Is it the weekend already?

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-07-13, 12:30:

Doornkaat wrote on 2021-07-13, 12:13:

I always considered the 430VX chipset Intel's lower end offering for 1996 given the decreased memory limits (128MB/64MB cacheable vs. 512/512 on the 430HX), no parity/ECC and absence/reduction of performance features present in the HX. It also lacks SMP (though of course that's irrelevant in single-CPU boards).
I don't think the board offers any OC settings either. It's still a decent board but would you really call it high end?

The VX doesn't support UDMA, does it?

Unless I'm missing something, the 430TX chipset is better than the VX in every way. Going for the HX makes sense if more than 64MB RAM is needed, but in most cases, a Win95 system would not benefit much from that.

Can't you get away with going beyond 64MB of RAM on a 430TX by using a K6 processor with L2 cache? Don't they use that as their own memory cache and allow you to cache all the way up to the boards electrical/physical limit?

I use 64MB on my 430TX system when I have a Pentium processor equipped, but I've been using 256MB when I have a K6-III+ socketed (256KB on-die L2).

speeddemon wrote on 2021-07-26, 17:50:

Can't you get away with going beyond 64MB of RAM on a 430TX by using a K6 processor with L2 cache? Don't they use that as their own memory cache and allow you to cache all the way up to the boards electrical/physical limit?

Sure, but you need a K6-2+ or a K6-3+ CPU for that, and those are not officially supported by the 430TX chipset.

You can get them to work using a modded BIOS, if your motherboard can supply the correct voltage, but that's more of an exception than the norm.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-07-26, 18:04:

speeddemon wrote on 2021-07-26, 17:50:

Can't you get away with going beyond 64MB of RAM on a 430TX by using a K6 processor with L2 cache? Don't they use that as their own memory cache and allow you to cache all the way up to the boards electrical/physical limit?

Sure, but you need a K6-2+ or a K6-3+ CPU for that, and those are not officially supported by the 430TX chipset.

You can get them to work using a modded BIOS, if your motherboard can supply the correct voltage, but that's more of an exception than the norm.

Great point. I am running a BIOS from here on my 430TX board to get my K6-III+ to work: http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/J.Steunebrink/k6plus.htm

It runs great though and is perfectly stable. I mostly am doing it so I can change the multiplier on the fly with setmul.

I am still waiting for some parts to arrive so I can complete this build.
It's going to be a nice Win95 era build.

430VX doesn't support UDMA33, but it does support a 16MB/sec DMA mode which is still way better than PIO. For drives of the period it really wasn't much a of a big deal. Same with the 64MB cacheable limit of the FX and VX. These boards were basically obsolete by the time more than 64MB was needed.

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2021-08-10, 07:52:

430VX doesn't support UDMA33, but it does support a 16MB/sec DMA mode which is still way better than PIO. For drives of the period it really wasn't much a of a big deal. Same with the 64MB cacheable limit of the FX and VX. These boards were basically obsolete by the time more than 64MB was needed.

Yes, Its not the fastest Win95 computer just a period correct build. For most DOS games I found the Pentium 75 is fast enough.
This computer will have 128mb ram, 512kb cache, Pentium 200mmx, and 7.2gb IDE hard drive.
I do have a 430tx board but it is dated 1998. And I have these VX boards just laying around so I wanted to do
Something with them.
I realize there are always limitations in everything we do so I just want to make the best of this motherboard build.

FIC PT-2006 Motherboard manual:
https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/motherboards/F/F … um-PT-2006.html

Okay, I have this setup with the Intel Pentium MMX-200mhz. CPU.
128mb of PC-133u ram
512kb system cache.
And a BIG CPU Cooler.

Should be a pretty good Win95 computer. Defiantly on the High end for its time.
This motherboard has 4 PCI slots as opposed to the other motherboard which only has 3 PCI slots.
The extra PCI slot will come in handy. 3 ISA slots is enough for testing ISA cards.
Mainly ISA sound cards. All the other cards will be PCI.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-08-11, 04:40:

Okay, I have this setup with the Intel Pentium MMX-200mhz. CPU.
128mb of PC-133u ram
512kb system cache.

