dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 17:20:

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-12, 08:11:

What do you guys think about this one?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296391270714?_skw
It does seem to have 512kb cache and supports EDO RAM, which is what I have.

Isn't that the same one you linked to right at the beginning of the thread? Shitty PC Chips quality, the VRMs have a tendency to melt down unexpectedly, destroying a lot of the other equipment on the board. I found a system with this motherboard out by the side of the street a while back. VRMs had died: CPU and RAM had died. PCI cards (supplied with 5V directly from the PSU, not 3.3V from the motherboard VRM) had survived. That netted me a nice Apocalypse3D PowerVR card. But the rest was dead as a doornail.

Nope, that was a different one. Thanks, I guess i will keep looking.

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-12, 18:40:

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 17:20:

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-12, 08:11:

What do you guys think about this one?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296391270714?_skw
It does seem to have 512kb cache and supports EDO RAM, which is what I have.

Isn't that the same one you linked to right at the beginning of the thread? Shitty PC Chips quality, the VRMs have a tendency to melt down unexpectedly, destroying a lot of the other equipment on the board. I found a system with this motherboard out by the side of the street a while back. VRMs had died: CPU and RAM had died. PCI cards (supplied with 5V directly from the PSU, not 3.3V from the motherboard VRM) had survived. That netted me a nice Apocalypse3D PowerVR card. But the rest was dead as a doornail.

Nope, that was a different one. Thanks, I guess i will keep looking.

You sure?

Link in OP: https://www.ebay.com/itm/296391270714
Link in your recent post: https://www.ebay.com/itm/296391270714?_skw

Both refer to eBay item number 296391270714

If you really want a Via VPX-based board located in the US, this would be a far better choice: https://www.ebay.com/itm/315695873061

Soyo also relabeled their chipsets, but their boards and components are far more solid.

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 21:03:

You sure? […]
Show full quote

You sure?

Link in OP: https://www.ebay.com/itm/296391270714
Link in your recent post: https://www.ebay.com/itm/296391270714?_skw

Both refer to eBay item number 296391270714

The latest one has new photos and new price, either relisted or a weird ebay error, because the OP item (priced $55) was in my watch list and it was marked as unavailable by the seller. Also, I do not believe the OP item was shipping from Arizona. Very strange, but I guess irrelevant at this point.

The mystery deepens, see screenshot of my watch list. If you hit 'view relisted item', indeed you arrive at the new listing. Different sellers, too.

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 21:03:

If you really want a Via VPX-based board located in the US, this would be a far better choice: https://www.ebay.com/itm/315695873061

The item is located in Ukraine. I'm not sure overseas travel is very conducive to arriving in one piece... The cheapest Soyo skt 7 I am seeing here is this one with 256Kb cache: https://www.ebay.com/itm/256578209231

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-12, 21:38:

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 21:03:

If you really want a Via VPX-based board located in the US, this would be a far better choice: https://www.ebay.com/itm/315695873061

The item is located in Ukraine. I'm not sure overseas travel is very conducive to arriving in one piece...

Looked like selling for USD... still, 'overseas' is hardly some magical threat - the biggest risks are always in the last mile.

The cheapest Soyo skt 7 I am seeing here is this one with 256Kb cache: https://www.ebay.com/itm/256578209231

That is a seriously good board, i430HX - and the 256kB cache is irrelevant with Intel chipset, particularly as it has a COAST slot. Add a COAST module (any size) with tag RAM and you can cache 512MB.

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 22:16:

That is a seriously good board, i430HX - and the 256kB cache is irrelevant with Intel chipset, particularly as it has a COAST slot. Add a COAST module (any size) with tag RAM and you can cache 512MB.

What about all the issues described here? COASt module misery

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 17:20:

Isn't that the same one you linked to right at the beginning of the thread? Shitty PC Chips quality, the VRMs have a tendency to melt down unexpectedly, destroying a lot of the other equipment on the board. I found a system with this motherboard out by the side of the street a while back. VRMs had died: CPU and RAM had died. PCI cards (supplied with 5V directly from the PSU, not 3.3V from the motherboard VRM) had survived. That netted me a nice Apocalypse3D PowerVR card. But the rest was dead as a doornail.

Damn, I didn't know how bad PCChips were. I guess I won't do any tests since I only have one CPU for Socket 7 (233MMX) and I'm afraid to kill it.

Well, after a supernice heads up from one of the members, I just made an offer on this, given what's in the description and what's in the actual photo: https://www.ebay.com/itm/365607490751

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-12, 22:57:

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 22:16:

That is a seriously good board, i430HX - and the 256kB cache is irrelevant with Intel chipset, particularly as it has a COAST slot. Add a COAST module (any size) with tag RAM and you can cache 512MB.

What about all the issues described here? COASt module misery

That's with a specific board with unusual implementation. As stated in that topic, most other i430HX boards (like the P55T2P4) accept just about any COAST stick.

ott wrote on 2025-08-13, 03:02:

[...]
Damn, I didn't know how bad PCChips were. I guess I won't do any tests since I only have one CPU for Socket 7 (233MMX) and I'm afraid to kill it.

They're not all that disastrous, the M537 is a specifically bad case. That said, poor build quality and cheap/underspecced parts is a common thread with PC Chips boards. Oh yes, and fake cache on slightly older ones too.

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-13, 04:46:

Well, after a supernice heads up from one of the members, I just made an offer on this, given what's in the description and what's in the actual photo: https://www.ebay.com/itm/365607490751

"Factory NIB" yeah right... not even the board listed on the box. That said, the FIC PA-2005 is a lot better than what is listed on the box, a rock solid (if not spectacularly highly performing) early So7 board, so if you get what's on the pic (and it works), you're getting quality.

