Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 05:23:

Sorry, but it seems like a lot of energy is being expended trying to avoid taking advice from humans who do this stuff all the time.

I'm sorry. As you noticed, effectively something is happening, and in fact i can't get much time to read carefully sitting in my chair.

I would like to expend more time rather than more energy, but both are being drained exhaustingly in so industrial scale that I can't even sleep.

Life is...

dionb wrote on 2025-12-14, 08:37:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-14, 01:19:

[...]

If i'm seeing well, my aptiva is SL-A, and that two bios are for SL-H and SL-I, so it would brick my pc, Am i right?.

The BIOS doesn't care about anything other than the motherboard it's flashed on. If this is - as you have confirmed - your motherboard, the BIOS images listed with it are the right ones.

That said, take normal precautions: backup your current BIOS first so you can re-flash the EEPROM with it in case of issues with the new BIOS.

Ok, i will set all the process before doing nothing. Thank you all for your help!.

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-14, 09:10:

I'm sorry. As you noticed, effectively something is happening, and in fact i can't get much time to read carefully sitting in m […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 05:23:

Sorry, but it seems like a lot of energy is being expended trying to avoid taking advice from humans who do this stuff all the time.

I'm sorry. As you noticed, effectively something is happening, and in fact i can't get much time to read carefully sitting in my chair.

I would like to expend more time rather than more energy, but both are being drained exhaustingly in so industrial scale that I can't even sleep.

Life is...

I'm sorry to hear you're dealing with lots of stress. A hobby like this should be refreshing, not frustrating or stressful. I apologize if what I said sounded rude.

Have you tried pulling the jumper from JP37 yet? It will take only a couple minutes to test and I'm about 99.9% sure it will disable your onboard VGA, which should greatly improve performance. Before going through BIOS flashing and other things, this would be the first step fix your problems with this system.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 05:23:

Finally, stop using AI bots to fact check human sources. AI is wrong 60% of the time even though it will offer advice 100% of the time. 😅

Agreed. You might as well play the lottery instead of using AI to find specific answers about specific features of specific old PC components. What AI's give are the average response of all motherboard discussions that the AI was trained on, presented as the God given truth, while in fact the info that it is giving often applies to no specific motherboard at all. What jumper disables the onboard video? If it was trained on data that said Jp14, Jp5, and JP37, it might say JP18 to average things out, even when a motherboard doesn't have integrated video. The AI doesn't remember any of the details of the conversations it was trained on, it just has an "instinct" to say what it thinks should come next based on a probabilistic mish-mash of 50000 conversations about 10000 motherboards. It is rarely of any use at all when you want specific info about one specific motherboard unless the motherboard was very very popular in the training data set or it can find a copy of the manual to summarize for you.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 12:30:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-14, 09:10:

I'm sorry. As you noticed, effectively something is happening, and in fact i can't get much time to read carefully sitting in m […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 05:23:

Sorry, but it seems like a lot of energy is being expended trying to avoid taking advice from humans who do this stuff all the time.

I'm sorry. As you noticed, effectively something is happening, and in fact i can't get much time to read carefully sitting in my chair.

I would like to expend more time rather than more energy, but both are being drained exhaustingly in so industrial scale that I can't even sleep.

Life is...

I'm sorry to hear you're dealing with lots of stress. A hobby like this should be refreshing, not frustrating or stressful. I apologize if what I said sounded rude.

Have you tried pulling the jumper from JP37 yet? It will take only a couple minutes to test and I'm about 99.9% sure it will disable your onboard VGA, which should greatly improve performance. Before going through BIOS flashing and other things, this would be the first step fix your problems with this system.

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions.

It's done, i open the jumper so now there is not sis6205 consuming resources... but benchmarks are not awesome though, it gain some fps, but i expected more... even with univbe for dos and windows.

I imagine this is the max i can rech with this pc.

