amijim wrote:

Hello.It seems that the tillamook needs 64x32 memory modules.Gona can uou make a photo of the working pc chips cache modules and the aristo non working? Can you also upload fotos of working and non working cache modules?My qdi seems to have the um613264f which are 64x32 modules.Still waiting for my tillamook.I have an asus 430hx t55t2p4 board as well and i will test this as well.
https://ibb.co/jPSO3y
https://ibb.co/k1egqd

The 64x32 itself is not enough because my ASUS TX97-XE is also has 64x32 (by TM), boot with Tillamook but no L2.
Here it is the UT6164C32Q-6 (the picture about the UMC 64x64 chip on my Aristo VPX board I will send you in PM).

Hello there,still i could not test my tillamook inmy qdi titanium iiib but i was reading about a software caller wpcredit which changes the chipset parameters so i would like to ask you to compare the working and the non working pcr files? Gona can you please make me pcr files from both working and non working mobos? I will have access to my hardware by next week.thank you.
http://www.overclockers.com/wpcredit/

How can you make PCR file? I can make only RG and REG files.

Goodmorning Gona , Can you make rg and reg output files from both Aristo and the working drive to compare?I would like a copy of al files to compare also.thank you.

Here you are.

Hello Vogonians.At last i had the opportunity to play a little with the tillamook.I got interesting results.First of all i am using a qdi titanium iiib mobo based on intel 430tx.First of all the speedeasy jumperless software identifies the cpu as a 3,3 vcore cpu.Unfortunately i did not try any software to double check the vcore.Second it seems that i have a 4x multi .no bf0 bf2 mod has been done.Fsb is forced at 66mhz.
L2 is disabled .i am using an unreleased janberg bios.What do you suggest ? Win98 feels pretty smooth.I benchmarked it with sysid.Can you try the same sysid with both aristo and pc chips mobos? More tests nextt week.
https://ibb.co/g3a8po
https://ibb.co/k3r7X8
https://ibb.co/k51kKo
https://ibb.co/bHhgs8

Aristo not interested by me. Here it is the PcPhips.
By memory results, your system is faster.

This config with disabled L2 has very similar results. Only the "MMX" result decrises to "407".

Hello Gona.I would like to ask you if you have 4x multiplyer on 66mhz or 3,5 on 75mhz bus.Also do you think we should benchmark the tillamook with games with l2 enabled and disabled?

This is 4x 66MHz (SysId not detect FSB on my system, this maybe because the Powerleap adaptor).
Good idea, but a game benchmarking we need to use similar videocard or 3D accelerator and same type/speed and size memory (like 512MB PC133 7.5ns SDRAM). If you have Voodoo1 card (that mach for these systems), GLQuake would be good for benchmatking. Or testing Direct3D by 3Dmark 99 or Final Reality benchmarks were available that times, or testing by Direct3D game - as I read - Turok would be good.

How fast can you clock the Tillamook - is it able to do 400?

Hello there,i have 256mb ram,though only 64 is cached and a voodoo1 with permedia 2. I would suggest the glquake benchmark demo.I have seen reports that the l2 cache does not influence the speed in these systems.Only glquake will give us some numbers.Shall we try 3,5 x 66 on both pentium mmx and the same for tillamook? Maybe 4x66 and 4*75 and 4*83?

amadeus777999 wrote:

How fast can you clock the Tillamook - is it able to do 400?

Without L2 I don't know, but now I have tested with L2 and 300MHz is not stable, Win98SE has frozen at boot.

amijim wrote:

Hello there,i have 256mb ram,though only 64 is cached and a voodoo1 with permedia 2. I would suggest the glquake benchmark demo.I have seen reports that the l2 cache does not influence the speed in these systems.Only glquake will give us some numbers.Shall we try 3,5 x 66 on both pentium mmx and the same for tillamook? Maybe 4x66 and 4*75 and 4*83?

OK. 256MB, no soundcard, Win98SE, GLQuake 1997-11-14 (glq1114.exe) on Voodoo1 (with Win98SE built in driver), 640x480, timedemo 3.
I will make only Tillamook 266 (4x66) with and without L2 cache but on your Intel TX chipset board the Pentium MMX 233 would be interesting too.
Might I will test the Tillamook without L2 cache on some latest Super7 cshipsets too.

Okey ,lets do this.Why not use the latest reference driver?May 1999 - Latest Reference driver
​Voodoo Graphics Driver kit Version: 3.01.00
I will test both pentium mmx at 3.5x 66 and 3.5x 75mhz and tillamook at the same speed including the 4 x 83mhz .I will bench both 64mb and 256mb ram.I will benchmark the configurations with sisoft sandra .Stay tuned.

amijim wrote:

Why not use the latest reference driver?May 1999 - Latest Reference driver
​Voodoo Graphics Driver kit Version: 3.01.00

Sometimes built in drivers are faster. I will test both of them.

Gona wrote:

amijim wrote:

Why not use the latest reference driver?May 1999 - Latest Reference driver
​Voodoo Graphics Driver kit Version: 3.01.00

Sometimes built in drivers are faster. I will test both of them.

OK, Win98SE built in driver (mm3dfx.drv - 4.10.1598) with Glide 2.31 got full the same results as Voodoo Graphics Driver kit Version: 3.01.00 so I will use this reference driver too.
Here is my result for Tillamook 266 in PC Chips M537-DMA33 (working L2); 256 PC133 7.5ns SDRAM; Voodoo1; Win98SE:

GLQuake 0.97 "Timedemo demo3" 27.0 FPS (40.3 sometimes 40.4 seconds)

I have tested these with disabled L2 cache too and I got the same results! SysId has showed that this system is only a littlebit faster with enabled L2 cache, so faster motherboards must gives better results even without L2 cache as the PC Chips M537-DMA33 with L2 cache! Intel TX also must be faster! I will test my Intel TX board also and 3 Super Socket 7 boards too.

What is the Quake score with and without L2 enabled? If the results are about the same, perhaps the L2 cache isn't being used properly. Do you have the Speedsys graph with L2 enabled?

feipoa wrote:

What is the Quake score with and without L2 enabled? If the results are about the same, perhaps the L2 cache isn't being used properly. Do you have the Speedsys graph with L2 enabled?

Both with or without L2 gives 27.0 FPS (40.3 sometimes 40.4 seconds), nothing difference. In the earlier test, the SysId show a little advantage of the L2 cache enabled: memory MMX 409 vs. 407 (I have repeated this test with the same results: 409 vs. 407). I think the L2 cache is works but too slow to be able to give advantage for the 266MHz Tillamook (as my VIA MVP3 board has not enough fast cache and K6-III+ 550MHz is faster without L2 cache).
I have downgraded the Tillamook as slow as I can (2x50MHz) and I have made Speedsys graphs with enabled and disabled level 2 cache. It seems to me L2 is works.

I have seen similar results with a piece of junk PC Chips M918 motherboard. If I slow everything down, I see a cache step in Speedsys, however if I run it at full speed, the cache does nothing. Other motherboards of the same chipset do not exhibit this problem, so I believe there is a cache implementation issue with the motherboard. I wonder if the issue you are having is similar, that is, the cache isn't being fully utilised.

Hello Gona,can you benchmark the bigass demo ?Also i looked at your speedsys mem benchmarks and i saw about 128mb per sec for l2 and 94mb per sec for the sdram.I am now playing with award edit software to give lower values cas and mem parameters down to 1 so as to overclock a little the mem access.I believe we can reach the l2 speeds so as to make the l2 mem unecessary.Of course i am using pc133 memory modules.