Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-24, 17:10:

I was using a DX4-100 with just a large passive heatsink and it seemed to run totally fine. However, I did notice that after pro […]
Show full quote

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-23, 11:15:

And then there is the tillamook which I was running without a heatsink the other day… 😂 […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-23, 10:55:

Not sure this is what you're referring to, but the K6 does seem to have a much higher transistor count (compared to the Pentium […]
Show full quote

Not sure this is what you're referring to, but the K6 does seem to have a much higher transistor count (compared to the Pentium 1)(according to the wiki) which would result in higher power dissipation at similar voltages and frequencies.

The difference in the number of transistors is probably mostly because of this:
16KB L1 data cache + 16KB L1 instruction cache for the Pentium MMX
L1-Cache: 32 + 32 KB (data + instructions) for AMD K6

But I think this would be sufficient explanation as to why the K6 233MHz is so much more power hungry compared to the Pentium 1 MMX 233MHz (any Pentium 1 basically 😜 ).

And then there is the tillamook which I was running without a heatsink the other day… 😂

Only playing in the bios and trying jumper settings but still, it just sat there, barely warm rofl.

Drop the voltage some and frequency and I can totally see heavy load with no heatsink.

I was using a DX4-100 with just a large passive heatsink and it seemed to run totally fine. However, I did notice that after prolonged use the heatsink would still be rather hot mostly because of how poor the ventilation was in that case (and my juryrigged cardboard sound dampeners could have helped prevent thermal dissipation through the sides of the case and to the rest of the case, but this is just a suspicion on my part).

Tillamook is definitely one heck of a cool chip ( 😜 ) but personally I'd not risk running it without a heatsink for a couple hours on end 😜
Not saying it couldn't work though, but it's easy to underestimate the effect of prolonged use has on poorly ventilated airspaces.

I’ve never taken apart a tillamook laptop but some of the tillamook chips like a 233 I just found don’t even have a way to thermally manage them. Like you can’t put a heatsink on them because it would short them out.

There is no real reason to limit yourself to a K6, Why not grab a K6-2 and run it at 400-500? Or better yet find the (likely undocumented) 2.0/2.1v setting and use a K62/3+ CPU?
Be worlds faster than either a K6-233 or a PMMX.

Yes you can do that, get a square of thin thermal pad to cover whole CPU or the center square and heatsink will not be touching the bits due to space created by the thickness of the thermal pad.

I have same type except it is a 90MHz in that type of package and tested it in a HX Asus motherboard set at 2.9V and worked.

Cheers,

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-24, 17:19:

A 20W difference between those 2 chips is not something I'd want to contest, it seems legit to me tbf. K6/233 was nearly double […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote on 2022-01-23, 12:48:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-23, 10:55:

Not sure this is what you're referring to, but the K6 does seem to have a much higher transistor count (compared to the Pentium […]
Show full quote

Not sure this is what you're referring to, but the K6 does seem to have a much higher transistor count (compared to the Pentium 1)(according to the wiki) which would result in higher power dissipation at similar voltages and frequencies.

The difference in the number of transistors is probably mostly because of this:
16KB L1 data cache + 16KB L1 instruction cache for the Pentium MMX
L1-Cache: 32 + 32 KB (data + instructions) for AMD K6

But I think this would be sufficient explanation as to why the K6 233MHz is so much more power hungry compared to the Pentium 1 MMX 233MHz (any Pentium 1 basically 😜 ).

Thanks, yes that seems to be a good reason for such difference. I don't know how much such old mainboards with those voltage regulators (my board has a "big heatsink" for a single mosfet anyway) can work with these "high end" cpu but I suppose that was the limit. In fact at the power wall plug I measured a total system peak of almost total 90W of current required with the K6 when such values I was used to see with much faster configs. The Pentium MMX seems to run cool enough on the heatsink temp and asking 70W at the desktop. These values of course are variable but it's not every day to see that on such old configs with few PCI/ISA cards that should ask few watts only.

A 20W difference between those 2 chips is not something I'd want to contest, it seems legit to me tbf.
K6/233 was nearly double the transistor count on a higher voltage (3.2v instead of 2.8v) and it was (as someone already mentioned here) basically a factory overclock.
Pentium Pro and P2 Klamath could run even hotter btw.

