A note about supported multipliers of tillamook

1.5x is mapped to 3.5

2x while not shown in datasheet does indeed work and is present

2.5x I recall working

3x I recall working

3.5x works

4x works

4.5x exists but rarely works

5x exists only so far in intel documentation, it is possible it may show up one day

A note about speed capability of tillamook for auto detection, a 500+ mhz tillamook isn’t impossible given a high enough multiplier/fsb stable @ 400mhz is pretty common.

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-02-27, 13:53:

A note about supported multipliers of tillamook […]
Show full quote

A note about supported multipliers of tillamook

1.5x is mapped to 3.5
2x while not shown in datasheet does indeed work and is present
2.5x I recall working
3x I recall working
3.5x works
4x works
4.5x exists but rarely works
5x exists only so far in intel documentation, it is possible it may show up one day

A note about speed capability of tillamook for auto detection, a 500+ mhz tillamook isn’t impossible given a high enough multiplier/fsb stable @ 400mhz is pretty common.

Thanks for the detailed Pentium MMX/Tillamook multiplier info!
So with only BF0/BF1 to play with, a CPU speed of 291 MHz (83*3.5) should be reachable on this i430TX board.

Cheers, Jan

I do have a modded Tillamook so I can test the combination. I never pushed it over 2.7V though.

It's currently orbiting on my best (maybe the best) SS7 motherboard, the EPoX EP-MVP3C2.
Unfortunatey the board itself is unstable with its cache at higher FSB than 112MHz. I can use 133MHz FSB with the Tillamook but without mb cache (it's stlightly faster with the cache at 112MHz though).
I'm exploring different improvement paths. Are there cache chips than can handle more than 112MHz ? I heard that MoSys chips are better. It's equiped with a Winbond 512k currently. Overvolting it slightly might help ? And if so, how much faster it would be with 1mb instead of 512kb ?
For now, the gap with the K6-3 is still significant clock-for-clock, even on FPU heavy tasks.

Chkcpu wrote on 2024-02-27, 12:55:

Hi all, […]
Show full quote

Hi all,

I received several requests for changes to the QDI Titanium IB+ BIOS. So I have been working on a patch J.3 BIOS update for this jumperless board, and I made some progress.

@JustJulião,
I was able to add IDT WinChip 2/2A/2B support. The new BIOS now properly detects these IDT models and displays them correctly as IDT WinChip 2.
The SpeedEasy CPU SETUP code is very difficult to change so the multiplier settings are still the same as for the WinChip C6 but they work the same way on the WinChip 2 and 2B. Only for the WC-2A, you have to use the translation table I put up earlier in this thread, when setting the multiplier.

@S0N1C,
I read your request about Tillamook support and I’ve started to look into that.
The BIOS detects and displays the Tillamook just fine but support for this CPU is completely missing in the SpeedEasy CPU SETUP, just as you reported. Instead, the BIOS sets the board as for a standard non-MMX Pentium with a single voltage rail with 3.4V! 🙁

The first step will be to change this to a dual voltage Pentium MMX setup. This shouldn’t be too difficult. But secondly, the default 2.8V setting for the MMX has to be lowered to 2.0V for the Tillamook only. This will be a challenge…
Note that the 2.0V Vcore and 3.3V Vi/o are the lowest possible settings on this board due hardware limitations.

@Sphere478,
You did the interposer for the Tillamook and other socket 7 CPUs, so could you help us with the multiplier settings on the Tillamook? Without hardware changes, this jumperless QDI BIOS can control the BF0/BF1 pins of the original Pentium MMX only. The Tillamook BF2 is therefore out of reach without an interposer.
Can you tell us which multipliers are possible on the Tillamook by using these original BF0/BF1 pins only?

To all,
Other bugfixes that I will add to the patch J.3 BIOS:
- A fix for the second 64GiB HDD limit bug. This will fix a hang when initiating drive detection via the IDE HDD DETECTION menu in the BIOS on a drive > 64GiB.
- An improved 32GiB HDD limit bugfix that allows drives > 128GiB to be attached, so at least 128GiB can be used from a larger drive (maximum 640GiB).
- A fix for the Win98 UDMA bug. This allows ATA66/100/133 drives to work correctly in UDMA mode 2 (33MB/sec) on the on-board IDE channels by enabling DMA mode in device manager. Without this fix, these faster drives would revert to PIO mode 4.

I will be back with an updated progress report soon. 😉
Jan

Thank you Jan!

