VOGONS


Reply 381 of 400, by Keatah

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Graphics chip not displaying name..

Attachments

  • 74222666.png
    Filename
    74222666.png
    File size
    16.91 KiB
    Views
    439 views
    File license
    Public domain
  • 74226792.png
    Filename
    74226792.png
    File size
    16.61 KiB
    Views
    439 views
    File license
    Public domain

Reply 382 of 400, by Schule04

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Intel 386SX 16MHz

386sx.jpg
Filename
386sx.jpg
File size
152.98 KiB
Views
410 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

With 1 waitstate:

386sxbench.jpg
Filename
386sxbench.jpg
File size
132.62 KiB
Views
410 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

With 0 waitstate:

386sx_0ws.jpg
Filename
386sx_0ws.jpg
File size
203.67 KiB
Views
401 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
Filename
report.zip
File size
2.23 KiB
Downloads
7 downloads
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 384 of 400, by Schule04

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

It's interesting. Some clicks take minutes, but for the most part it's surprisingly fast. And this is with only 5MB RAM. I guess having an accelerated graphics card helps a lot

Reply 386 of 400, by mwdmeyer

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hi CuPid,

Thank you for releasing this program.

I have a question for you about the inbuilt benchmarks. Do these use MMX or 3dnow? I'm testing a wide range of CPUs and interested to know how the benchmark functions.

Here are some examples of the benchmarks: https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Super_So … ge_Edition_1.03

Thanks

Vogons Wiki - http://vogonswiki.com

Reply 387 of 400, by CuPid

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
mwdmeyer wrote on 2021-04-12, 08:50:
Hi CuPid, […]
Show full quote

Hi CuPid,

Thank you for releasing this program.

I have a question for you about the inbuilt benchmarks. Do these use MMX or 3dnow? I'm testing a wide range of CPUs and interested to know how the benchmark functions.

Here are some examples of the benchmarks: https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Super_So … ge_Edition_1.03

Thanks

hello !
No, the bench does not use any instruction set.
Interesting work on merging the results !

I need a vacation.

tbmtg3-99.png
zav4kj-99.png

Reply 388 of 400, by Schule04

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

IBM 486SLC2 @66MHz
L1 Cache should be 16KB, and there is 128K L2 cache which is not detected.
Socket type should be QFP-100, the same as the 386SX chips.

IMG_20210425_011331b.jpg
Filename
IMG_20210425_011331b.jpg
File size
1.14 MiB
Views
271 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
IMG_20210425_011416b.jpg
Filename
IMG_20210425_011416b.jpg
File size
1.02 MiB
Views
271 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 389 of 400, by Repo Man11

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

On my Epox MVP3G-M I discovered that if ACPI is enabled in the CMOS settings, CPU Z locks up Windows 98 and I have to hit reset. With ACPI disabled version 1.03 works fine.

Reply 390 of 400, by CuPid

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Schule04 wrote on 2021-04-25, 00:41:
IBM 486SLC2 @66MHz L1 Cache should be 16KB, and there is 128K L2 cache which is not detected. Socket type should be QFP-100, the […]
Show full quote

IBM 486SLC2 @66MHz
L1 Cache should be 16KB, and there is 128K L2 cache which is not detected.
Socket type should be QFP-100, the same as the 386SX chips.

IMG_20210425_011331b.jpgIMG_20210425_011416b.jpg

Yes the detection if the IBM 486SLC is problematic under Windows 9x. I did not find a reliable method yet.
So the program assumes this is a 486 w/o FPU (an SX then), and is wrong on everything (cache, clock speed, socket ...).

I need a vacation.

tbmtg3-99.png
zav4kj-99.png

Reply 391 of 400, by NostalgicAslinger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Pentium MMX 200 overclocked to 300 MHz (from 66MHz to 100 MHz FSB) with default P55C 2.8V VCore, also Prime stable.

PMMX CPU-Z 01.png
Filename
PMMX CPU-Z 01.png
File size
318.76 KiB
Views
217 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
PMMX CPU-Z 02.png
Filename
PMMX CPU-Z 02.png
File size
243.78 KiB
Views
217 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
PMMX CPU-Z 03.png
Filename
PMMX CPU-Z 03.png
File size
241.69 KiB
Views
217 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
PMMX CPU-Z 04.png
Filename
PMMX CPU-Z 04.png
File size
200.85 KiB
Views
217 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
PMMX CPU-Z 05.png
Filename
PMMX CPU-Z 05.png
File size
249.64 KiB
Views
217 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 392 of 400, by the_ultra_code

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
the_ultra_code wrote on 2020-10-29, 21:42:
Hello! […]
Show full quote

Hello!

I noticed this little project of yours, so I decided I'd check out Vintage Edition v1.02 on my Pentium III-S 1.4Ghz rig to see how it stacks up against one of the last versions of CPU-Z supported by Win98SE that I know of (v1.57). I will say, I love the improvements to the readability of the text (I increased the size of the text in the .inf file for v1.57 for the text to be more readable) as well as some minor layout improvements. I also see that some more information is being displayed in the VE than in the older version. Keep up the great work!

To further help, I did notice one regression between v1.57 and VE v1.02 that I would like to report. It has to do with the VE not reporting my mainboard's "LCPIO", whatever that is. 😀
jYXWaQ7.png

Here's the missing information from the VE report that's in the report from v1.57:

LPCIO Vendor		AsusTek
LPCIO Model AS99127F
LPCIO Vendor ID 0x5CA3
LPCIO Chip ID 0x59
LPCIO Revision ID 0x53
Config Mode I/O address 0x2E
Config Mode LDN 0xB
Config Mode registers
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 0B FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
10 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
20 59 53 FF FE 80 00 00 FF 00 0C 7C F0 1F 00 00 FF
30 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
40 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
50 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
60 00 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
70 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF

I have included both reports as well as the above screenshot in the zip file attached for your assistance. If there's anything else you need from me, feel free to ask.