The big heatsinks were typically used for the voltage regulators and these could run very hot, potentially even failing if used out of spec. Often these tiny (compared to CPU HSFs) heatsinks would have to be cooled by some airflow from the CPU heatsink fan (in a similar way to how this would become somewhat more typical in later years with, say, AM2 boards).
The Pentium 1 MMX was a pretty good chip for its time. It basically helped the PC world open up to gaming and to a lesser extend to the internet (the multimedia PC remember? 😜 ).

Btw I really like measuring power usage from the wall, at some point I started measuring basically everything except for the washingmachine 😜

Yes, in fact my mainboard with the original Intel heatsink/fan send the air through the mosfet heatsink keeping it not too hot. It's not like the Pentium MMX seems to stress it too much, while the K6 as said the difference is obviously seen just touching the heatsink metal. Of course we are talking about not extreme temp/watt but still for those components who knows. 😉
I suppose if they wrote the cpu supported on the manual the voltage regulator will support it but I'm not sure about all the capacitors that seems ok on the top but who knows they might fail anyway even without signs under too much stress. So I prefer to not load those old boards with too much power requirement.
They are both interesting cpus and while still early generation of processor, they already were fast enough for a good Win 98 machine. But the K6 indeed while it's fast, feel a lot like those extreme versions of other cpu models. Unfortunately I still have to read the mosfet voltage without the single jumper that drive the vcore and to see if it could give something like 2.2v instead of the 2,7 to 3,5v standards if I eventually will try a "faster" K6 or a K6-2 300 66Mhz. The MMX indeed was much discussed as something incredible even if at the end I suppose not always that visible. Like the 3DNow!.. on paper it would make much difference, at the end I remember only Quake II for the Voodoo2 SLI and DVD players had some "visible" use thanks to it. Probably the first even more with that patched AMD version. 😉

For DOS gaming the AMD would be a better CPU because you can down clock it to probably a 386 speeds
Using a program called “Setmul” ( set multiplier ).

So you probably would be able to play a larger assortment of games using the AMD.

On the Intel side. You are stuck at the speed of 233mhz.
But its a Rock Solid CPU with great performance.

They are both good CPU’s
Its just the the AMD can be down clocked to speeds of 386, and 486 computers for a larger assortment of game.
Some old DOS games are CPU critical and will play at slow speeds.

But for Windows 95 and NEWER games either CPU is great.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2022-01-26, 10:33:

For DOS gaming the AMD would be a better CPU because you can down clock it to probably a 386 speeds
Using a program called “Setmul” ( set multiplier ).

A Pentium MMX can also be slowed down to 386 and 486 speeds using SetMul. Not by changing the multiplier, but by disabling L1 and/or L2 cache, as well as by toggling various test registers. Phil showcases that nicely in this video.

That said, a K6-2+ or a K6-3+ will provide more range since those chips run at higher frequencies by default, and also support on the fly multiplier adjustments. But for simply going down to 386 and 486 speeds, a Pentium MMX is enough.

386SX wrote on 2022-01-25, 10:55:

Yes, in fact my mainboard with the original Intel heatsink/fan send the air through the mosfet heatsink keeping it not too hot. […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-24, 17:19:

A 20W difference between those 2 chips is not something I'd want to contest, it seems legit to me tbf. K6/233 was nearly double […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote on 2022-01-23, 12:48:

Thanks, yes that seems to be a good reason for such difference. I don't know how much such old mainboards with those voltage regulators (my board has a "big heatsink" for a single mosfet anyway) can work with these "high end" cpu but I suppose that was the limit. In fact at the power wall plug I measured a total system peak of almost total 90W of current required with the K6 when such values I was used to see with much faster configs. The Pentium MMX seems to run cool enough on the heatsink temp and asking 70W at the desktop. These values of course are variable but it's not every day to see that on such old configs with few PCI/ISA cards that should ask few watts only.

A 20W difference between those 2 chips is not something I'd want to contest, it seems legit to me tbf.
K6/233 was nearly double the transistor count on a higher voltage (3.2v instead of 2.8v) and it was (as someone already mentioned here) basically a factory overclock.
Pentium Pro and P2 Klamath could run even hotter btw.

The big heatsinks were typically used for the voltage regulators and these could run very hot, potentially even failing if used out of spec. Often these tiny (compared to CPU HSFs) heatsinks would have to be cooled by some airflow from the CPU heatsink fan (in a similar way to how this would become somewhat more typical in later years with, say, AM2 boards).
The Pentium 1 MMX was a pretty good chip for its time. It basically helped the PC world open up to gaming and to a lesser extend to the internet (the multimedia PC remember? 😜 ).