Next step is uploading the bios, i will read all the thread as soon as possible for instructions on how to apply the new bios (programs to do the work, etc).

P.D: i noticed there is a jumper (J13), with three pines for two operations:

-Flash BIOS normal operation Pins 1&2 closed.
-Flash BIOS recovery mode Pins 2&3 closed.

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-17, 12:53:

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 12:30:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-14, 09:10:

I'm sorry. As you noticed, effectively something is happening, and in fact i can't get much time to read carefully sitting in my chair.

I would like to expend more time rather than more energy, but both are being drained exhaustingly in so industrial scale that I can't even sleep.

Life is...

I'm sorry to hear you're dealing with lots of stress. A hobby like this should be refreshing, not frustrating or stressful. I apologize if what I said sounded rude.

Have you tried pulling the jumper from JP37 yet? It will take only a couple minutes to test and I'm about 99.9% sure it will disable your onboard VGA, which should greatly improve performance. Before going through BIOS flashing and other things, this would be the first step fix your problems with this system.

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions.

It's done, i open the jumper so now there is not sis6205 consuming resources... but benchmarks are not awesome though, it gain some fps, but i expected more... even with univbe for dos and windows.

I imagine this is the max i can rech with this pc.

Next step is uploading the bios, i will read all the thread as soon as possible for instructions on how to apply the new bios (programs to do the work, etc).

P.D: i noticed there is a jumper (J13), with three pines for two operations:

-Flash BIOS normal operation Pins 1&2 closed.
-Flash BIOS recovery mode Pins 2&3 closed.

Glad you got the onboard VGA disabled.

Did you check the jumper configuration for the CPU bus speed and the PCI divider as mentioned in this post?

Re: Pentium 200 extremely slow

If either of these is set wrong it will cripple system performance.

Also, I highly recommend running CHKCPU so that we can be 100% certain of what the system is detecting regarding FSB, multiplier, CPU identifiers, etc. In a way you can imagine that like looking up the VIN on a car while diagnosing issues. If it turns out the car has 200k more miles and a different engine displacement than expected, that can save hours of diagnostics.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-17, 13:21:

Glad you got the onboard VGA disabled. […]
Show full quote

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-17, 12:53:

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-14, 12:30:

I'm sorry to hear you're dealing with lots of stress. A hobby like this should be refreshing, not frustrating or stressful. I apologize if what I said sounded rude.

Have you tried pulling the jumper from JP37 yet? It will take only a couple minutes to test and I'm about 99.9% sure it will disable your onboard VGA, which should greatly improve performance. Before going through BIOS flashing and other things, this would be the first step fix your problems with this system.

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions.

It's done, i open the jumper so now there is not sis6205 consuming resources... but benchmarks are not awesome though, it gain some fps, but i expected more... even with univbe for dos and windows.

I imagine this is the max i can rech with this pc.

Next step is uploading the bios, i will read all the thread as soon as possible for instructions on how to apply the new bios (programs to do the work, etc).

P.D: i noticed there is a jumper (J13), with three pines for two operations:

-Flash BIOS normal operation Pins 1&2 closed.
-Flash BIOS recovery mode Pins 2&3 closed.

Glad you got the onboard VGA disabled.

Did you check the jumper configuration for the CPU bus speed and the PCI divider as mentioned in this post?

Re: Pentium 200 extremely slow

If either of these is set wrong it will cripple system performance.

Also, I highly recommend running CHKCPU so that we can be 100% certain of what the system is detecting regarding FSB, multiplier, CPU identifiers, etc. In a way you can imagine that like looking up the VIN on a car while diagnosing issues. If it turns out the car has 200k more miles and a different engine displacement than expected, that can save hours of diagnostics.

Yes, everything is normal now, completely as you said, speedsys detect its 200mhz, although i'm thinking that ram bandwidth at 166MB/s could be under its nominal performance, but could be its native limit.

