Thanks for the revision summary. I also noticed that 2.1 has no hardware monitoring in the BIOS.

How do you tell if a board is 2MB or 1MB cache? if it has the same chips filled like 1MB/2MB in the manual:

The spec of Cache chips should tell about the total cache capacity, both of my PA-2013 MOBOs has 4 cache chips, the one contains cache chips W25P222A-4F, it's 32Kx64bit means total 1MB cache ( 32 x 64 x 4 / 8 = 1024KB ), the other one is Rev2.1 with 2.0- E-O036 mark and contains cache chips T35L6432A-4.5Q, it's 32Kx64bit and get total 1MB cache also.

aigeek wrote:

The spec of Cache chips should tell about the total cache capacity, both of my PA-2013 MOBOs has 4 cache chips, the one contains cache chips W25P222A-4F, it's 32Kx64bit means total 1MB cache ( 32 x 64 x 4 / 8 = 1024KB ), the other one is Rev2.1 with 2.0- E-O036 mark and contains cache chips T35L6432A-4.5Q, it's 32Kx64bit and get total 1MB cache also.

Thanks! I think mine is the 2MB version then since the part number is MC803128K32L on Rev 2.1, though doubt it would make a huge difference in my current build with a K6-2.

svfn wrote on 2019-08-13, 11:12:

aigeek wrote:

The spec of Cache chips should tell about the total cache capacity, both of my PA-2013 MOBOs has 4 cache chips, the one contains cache chips W25P222A-4F, it's 32Kx64bit means total 1MB cache ( 32 x 64 x 4 / 8 = 1024KB ), the other one is Rev2.1 with 2.0- E-O036 mark and contains cache chips T35L6432A-4.5Q, it's 32Kx64bit and get total 1MB cache also.

Thanks! I think mine is the 2MB version then since the part number is MC803128K32L on Rev 2.1, though doubt it would make a huge difference in my current build with a K6-2.

As I know, the onboard cache is L3 with K6-III+, so it's no longer the key to determining maximum cacheable RAM.
I always prefer run Quake TIMEDEMO DEMO1 in pure DOS with default resolution 320x200 to get the true, but I still have no luck to get a 2MB motherboard to compare ^&^

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2018-11-03, 19:56:

After some research I've decided to debunk some myths about revisions. […]
Show full quote

After some research I've decided to debunk some myths about revisions.

- Revsion 2.0 and 2.1 have practically identical VRM, so both are AGP friendly.
- Revision 2.1 is the only one with additional "2.0 E-0036" PCB marking and color coded back panel (PC99 standard).
- Revision 2.0 and 2,1 may or may not have LM78 monitoring (usually don't).
- Revision 1.x have different battery and PLL placement, also additional PLL for some reason.
- Revision 1.x usually comes with LM78 monitoring.
- Revsions 1.x VRM can be easily identified by 3 large capacitors at the top left corner (both 2.0 and 2.1 have 4).
- Apparently some or all 2mb cache versions are not very good for overclocking due to worse cache quality (125mhz vs 100mhz).

Just wanted to give this a bump for some additional info. I had read your post and then I saw a picture of this 2.0 board on TheRetroWeb, and it has a 2.0 E-O036 sticker under the northbridge. It doesn't have this marking directly on the PCB (or the color coded back panel) as you mentioned, but if someone is trying to figure out what version their board is, it is worth mentioning that those numbers may appear in sticker form on the 2.0 as well.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-12-21, 01:32:

Just wanted to give this a bump for some additional info. I had read your post and then I saw a picture of this 2.0 board on TheRetroWeb, and it has a 2.0 E-O036 sticker under the northbridge. It doesn't have this marking directly on the PCB (or the color coded back panel) as you mentioned, but if someone is trying to figure out what version their board is, it is worth mentioning that those numbers may appear in sticker form on the 2.0 as well.

Might as well cross link here: Re: FIC PA-2013 2.0 vs 2.1