Btw I really like measuring power usage from the wall, at some point I started measuring basically everything except for the washingmachine 😜

Yes, in fact my mainboard with the original Intel heatsink/fan send the air through the mosfet heatsink keeping it not too hot. It's not like the Pentium MMX seems to stress it too much, while the K6 as said the difference is obviously seen just touching the heatsink metal. Of course we are talking about not extreme temp/watt but still for those components who knows. 😉
I suppose if they wrote the cpu supported on the manual the voltage regulator will support it but I'm not sure about all the capacitors that seems ok on the top but who knows they might fail anyway even without signs under too much stress. So I prefer to not load those old boards with too much power requirement.
They are both interesting cpus and while still early generation of processor, they already were fast enough for a good Win 98 machine. But the K6 indeed while it's fast, feel a lot like those extreme versions of other cpu models. Unfortunately I still have to read the mosfet voltage without the single jumper that drive the vcore and to see if it could give something like 2.2v instead of the 2,7 to 3,5v standards if I eventually will try a "faster" K6 or a K6-2 300 66Mhz. The MMX indeed was much discussed as something incredible even if at the end I suppose not always that visible. Like the 3DNow!.. on paper it would make much difference, at the end I remember only Quake II for the Voodoo2 SLI and DVD players had some "visible" use thanks to it. Probably the first even more with that patched AMD version. 😉

I remember back then, MMX was all the rage! But it was also mentioned that MMX would only be useful with future software (meaning that by the time enough software took MMX into account, the CPUs sold with MMX right now would be too slow for these anyway).
But at least they also had more cache and this along with the P1 MMX being a solid CPU overall (with also pretty good overclocking capability and running quite cool) and it being basically the best CPU available for boards that cannot reach CPU core voltage low enough to support the 2.2v/2.4v CPUs made by other vendors has kept the P1 MMX CPU relevant.

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-24, 22:16:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-24, 17:10:

I was using a DX4-100 with just a large passive heatsink and it seemed to run totally fine. However, I did notice that after pro […]
Show full quote

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-23, 11:15:

And then there is the tillamook which I was running without a heatsink the other day… 😂

Only playing in the bios and trying jumper settings but still, it just sat there, barely warm rofl.

Drop the voltage some and frequency and I can totally see heavy load with no heatsink.

I was using a DX4-100 with just a large passive heatsink and it seemed to run totally fine. However, I did notice that after prolonged use the heatsink would still be rather hot mostly because of how poor the ventilation was in that case (and my juryrigged cardboard sound dampeners could have helped prevent thermal dissipation through the sides of the case and to the rest of the case, but this is just a suspicion on my part).

Tillamook is definitely one heck of a cool chip ( 😜 ) but personally I'd not risk running it without a heatsink for a couple hours on end 😜
Not saying it couldn't work though, but it's easy to underestimate the effect of prolonged use has on poorly ventilated airspaces.

I’ve never taken apart a tillamook laptop but some of the tillamook chips like a 233 I just found don’t even have a way to thermally manage them. Like you can’t put a heatsink on them because it would short them out.

I have once taken apart a Pentium MMX laptop that I had dumpsterdived and I was kidna disappointed when it appeared to have just a standard desktop CPU in it 🙁

I don't know about the Tillamooks that were not PPGA, but in desktop boards they do run with a higher i/o voltage so should be running hotter than when placed in a laptop.

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-26, 12:48:

386SX wrote on 2022-01-25, 10:55:

Yes, in fact my mainboard with the original Intel heatsink/fan send the air through the mosfet heatsink keeping it not too hot. […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-24, 17:19:

A 20W difference between those 2 chips is not something I'd want to contest, it seems legit to me tbf. K6/233 was nearly double […]
Show full quote

A 20W difference between those 2 chips is not something I'd want to contest, it seems legit to me tbf.
K6/233 was nearly double the transistor count on a higher voltage (3.2v instead of 2.8v) and it was (as someone already mentioned here) basically a factory overclock.
Pentium Pro and P2 Klamath could run even hotter btw.

The big heatsinks were typically used for the voltage regulators and these could run very hot, potentially even failing if used out of spec. Often these tiny (compared to CPU HSFs) heatsinks would have to be cooled by some airflow from the CPU heatsink fan (in a similar way to how this would become somewhat more typical in later years with, say, AM2 boards).
The Pentium 1 MMX was a pretty good chip for its time. It basically helped the PC world open up to gaming and to a lesser extend to the internet (the multimedia PC remember? 😜 ).