Not sure why you'd want 128MB RAM on that rig when:

a) the VX chipset can't cache more than 64MB
b) most games from the Win95 era (i.e. released before 1998) won't benefit from having over 64MB
c) it was extremely uncommon for home users to have more than 64MB RAM at the time

Lastly, any game or application that actually needs more than 64MB will also likely require a faster CPU and/or graphics card.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-08-11, 09:08:

Not sure why you'd want 128MB RAM on that rig when: […]
Show full quote

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-08-11, 04:40:

Okay, I have this setup with the Intel Pentium MMX-200mhz. CPU.
128mb of PC-133u ram
512kb system cache.

Not sure why you'd want 128MB RAM on that rig when:

a) the VX chipset can't cache more than 64MB
b) most games from the Win95 era (i.e. released before 1998) won't benefit from having over 64MB
c) it was extremely uncommon for home users to have more than 64MB RAM at the time

Lastly, any game or application that actually needs more than 64MB will also likely require a faster CPU and/or graphics card.

The 128mb stick of ram came with the motherboard and from what I have read in the manual the max supported ram is 128mb.
So since it came with the motherboard I will try it. I don’t even know if it will work or not ?

Cross your fingers.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-08-11, 11:48:

The 128mb stick of ram came with the motherboard and from what I have read in the manual the max supported ram is 128mb.

The fact that the board supports 128MB RAM doesn't mean that the chipset can cache that much.

You'll experience a performance penalty when going over the cacheable amount.

Which in Windows 9x is immediately, since I believe it is loaded starting at the top of memory.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-08-11, 11:56:

You'll experience a performance penalty when going over the cacheable amount.

Is it noticeable ?

I’ll see if I can find a 64mb. Stick.
You guys are right. From what I remember 32mb of RAM was on the high side for Win95 computer.

I remember we use to compare an HP Pentium-150 desktop computer with 32mb of against a Sun Microsystems Ultra-1 with 256mb ram.
And the HP use to literally choke when trying to open large webpages back in 1997. It was funny.
It would attempt to open the large webpage and then just lockup because it ran out of memory.
We use to have to do all our work on the Ultra-1

xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-08-11, 14:32:

Is it noticeable ?

In my experience, under Win95 you get a performance drop from 10% to 30% depending on the game/application. IIRC, it was most noticeable in 3DMark 99.

That was on a 430TX motherboard. I don't have a VX board, but I imagine the results would be similar as both chipsets are closely related and have the same 64MB cacheable RAM limit.

Easy WIn95 build was NOT so easy after all.
I guess is you want an easy build use a strip down motherboard like this Acorp motherboard with NO USB or PS/2 port.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-08-12, 04:46:

Easy WIn95 build was NOT so easy after all.
I guess is you want an easy build use a strip down motherboard like this Acorp motherboard with NO USB or PS/2 port.

Not it's not. That's why most folk got them with the OS already installed and set up. Far too many options wrt hardware selection and finding the correct divers etc, etc ,etc.....

Then of course the constant rebooting when setting up hardware/software...

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-08-12, 12:01:

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-08-12, 04:46:

Easy WIn95 build was NOT so easy after all.
I guess is you want an easy build use a strip down motherboard like this Acorp motherboard with NO USB or PS/2 port.

Not it's not. That's why most folk got them with the OS already installed and set up. Far too many options wrt hardware selection and finding the correct divers etc, etc ,etc.....

Then of course the constant rebooting when setting up hardware/software...

Actually, with the cards I selected every thing installs great with supplied driver included in WIn95b install CD.
Only have to add Win95 Service pack 1 and USB driver support if you want USB to work.
I guess USB was more a Win98 thing.

This build is coming along great almost done.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2021-08-12, 12:31:

Actually, with the cards I selected every thing installs great with supplied driver included in WIn95b install CD.

IIRC, the AWE64 drivers are not installed properly by Win95 alone, at least with OSR2.1. It misidentifies the card as an AWE32 which results in some exclamation marks under Device Manager.

It's been a while since I reinstalled my Win95 system, but I think I had to use the driver CD of the AWE64 to get the card to function correctly.

Here is what I have so far and I have everything working.
I just need to clean everything up and do some cable management.