Generally i believe it underperforms a little... quake at 320x200 with 34fps should be numbers of a 486 dx4 100mhz system, or maybe i'm wrong.

Slowly i'm preparing a cd with drivers and utilities, i check your advice for it (chkcpu and others), thank you so much!.

P.D: to apply the bios update, Do i need to do something with J13 jumper?, How i proceed?.

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-17, 15:11:

Yes, everything is normal now, completely as you said, speedsys detect its 200mhz, although i'm thinking that ram bandwidth at 1 […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-17, 13:21:

Glad you got the onboard VGA disabled. […]
Show full quote

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-17, 12:53:

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions. […]
Show full quote

Don't worry, it's my fault for not being entirely focused at my own questions.

It's done, i open the jumper so now there is not sis6205 consuming resources... but benchmarks are not awesome though, it gain some fps, but i expected more... even with univbe for dos and windows.

I imagine this is the max i can rech with this pc.

Next step is uploading the bios, i will read all the thread as soon as possible for instructions on how to apply the new bios (programs to do the work, etc).

P.D: i noticed there is a jumper (J13), with three pines for two operations:

-Flash BIOS normal operation Pins 1&2 closed.
-Flash BIOS recovery mode Pins 2&3 closed.

Glad you got the onboard VGA disabled.

Did you check the jumper configuration for the CPU bus speed and the PCI divider as mentioned in this post?

Re: Pentium 200 extremely slow

If either of these is set wrong it will cripple system performance.

Also, I highly recommend running CHKCPU so that we can be 100% certain of what the system is detecting regarding FSB, multiplier, CPU identifiers, etc. In a way you can imagine that like looking up the VIN on a car while diagnosing issues. If it turns out the car has 200k more miles and a different engine displacement than expected, that can save hours of diagnostics.

Yes, everything is normal now, completely as you said, speedsys detect its 200mhz, although i'm thinking that ram bandwidth at 166MB/s could be under its nominal performance, but could be its native limit.

Generally i believe it underperforms a little... quake at 320x200 with 34fps should be numbers of a 486 dx4 100mhz system, or maybe i'm wrong.

Slowly i'm preparing a cd with drivers and utilities, i check your advice for it (chkcpu and others), thank you so much!.

P.D: to apply the bios update, Do i need to do something with J13 jumper?, How i proceed?.

I don't believe you have to mess with j13. Worst case it won't flash in which case try with it in the other position.

34fps is probably fine. I haven't measured my Pentiums in a bit to say for sure, but Quake in software at 320 x 200 will be nowhere near 34fps on a 100mhz 486 - more like 14-15 if you are lucky. On my builds with a cyrix 5x86c at 120mhz(2x60) quake usually tops out at around 17.8 fps, whereas to get around 20 you need an am5x86 running at 180/200. The difference really is that big, hence why the Pentium was such a big deal when it came out.

I am glad you sorted the parasitic video problem, again as Ozzuneoj has said CHKCPU should alleviate any concerns as to what your CPU is doing beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Not sure if it's already been mentioned but many of these benchmarks and utilities are available in Phil's Computer Lab DOS benchmark pack, it's very handy and easy to use. Run them from real DOS.
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/dos-benchmark-pack.html

I think a typical Pentium Classic 200 would do around 40fps at 320x200. Give or take a few frames depending on cache, ram timings and video card. You are pretty close in the ballpark of where it should be.
Unreal or UT99 was never really going to play well on this platform. Many many DOS and Windows 9x era games will play great on this PC though, so don't be discouraged.

bertrammatrix wrote on 2025-12-17, 16:51:

I don't believe you have to mess with j13. Worst case it won't flash in which case try with it in the other position.

34fps is probably fine. I haven't measured my Pentiums in a bit to say for sure, but Quake in software at 320 x 200 will be nowhere near 34fps on a 100mhz 486 - more like 14-15 if you are lucky. On my builds with a cyrix 5x86c at 120mhz(2x60) quake usually tops out at around 17.8 fps, whereas to get around 20 you need an am5x86 running at 180/200. The difference really is that big, hence why the Pentium was such a big deal when it came out.