Just checked with the latest vintage edition - still displaying the same issue of not displaying LPCIO:
86Bnvdtl.png

Attachments

  • Filename
    CPU_Compare.zip
    File size
    24.23 KiB
    Downloads
    6 downloads
    File license
    Public domain

Builds

Other:
* USB2 PCI Card in Win98 SE
* Futuremark Result Browsers

Reply 393 of 400, by red-ray

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-01, 20:55:

I have included both reports as well as the above screenshot in the zip file attached for your assistance.

I just looked at the SPD in WIN98SE_TUSL2-C_1-57.txt and it's reporting Data width 16448 bits which must be wrong, further the checksum is incorrect so I suspect your SPD data is wonky.

Attachments

Reply 394 of 400, by the_ultra_code

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red-ray wrote on 2021-05-02, 11:19:
the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-01, 20:55:

I have included both reports as well as the above screenshot in the zip file attached for your assistance.

I just looked at the SPD in WIN98SE_TUSL2-C_1-57.txt and it's reporting Data width 16448 bits which must be wrong, further the checksum is incorrect so I suspect your SPD data is wonky.

IDK. This is a newer module from the mid-2000s I think. It is MemTest stable.

Builds

Other:
* USB2 PCI Card in Win98 SE
* Futuremark Result Browsers

Reply 395 of 400, by red-ray

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-02, 21:24:

IDK. This is a newer module from the mid-2000s I think. It is MemTest stable.

MemTest does not test the SPD. I looked some more and what CPUZ reported is:

Data width 16448 bits
Correction None
Registered no
Buffered no
EPP no
XMP no
JEDEC timings table CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-tRC @ frequency
JEDEC #1 2.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz
JEDEC #2 3.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz

DIMM # 1
SPD registers
-- 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 40 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01

The 40 at offset 07 should be 00 so either your SPD is corrupt or CPUZ misread that byte. SIV32 does not report SPD in W98, but if you can boot NT4, W2K or WXP it will. HWiNFO32 should report SPD on W98.

Reply 396 of 400, by the_ultra_code

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red-ray wrote on 2021-05-03, 08:52:
MemTest does not test the SPD. I looked some more and what CPUZ reported is: […]
Show full quote
the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-02, 21:24:

IDK. This is a newer module from the mid-2000s I think. It is MemTest stable.

MemTest does not test the SPD. I looked some more and what CPUZ reported is:

Data width 16448 bits
Correction None
Registered no
Buffered no
EPP no
XMP no
JEDEC timings table CL-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-tRC @ frequency
JEDEC #1 2.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz
JEDEC #2 3.0-2-2-6-n.a. @ 133 MHz

DIMM # 1
SPD registers
-- 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 40 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01

The 40 at offset 07 should be 00 so either your SPD is corrupt or CPUZ misread that byte. SIV32 does not report SPD in W98, but if you can boot NT4, W2K or WXP it will. HWiNFO32 should report SPD on W98.

If you are curious, I got a HWINFO32 report and debug file from the system.

Attachments

  • Filename
    HWINFO_Report.zip
    File size
    24.8 KiB
    Downloads
    5 downloads
    File license
    Public domain

Builds

Other:
* USB2 PCI Card in Win98 SE
* Futuremark Result Browsers

Reply 397 of 400, by red-ray

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-05, 04:19:

I got a HWINFO32 report and debug file from the system.

It looks like CPUZ messed up the SMBus SPD reading as looking in the .DBG file SPD offset 07 is 00 which is what it should be, further the SPD checksum is correct.

SMB:0:50
..... 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 0123456789ABCDEF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000: 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 00 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01 € @ÿuTÿ‚ÿ

It would not surprise me if you re-ran the CPUZ save and the value was then as it should be.

Reply 398 of 400, by the_ultra_code

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red-ray wrote on 2021-05-05, 09:14:
It looks like CPUZ messed up the SMBus SPD reading as looking in the .DBG file SPD offset 07 is 00 which is what it should be, f […]
Show full quote
the_ultra_code wrote on 2021-05-05, 04:19:

I got a HWINFO32 report and debug file from the system.

It looks like CPUZ messed up the SMBus SPD reading as looking in the .DBG file SPD offset 07 is 00 which is what it should be, further the SPD checksum is correct.

SMB:0:50
..... 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 0123456789ABCDEF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000: 80 08 04 0D 0A 02 40 00 01 75 54 00 82 08 00 01 € @ÿuTÿ‚ÿ

It would not surprise me if you re-ran the CPUZ save and the value was then as it should be.

There you go.

Although not sure how this pertains to the VE 1.3.

Attachments

Builds

Other:
* USB2 PCI Card in Win98 SE
* Futuremark Result Browsers

Reply 399 of 400, by the_ultra_code

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Another motherboard-focused question. CPU-Z (both the modern version and vintage edition) is unaware of my FIC PN-6210 dual-Pentium Pro motherboard.
e2XwZxe.png

Attachments

  • Filename
    CPU-Z Results.zip
    File size
    22.66 KiB
    Downloads
    8 downloads
    File license
    Public domain

Builds

Other:
* USB2 PCI Card in Win98 SE
* Futuremark Result Browsers