VOGONS


First post, by jesolo

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

A while back I came into possession of an Intel 486DX 50 MHz running on a 50 MHz Front Side Bus (not a 486DX2 50 MHz running on a 25 MHz Front Side Bus).
Although I've seen various posts and some benchmarks on the forums, I decided to see what results I could achieve from my setup.

The CPU came with a Chicony CH-471A (rev.3) motherboard which utilises the SIS 85C471 chipset.
I upgraded the RAM to 16 MB (60ns) FPM RAM and installed an S3 805 VESA Local Bus graphics card with 1 MB of RAM.
The motherboard came with dual banked 256 KB (20 ns) cache SRAM chips but, I installed 128 KB (15 ns) cache SRAM chips for comparative tests with my 486DX 33 MHz (model SX810) that is currently installed on an Asus VL/I-486SV2GX4 motherboard utilising the same SIS 85C471 chipset.

Below are the results with some well known DOS benchmark utilities.

CPU results.JPG
Filename
CPU results.JPG
File size
78.8 KiB
Views
1349 views
File comment
CPU Results
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

As also noted in other threads, setting the L2 cache to write back, results in quite a performance penalty in terms of memory bandwidth under Speedsys & RAM access (read) time under Cachechk. There is also definitely a slow down in some of the other benchmarks when setting L2 cache to write back.
Both benchmark tests were thus performed with L2 cache set to write thru.

Also of interest, on the Asus VL/I-486SV2GX4 motherboard (which had the 486DX33 MHz CPU installed), both Speedsys & Cachechk wasn't able to "pick up" the L2 cache and therefore unable to perform a benchmark (I tried this with both the 0305 & 0402 BIOS revisions). Speedsys is, however, able to perform a L2 cache benchmark when I set the L2 cache to write back but, as mentioned above, this results in quite a performance penalty in terms of memory bandwidth & RAM access (read) time.
At this point, I'm not sure whether this is a hardware error with the motherboard (could simply be a faulty cache RAM chip). It could also be that I have to install dual bank cache memory on this motherboard and test the results again. I also happen to have another Asus motherboard which I can test this with again but, compared to the results of the Ultimate 486 Benchmark, my results seems to be more or less on par.

Below are some pictures of my CMOS setup and the best settings I could achieve to ensure a stable setup (under DOS) for my 486DX 50 MHz. With the 486DX 33 MHz, I was able to set everything to the fastest settings and shortest wait states but, still keeping Local Bus Ready at "Synchronize".

BIOS Post.jpg
Filename
BIOS Post.jpg
File size
1.13 MiB
Views
1349 views
File comment
BIOS Post screen
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
BIOS features.jpg
Filename
BIOS features.jpg
File size
1.01 MiB
Views
1349 views
File comment
BIOS Features
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
Chipset Features.jpg
Filename
Chipset Features.jpg
File size
1 MiB
Views
1349 views
File comment
Chipset Features
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

EDIT: For the Asus VL/I-486SV2GX4 motherboard (which had the 486DX 33 MHz installed), it appears that selecting the "Fastest" setting for DRAM Speed (under the Chipset Features), results in both Speedsys, NSSI & Cachechk not being able to "pick up" the L2 cache. By changing this to "Faster", results in both NSSI & Speedsys being able to correctly "pick up" the L2 cache on the PC and, under Speedsys, display a test result. Cachechk, however, doesn't seem to be able to "pick up" the L2 cache, even if I set it to the lowest value. By lowering the DRAM Speed to "Fastest", results in a reduction in the memory bandwidth from 100 MB/s to around 76 MB/s in the Speedsys results.
However, even if I set the DRAM speed to "Fastest", based on comparative benchmark results from other users, it seems that the L2 cache is being utilized correctly.

Last edited by jesolo on 2019-06-24, 14:15. Edited 6 times in total.

Reply 1 of 4, by mpe

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Thanks for sharing your results.

The DX-50 might be competitive against DX-33 in early an ISA/EISA system with no VLB card issues. But when compared in a VLB system against much less problematic DX2-66 or even DX2-50 I think it is not worth of the hassle. DX2-66 easily beats it and the DX2-50 is almost as fast in many tests. Especially when opting for DX-50 often means having to increase wait states on local bus and/or moving HDD controller to ISA instead of VL-BUS (since having more than one VL-BUS card on 50 MHz FSB is almost impossible).

Blog|NexGen 586|S4

Reply 2 of 4, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Impressive results! Thanks for sharing, too!

mpe wrote:

[..] to increase wait states on local bus and/or moving HDD controller to ISA instead of VL-BUS (since having more than one VL-BUS card on 50 MHz FSB is almost impossible).

Um, what's so bad having the HDD controller on iSA ? 😕
Most HDDs of the time still ran in PIO modes in DOS, so they were never really fast anyway.
Thus, using a disk cache brought most of the performace on such old systems of the time. 😉

Besides, the ISA Bus is running at 8,3 MHz still. There's still room for improvements, I believe.
My 286-12 ran it natively at 12MHz and none of the expansion cards complaind.

So maybe using Smartdrive and QEMM 7 could help to improve here.
(QEMM 7 and higher support VME, as found on some 486 and 586 CPUs.)

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 3 of 4, by alvaro84

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Jo22 wrote:

Um, what's so bad having the HDD controller on iSA ? 😕

Nothing as I see it. I've learned the hard way to stay away from VLB controllers above 33MHz. I had to restore my DOS HDD twice in quick succession in an "overclocked" config which worked very fine otherwise without the VLB controller. It definitely hurt much more than a tiny bit slower HDD that doesn't really count under DOS anyway.

And you're right, I always use some cache when I have to move a lot of small files.

Shame on us, doomed from the start
May God have mercy on our dirty little hearts

Reply 4 of 4, by mpe

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Well, if you use a conventional HDD then there is a very little benefit.

However, when using CF card as many people do these days, a VLB controller can make a significant difference.

Unlike vast majority of ISA, many VLB EIDE controllers support high PIO modes or even DMA modes and contain own BIOS extension to support LBA translation to go over 528MB.

Blog|NexGen 586|S4