Btw I really like measuring power usage from the wall, at some point I started measuring basically everything except for the washingmachine 😜

Yes, in fact my mainboard with the original Intel heatsink/fan send the air through the mosfet heatsink keeping it not too hot. It's not like the Pentium MMX seems to stress it too much, while the K6 as said the difference is obviously seen just touching the heatsink metal. Of course we are talking about not extreme temp/watt but still for those components who knows. 😉
I suppose if they wrote the cpu supported on the manual the voltage regulator will support it but I'm not sure about all the capacitors that seems ok on the top but who knows they might fail anyway even without signs under too much stress. So I prefer to not load those old boards with too much power requirement.
They are both interesting cpus and while still early generation of processor, they already were fast enough for a good Win 98 machine. But the K6 indeed while it's fast, feel a lot like those extreme versions of other cpu models. Unfortunately I still have to read the mosfet voltage without the single jumper that drive the vcore and to see if it could give something like 2.2v instead of the 2,7 to 3,5v standards if I eventually will try a "faster" K6 or a K6-2 300 66Mhz. The MMX indeed was much discussed as something incredible even if at the end I suppose not always that visible. Like the 3DNow!.. on paper it would make much difference, at the end I remember only Quake II for the Voodoo2 SLI and DVD players had some "visible" use thanks to it. Probably the first even more with that patched AMD version. 😉

I remember back then, MMX was all the rage! But it was also mentioned that MMX would only be useful with future software (meaning that by the time enough software took MMX into account, the CPUs sold with MMX right now would be too slow for these anyway).
But at least they also had more cache and this along with the P1 MMX being a solid CPU overall (with also pretty good overclocking capability and running quite cool) and it being basically the best CPU available for boards that cannot reach CPU core voltage low enough to support the 2.2v/2.4v CPUs made by other vendors has kept the P1 MMX CPU relevant.

I wonder if anyone did design an adapter to keep the voltage lower and still supporting at least the cpu the multiplier/fsb permitted? ,)

The TX chipset supposedly supported Tillimook and there were desktop boards with 2.5 volt support, just not as common as you would want.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2022-01-26, 10:33:

For DOS gaming the AMD would be a better CPU because you can down clock it to probably a 386 speeds Using a program called “Setm […]
Show full quote

For DOS gaming the AMD would be a better CPU because you can down clock it to probably a 386 speeds
Using a program called “Setmul” ( set multiplier ).

So you probably would be able to play a larger assortment of games using the AMD.

On the Intel side. You are stuck at the speed of 233mhz.
But its a Rock Solid CPU with great performance.

They are both good CPU’s
Its just the the AMD can be down clocked to speeds of 386, and 486 computers for a larger assortment of game.
Some old DOS games are CPU critical and will play at slow speeds.

But for Windows 95 and NEWER games either CPU is great.

With 66fsb you can do 266 with a intel tillamook

With higher fsb you can get more obviously, 75x4 83.3x4 95x4 100x4 etc depending on mobo support. There is a thread about tillamooks and 4x and working l2

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-26, 12:52:

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-24, 22:16:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-24, 17:10:

I was using a DX4-100 with just a large passive heatsink and it seemed to run totally fine. However, I did notice that after prolonged use the heatsink would still be rather hot mostly because of how poor the ventilation was in that case (and my juryrigged cardboard sound dampeners could have helped prevent thermal dissipation through the sides of the case and to the rest of the case, but this is just a suspicion on my part).

Tillamook is definitely one heck of a cool chip ( 😜 ) but personally I'd not risk running it without a heatsink for a couple hours on end 😜
Not saying it couldn't work though, but it's easy to underestimate the effect of prolonged use has on poorly ventilated airspaces.

I’ve never taken apart a tillamook laptop but some of the tillamook chips like a 233 I just found don’t even have a way to thermally manage them. Like you can’t put a heatsink on them because it would short them out.

I have once taken apart a Pentium MMX laptop that I had dumpsterdived and I was kidna disappointed when it appeared to have just a standard desktop CPU in it 🙁

I don't know about the Tillamooks that were not PPGA, but in desktop boards they do run with a higher i/o voltage so should be running hotter than when placed in a laptop.