Probably the limit is the architecture of the aptiva itself with 166MB/s of bandwidth memory, and 256KB of cache L2 instead 512KB... and my S3 trio64v+ instead ET6000... seems like more or less 45 fps is the top for a pentium 200 in quake at 320x200, so, in my case maybe i only lefting 4 o 5 fps with my configuration.

Right now i'm preparing a CD with programs and drivers, an i want to include some programs to flash my bios, but i'm searching.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-12-17, 18:16:

I am glad you sorted the parasitic video problem, again as Ozzuneoj has said CHKCPU should alleviate any concerns as to what you […]
Show full quote

I am glad you sorted the parasitic video problem, again as Ozzuneoj has said CHKCPU should alleviate any concerns as to what your CPU is doing beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Not sure if it's already been mentioned but many of these benchmarks and utilities are available in Phil's Computer Lab DOS benchmark pack, it's very handy and easy to use. Run them from real DOS.
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/dos-benchmark-pack.html

I think a typical Pentium Classic 200 would do around 40fps at 320x200. Give or take a few frames depending on cache, ram timings and video card. You are pretty close in the ballpark of where it should be.
Unreal or UT99 was never really going to play well on this platform. Many many DOS and Windows 9x era games will play great on this PC though, so don't be discouraged.

That is what i'm reading, i should be getting numbers about 38 to 40fps instead 34, so... is not that bad.

I'm preparing a cd and i have included that chkcpu, but i want to close the cd with a program to flash the bios before benchmarking the cpu with this program.

To get more out of that PC, have you tried Unreal instead of Unreal Tournament? In my opinion, Unreal is the better game too 😉

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-18, 20:55:

Probably the limit is the architecture of the aptiva itself with 166MB/s of bandwidth memory, and 256KB of cache L2 instead 512K […]
Show full quote

bertrammatrix wrote on 2025-12-17, 16:51:

I don't believe you have to mess with j13. Worst case it won't flash in which case try with it in the other position.

34fps is probably fine. I haven't measured my Pentiums in a bit to say for sure, but Quake in software at 320 x 200 will be nowhere near 34fps on a 100mhz 486 - more like 14-15 if you are lucky. On my builds with a cyrix 5x86c at 120mhz(2x60) quake usually tops out at around 17.8 fps, whereas to get around 20 you need an am5x86 running at 180/200. The difference really is that big, hence why the Pentium was such a big deal when it came out.

Probably the limit is the architecture of the aptiva itself with 166MB/s of bandwidth memory, and 256KB of cache L2 instead 512KB... and my S3 trio64v+ instead ET6000... seems like more or less 45 fps is the top for a pentium 200 in quake at 320x200, so, in my case maybe i only lefting 4 o 5 fps with my configuration.

Right now i'm preparing a CD with programs and drivers, an i want to include some programs to flash my bios, but i'm searching.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-12-17, 18:16:

I am glad you sorted the parasitic video problem, again as Ozzuneoj has said CHKCPU should alleviate any concerns as to what you […]
Show full quote

I am glad you sorted the parasitic video problem, again as Ozzuneoj has said CHKCPU should alleviate any concerns as to what your CPU is doing beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Not sure if it's already been mentioned but many of these benchmarks and utilities are available in Phil's Computer Lab DOS benchmark pack, it's very handy and easy to use. Run them from real DOS.
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/dos-benchmark-pack.html

I think a typical Pentium Classic 200 would do around 40fps at 320x200. Give or take a few frames depending on cache, ram timings and video card. You are pretty close in the ballpark of where it should be.
Unreal or UT99 was never really going to play well on this platform. Many many DOS and Windows 9x era games will play great on this PC though, so don't be discouraged.

That is what i'm reading, i should be getting numbers about 38 to 40fps instead 34, so... is not that bad.