I just soldered a jumper wire and now it works on any board at x4 multiplier independently of bf0/bf1

@Chkcpu thank you! Maybe it would be easier to replace some existing low voltage CPU with Tillamook? 2.2V would be low enough to work with overclock applied, I'm actually now testing it at 2.4V @ 450MHz 😀

S0N1C wrote on 2024-02-27, 19:22:

I just soldered a jumper wire and now it works on any board at x4 multiplier independently of bf0/bf1
20240227_175027.jpg

Do not do that. It must be a resistor. If you activate a pull down on that circuit it will blow.

See the tillamoook working l2 cache thread.

Ya’ll are making me nervious with your tillamook voltages 🤣.

I would crap myself if I booted and saw 3.4v on a tillamook. Personally I wouldn’t go above 2.2-2.4v on em. And even that seems pointless. They will do 400 mhz just fine at 2.0v

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-02-28, 05:16:

S0N1C wrote on 2024-02-27, 19:22:

I just soldered a jumper wire and now it works on any board at x4 multiplier independently of bf0/bf1
20240227_175027.jpg

Do not do that. It must be a resistor. If you activate a pull down on that circuit it will blow.

it is a pull up - BF2 to VCC3 (I/O voltage)

I know, don’t use a wire, use a 1k resistor

Here, look at these. Surface mod option and shim pcb option.

ah, yes, now I understand - if you connect on the motherboard BF2 to the ground, thank you

I now also noticed there's VCC3 pin adjacent to the BF2...

Bf2 amd is the between pin. You will solder to three pins joining intel and amd bf2

ok, so it would blow up only if all three pins are connected with wire and you bridge x4 multiplier on the motherboard to the ground, I wasn't using NC/AMD_BF2 pin - so technically it was safe to use wire, I think 😀
anyway, I'm not planning on using MB jumpers for selecting x4 multiplier so I simply connected BF2 to VCC3 with 1K resistor just to be safe

S0N1C wrote on 2024-02-28, 15:40:

ok, so it would blow up only if all three pins are connected with wire and you bridge x4 multiplier on the motherboard to the ground, I wasn't using NC/AMD_BF2 pin - so technically it was safe to use wire, I think 😀
anyway, I'm not planning on using MB jumpers for selecting x4 multiplier so I simply connected BF2 to VCC3 with 1K resistor just to be safe
20240228.jpg

Looks good 😀

You should be able to bridge intel and amd bf2 with a wire without any issue.

In fact I recommend you do, so you can set intel bf2 from ss7 mobos. (Amd bf2)

The problem comes up whenever you pull down from mobo and there is a wire from vcc3 not a resistor. It sounds like you got the gist. 😀

This is something i would love to have the money to benchmark using some version of UnixWare or something like that and compare to much older, performance-comparable RISC CPUs running on unix workstations of the 90s.

250(2.5x100)MHz results.
Epox MVP3G2
2x128MB SDRAM 133@100 CL2
AIW Radeon9800Pro - @398/351 MHz
DOS/Win98SE

Are those 128mb sticks single sided? If not, try that. I’ve noticed that there is a ram size/speed sweet spot at 384 mb of ram single sided three sticks.

Technically many mvp3 support 768 256mb double sided x 3 but it is slower than 384.

I’ve also noticed mvp3 seems to more stable single sided. That’s another reason I recommend the 128s be single sided.

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-03-01, 01:40:

Are those 128mb sticks single sided? If not, try that. I’ve noticed that there is a ram size/speed sweet spot at 384 mb of ram single sided three sticks.

Technically many mvp3 support 768 256mb double sided x 3 but it is slower than 384.

I’ve also noticed mvp3 seems to more stable single sided. That’s another reason I recommend the 128s be single sided.

These tests ran a long time ago (2021), I don't even remember, but in the photo they seem to be double-sided, I see.

In the meantime, a lot of SDRAM came, I will choose later, thanks for the info! I will have to put Epox on because I fell back to second place in my topic in the K6-III+ competition.
Later, because Zen2 has been up for a long time now, I'll retrograde it 😀

Epox boards of that era rock!
I have the Baby AT version of yours but I didn't test the W2 on it.

JustJulião wrote on 2024-03-02, 12:26:

Epox boards of that era rock!
I have the Baby AT version of yours but I didn't test the W2 on it.

I made a comprehensive S7/SS7 test from 100-617MHz, which is why I used Epox. FSB/multiplier can be practically varied + a video card that didn't even exist back then, I like such extremes. I have the image backups, I thought it might be interesting. I tuned each CPU to a clock rate that is stable even with continuous use.
For example, a graph from the test:

Was that a 2.2V MII at 2.5 x 100? Because it's odd it didn't score level with the 6x86mx at 2.5x100 otherwise. We've been speculating as to whether the core shrink added some latencies to try to get higher clocks.