Many of the laptop chips look like desktop chips but have different s-spec numbers. Which is making my collection more difficult 🤣

rmay635703 wrote on 2022-01-26, 15:29:

The TX chipset supposedly supported Tillimook and there were desktop boards with 2.5 volt support, just not as common as you would want.

Running tillamook at 3.3v I/O isn’t a problem.
Yes some desktop boards did support lower I/O but it’s not a biggy.

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-26, 19:02:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-01-26, 12:52:

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-24, 22:16:

I’ve never taken apart a tillamook laptop but some of the tillamook chips like a 233 I just found don’t even have a way to thermally manage them. Like you can’t put a heatsink on them because it would short them out.

I have once taken apart a Pentium MMX laptop that I had dumpsterdived and I was kidna disappointed when it appeared to have just a standard desktop CPU in it 🙁

I don't know about the Tillamooks that were not PPGA, but in desktop boards they do run with a higher i/o voltage so should be running hotter than when placed in a laptop.

Many of the laptop chips look like desktop chips but have different s-spec numbers. Which is making my collection more difficult 🤣

Iirc it was really just a desktop sspec as well. It was remarkedly non-special -_-
But it's been a really long time since I took that laptop apart so I don't know for sure. The voltage was definitely desktopvoltage.

rmay635703 wrote on 2022-01-26, 15:29:

The TX chipset supposedly supported Tillimook and there were desktop boards with 2.5 volt support, just not as common as you would want.

Those were usually laptop TX chipsets though, the desktop ones usually supported only 3.3v i/o or 3.52v i/o only.
I know of no desktop mainboard 430TX that has a lower i/o voltage selectable.

Meanwhile I found the power mosfet used in my board is a IRFZ24N 45W mosfet. So I am going to test if without jumpers it send out 2.0 volts or what.. I'll need to isolate most metal part to avoid unexpected contacts during the multimeter measure.

I think I'll read the pin on the socket cause there're too many components close to the mosfet that is almost "inside" its heatsink and difficult to read the voltage. Anyway as ground I suppose it's ok to point to any ground like one of the mainboard screw right?

386SX wrote on 2022-01-29, 14:22:

I think I'll read the pin on the socket cause there're too many components close to the mosfet that is almost "inside" its heatsink and difficult to read the voltage. Anyway as ground I suppose it's ok to point to any ground like one of the mainboard screw right?

I just use a part of the case. Or a black on a molex.

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-01-29, 19:35:

386SX wrote on 2022-01-29, 14:22:

I think I'll read the pin on the socket cause there're too many components close to the mosfet that is almost "inside" its heatsink and difficult to read the voltage. Anyway as ground I suppose it's ok to point to any ground like one of the mainboard screw right?

I just use a part of the case. Or a black on a molex.

You can also put two thin metal wires (e.g. a resistor leg) into the socket; one for ground and one for the core voltage. Then you can measure without the risk of shorting anything.

So at the end, without voltage jumper (usually it requires a single one installed) it measure 2,43 volts. The P-MMX second position of the (single) jumper measure 2,72 volts so I suppose it might be even a bit higher the real one but my multimeter might be cheap. Anyway, seems quite high for a K6-2 @ 2,2v factory core. Maybe a K6-III 400 with the 2,4v model? I tried changing also the undocumented JP6 jumpers to see if it changed eventually the voltage again but no, it stays 2,43 volts in any positions. I hoped for a lower voltage. Anyway considering the 66Mhz FSB and that JP6 might (it's not said to be enabled in this board Rev.) what would you suggest?

386SX wrote on 2022-01-30, 09:28:

So at the end, without voltage jumper (single one) it measure 2,43 volts. The P-MMX second position of the (single) jumper measure 2,72 volts so I suppose it might be even a bit higher the real one but my multimeter might be cheap. Anyway, seems quite high for a K6-2 @ 2,2v factory core. Maybe a K6-III 400 with the 2,4v model? I tried changing also the undocumented JP6 jumpers to see if it changed eventually the voltage again but no, it stays 2,43 volts in any positions. I hoped for a lower voltage. Anyway considering the 66Mhz FSB and that JP6 might (it's not said to be enabled in this board Rev.) what would you suggest?

What about no jumper?

Image of the Mosfet board circuit, the single different positioned jumper near the left socket corner is the "future JP6" (JP1, JP2, JP6), instead the single jumper close to the two Power Mosfets set in second position (3-4) is the usual 2,8v config for the P-MMX. @Sphere478 the 2,43 volts was the measure without the voltage jumper installed. 😉