I'm preparing a cd and i have included that chkcpu, but i want to close the cd with a program to flash the bios before benchmarking the cpu with this program.

It seems a bit coincidental to run into this now, but in another thread we've just discovered today that Trio64V+ cards can vary wildly in performance from one card to the next because of a memory related setting (which is selected using resistors soldered onto the card). Maybe it is worth looking into. Here is the thread:
Re: Some Trio64V+ Cards significantly faster in Windows 98 than others?

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-18, 22:18:

It seems a bit coincidental to run into this now, but in another thread we've just discovered today that Trio64V+ cards can vary wildly in performance from one card to the next because of a memory related setting (which is selected using resistors soldered onto the card). Maybe it is worth looking into. Here is the thread:
Re: Some Trio64V+ Cards significantly faster in Windows 98 than others?

I see now why i'm experimenting some flaws.

Apparently my S3 has two kinds of memory, two soldered samsung with 50ns, and two "elitemt" at 100mhz in a slot. The bus is 64 bits instead of some S3 trio of 32 bits, but mine appears to have discrepancies.

The key is:
-If 15MB/s of bandwidth -> bad S3.
-If 20MB/s of bandwidth -> good S3.

P.D: I'm reading about using UNIVBE + FASTVID to improve performance, i will keep in mind later.

Ah, and the way to flash the bios is through a program called "AFLASH.EXE", but needs a ".DAT" file, wich i don't see with the downloadable bios.

Now i have to go to work, tomorrow i will try something more.

Thanks to all!!

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-19, 17:43:

P.D: I'm reading about using UNIVBE + FASTVID to improve performance, i will keep in mind later.

I believe FastVid needs Pentium Pro or Pentium II at least. Original Pentium and Pentium MMX aren't supported as far as I know.

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-17, 15:11:

Generally i believe it underperforms a little... quake at 320x200 with 34fps should be numbers of a 486 dx4 100mhz system, or maybe i'm wrong.

OK, 320x200 is comparable with public benchmark results. Your system is still at least 18% slower though, for the same Pentium 200 (non-MMX) CPU this result on framebuffer.io shows 46.5 fps, though on a newer platform (Asus P5A-B, PC100 SDRAM, Matrox G400DH 32MB), while thandor.net shows 41.4fps on a 430VX (so more period correct). FWIW the Dell XPi CD M166ST I previously posted returned 37.9fps.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-12-19, 20:24:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-19, 17:43:

P.D: I'm reading about using UNIVBE + FASTVID to improve performance, i will keep in mind later.

I believe FastVid needs Pentium Pro or Pentium II at least. Original Pentium and Pentium MMX aren't supported as far as I know.

That's right, i just realized of that right now. Only MMX seems to support, but not completely.

However, seems like the SIS chipset has its own way to boost the bandwidth (well, not boost, but better used). It allows running the pci bus asynchronous, or something like that... the thing is if my bios is able to do this, so at that point, it turns mandatory to upgrade it as a last hope to achieving that.

jtchip wrote on 2025-12-20, 02:48:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-17, 15:11:

Generally i believe it underperforms a little... quake at 320x200 with 34fps should be numbers of a 486 dx4 100mhz system, or maybe i'm wrong.

OK, 320x200 is comparable with public benchmark results. Your system is still at least 18% slower though, for the same Pentium 200 (non-MMX) CPU this result on framebuffer.io shows 46.5 fps, though on a newer platform (Asus P5A-B, PC100 SDRAM, Matrox G400DH 32MB), while thandor.net shows 41.4fps on a 430VX (so more period correct). FWIW the Dell XPi CD M166ST I previously posted returned 37.9fps.

I think my aptiva has natively that underperforming due to that SIS chipset, and here little can be done.

