windows 98 with that bloated explorer was more memory hungry, but still very usable with 64Mb.

Those people who needed more than 64Mb had other options. Like I had a Pentium Pro with 320Mb. Some 430NX/430HX systems with extended tag RAMs could cache up to 512Mb, though most did just 64Mb like the others. There were also many VIA based Socket 7 mainboards with 1Mb cache which had 128Mb range.

I thought MVP3 boards can cache 128MB RAM? Any that can cache more?

If you have a K6-2+/III+ CPU with on-die L2 cache, doesn't the motherboard cache become meaningless?

Many say EDO and SDRAM run about the same speed on s7 but in reality
Speeds beyond 66mhz + SDRAM and more than 64mb make things run a little better than edo since you need to pipe straight off the uncashed ram

in reality anything running well on K6-whatever will not require nor benefit from more than 24-32MB ram.

Even when the rest isn't cacheable it still beats HDD grinding the swapfile as far as Windows use is concerned, from my experience overall performance is still higher than 64MB and less.

dr_st wrote:

I thought MVP3 boards can cache 128MB RAM? Any that can cache more?

256Mb with 2Mb cache. There were not so many boards with so much cache. Another option was ALI Aladdin V rev.G or later which had internal tag RAM working, so it could cache 512Mb with just 512Kb cache.

dr_st wrote:

If you have a K6-2+/III+ CPU with on-die L2 cache, doesn't the motherboard cache become meaningless?

It still helps especially if it's large.

rmay635703 wrote:

Many say EDO and SDRAM run about the same speed on s7 but in reality
Speeds beyond 66mhz + SDRAM and more than 64mb make things run a little better than edo since you need to pipe straight off the uncashed ram

EDO wasn't supposed to run at 100MHz. 75MHz was fine, 83MHz with 50ns chips was also fine, but 100MHz was out of luck usually. Sure there were high speed EDO chips for Voodoo2 and so on, but these didn't make a way to SIMMs.

My only point is uncached clk2 sdram is indeed faster than uncached edo

This means it has an advantage on motherboards unable to cache more than 64mb

And I have used 70ns FP Simms on a fake pc100 SIS motherboard running at 90mhz FSB back on “the day”
All that happened was terrible memory timings but the cache was at least full speed

At the time the crappy onboard video was more of a bottleneck than the ram but benchmarks would drop off on larger memory reads.

If you're building a K6+ system, why does it even matter what the chipset can cache? The CPU on chip L2 will cache everything. Turn off the motherboard L3 cache and be done with it. I think running a K6+ makes the TX chipset a little more attractive, unless you need 512MB of RAM on the HX. The TX can handle 256MB, which is still a lot.