I can scratch something with a 512KB L2 cache and UNIVBE, and, if with this i can get 38 or 39fps, really it could be the real limit of the aptiva's architecture, so it isn't that bad in the actual point. Always you can put a ET6000 for another 4fps, but too much spending for much less gain.

5 pages of crying and AI-hallucinations and NO ONE screenshot of SPEEDSYS and BIOS settings?! Nice!

I didn't notice- wasn't visible in photos - the cache on that board is a separate stick behind the cpu - is it asynchronous, or pipeline burst? While most Pentium boards came with PB some earlier ones also could just have asynchronous (you can usually tell just by looking) this could also be the reason for lower then average performance

Babasha wrote on 2025-12-20, 16:44:

5 pages of crying and AI-hallucinations and NO ONE screenshot of SPEEDSYS and BIOS settings?! Nice!

To be fair I think there was a speedsys shot though an updated one would be nice.

Yeah I agree - AI definitely isn't very helpful when it comes to this stuff. I feel it's like "customer support" that has been handed off to a call center in a 3rd world country - it will tell you anything to make you happy

bertrammatrix wrote on 2025-12-20, 18:18:

Babasha wrote on 2025-12-20, 16:44:

5 pages of crying and AI-hallucinations and NO ONE screenshot of SPEEDSYS and BIOS settings?! Nice!

To be fair I think there was a speedsys shot though an updated one would be nice.

I don't remember seeing one but it turns out it was posted on another thread which showed that it was mis-jumpered as 120MHz. This is why discussion should be kept to one thread and not pollute a different thread on benchmark results with troubleshooting questions.

In any case, another Speedsys screenshot would help (it has a built-in screenshot function instead of taking a photo).

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-20, 16:20:

I think my aptiva has natively that underperforming due to that SIS chipset, and here little can be done.

I can scratch something with a 512KB L2 cache and UNIVBE, and, if with this i can get 38 or 39fps, really it could be the real limit of the aptiva's architecture, so it isn't that bad in the actual point. Always you can put a ET6000 for another 4fps, but too much spending for much less gain.

I found another page comparing Quake results with a Pentium 133 and S3 Trio64V+ 2MB across different chipsets (about 2/3 way down). Extracting the results:

• i430FX 512K PB: 35.6
• i430HX 256K PB: 35.3
• i430FX 256K PB: 34.7
• SiS5511 512K PB: 31.7
• SiS5511 256K PB: 30.4
• i430FX 512K async: 29.8
• i430FX 256K async: 29.1

No results for SiS5511 with async L2 cache but if the i430FX results are anything to go by, another 20% improvement is possible, if you do have async cache. Doubling it to 512K only brings a very modest 2-4% (in line with other benchmarks).

UniVBE won't help here because 320x200 is a standard VGA mode, not a VBE one. FWIW, FastVID really need a Pentium Pro or II, a Pentium MMX isn't supported; it also doesn't help with VGA modes like 320x200 (some FastVID variants can enable write-combining on the VGA framebuffer but that can cause issues).

bertrammatrix wrote on 2025-12-20, 17:47:

I didn't notice- wasn't visible in photos - the cache on that board is a separate stick behind the cpu - is it asynchronous, or pipeline burst? While most Pentium boards came with PB some earlier ones also could just have asynchronous (you can usually tell just by looking) this could also be the reason for lower then average performance

It has sense, cause it would be one of the very first revisions of the motherboards, and so, is one of the oldest standards for memory and chipset.

The mistery could be solved with this (asynchronous cache, as you said). I will try with 15ns 512KB, maybe i would gain 3 or 4 extra fps.

bertrammatrix wrote on 2025-12-20, 18:18:

To be fair I think there was a speedsys shot though an updated one would be nice.

That's it, i posted some photos of speedsys and quake benchmark (not in this thread, but commented).

jtchip wrote on 2025-12-21, 01:58:

In any case, another Speedsys screenshot would help (it has a built-in screenshot function instead of taking a photo).

I took some photos just today, speedsys and chkcpu.