That board has a Via VP1 chipset, so cacheable area is dependent on amount of cache. I can see only two of the four pads for cache are populated, so it's not 1MB. However I can't make out the chip markings to determine if the two chips on there are 1024kb or 2048kb units (for 256kB/512kB total). Can you?

dionb wrote on 2025-08-13, 08:34:

That board has a Via VP1 chipset, so cacheable area is dependent on amount of cache. I can see only two of the four pads for cache are populated, so it's not 1MB. However I can't make out the chip markings to determine if the two chips on there are 1024kb or 2048kb units (for 256kB/512kB total). Can you?

You mean these two? Extremely hard to see. I can request another photo from the seller. I don't think my bid won, but may try again, depending on the cache amount.

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-13, 08:50:

dionb wrote on 2025-08-13, 08:34:

That board has a Via VP1 chipset, so cacheable area is dependent on amount of cache. I can see only two of the four pads for cache are populated, so it's not 1MB. However I can't make out the chip markings to determine if the two chips on there are 1024kb or 2048kb units (for 256kB/512kB total). Can you?

You mean these two? Extremely hard to see. I can request another photo from the seller.

Yes, those. The top line has the model number on it. It's Etrontech, so it will start with "EM5", but I can only make out the last digits (...325-6 or ...326-6). Possibly the whole line could read EM531325-6, which does get some Google hits, but no datasheets or even clear product names, so it's probably not correct.

Edit: looked and found a better picture on theretroweb

It really is EM531325-6. There's just no info online about it 🙁 However looking at that name, I suspect it will be 32k x 32 PLB SRAM. 32k x 32 = 1024kb = 128kB, so suspect this is a 256kB cache board, which means max cacheable area with write-back caching of 64MB. If you have the option to select (slightly slower) write-through instead, you can cache 128MB with it - but reading the PA-2005 manual I don't see that option

dionb wrote on 2025-08-12, 22:16:

The cheapest Soyo skt 7 I am seeing here is this one with 256Kb cache: https://www.ebay.com/itm/256578209231

That is a seriously good board, i430HX - and the 256kB cache is irrelevant with Intel chipset, particularly as it has a COAST slot. Add a COAST module (any size) with tag RAM and you can cache 512MB.

Just FYI, the board in that listing is missing the second voltage regulator required for split-voltage CPUs.

dionb wrote on 2025-08-13, 09:12:

It really is EM531325-6. There's just no info online about it 🙁 However looking at that name, I suspect it will be 32k x 32 PLB SRAM. 32k x 32 = 1024kb = 128kB, so suspect this is a 256kB cache board, which means max cacheable area with write-back caching of 64MB. If you have the option to select (slightly slower) write-through instead, you can cache 128MB with it - but reading the PA-2005 manual I don't see that option

That's excellent sleuthing, seems consistent with what I found about that board (256KB by default), the seller sent me more photos, all as expected.
Upd: that motherboard is on its way to me. Fingers crossed it's what I expect and not what's in the description.

And, right after this new board was shipped to me, I fixed the original one by very deliberately removing an apparent short. And yes, the RTC chip mod works as well. I have no nail polish to seal the area. Can the "liquid skin" product be used instead?

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-14, 01:22:

And, right after this new board was shipped to me, I fixed the original one by very deliberately removing an apparent short. And yes, the RTC chip mod works as well. I have no nail polish to seal the area. Can the "liquid skin" product be used instead?

Great work!

No idea what 'liquid skin' is, so can't comment on that. Tbh wouldn't be too concerned with sealing everything - it's not like the RTC on your board is going to be out in the rain, or regularly touched/interacted with.

dionb wrote on 2025-08-14, 06:29:

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-14, 01:22:

And, right after this new board was shipped to me, I fixed the original one by very deliberately removing an apparent short. And yes, the RTC chip mod works as well. I have no nail polish to seal the area. Can the "liquid skin" product be used instead?

No idea what 'liquid skin' is, so can't comment on that. Tbh wouldn't be too concerned with sealing everything - it's not like the RTC on your board is going to be out in the rain, or regularly touched/interacted with.

The aftermath of my soldering shenanigans is kind of sad to see, not sure how long this board has to live now. But, everything works fine. I actually just discovered that the blue tint on the back of that ISA sound card isn't tint, it's the protective plastic film that's been there since 1995. The card now has a very shiny backplate!

So, the OP board seems to have a USB header and there is a BIOS enable switch. Is that real USB that could be tried with some sort of a front panel? I vaguely recall that win95 OSR supported USB and so did 98... is that correct?

multiplebaboons wrote on 2025-08-15, 02:34:

So, the OP board seems to have a USB header and there is a BIOS enable switch. Is that real USB that could be tried with some sort of a front panel? I vaguely recall that win95 OSR supported USB and so did 98... is that correct?

It's real USB - although real USB 1.0 which limits both throughput and compatibility vs the more widely adopted later USB 1.1. Note that the pinout of the headers was not yet standardized this early on, so don't assume any 'regular' USB bracket will work without modification. Find documentation - and double-check which pin gives +5V with a multimeter to avoid unpleasant surprises.

As for USB under Win95 and Win98... Win95 OSR2 (not OSR1) theoretically supported it, but finding working Win95 device drivers for just about anything is going to be fun. HID (mice&keyboards) work and there are some mass storage drivers for USB sticks, but YMMV. Win98SE is a bit better - USB support is in there by default, as are HID drivers. Most period-correct USB devices will have Win98SE drivers; Win98SE doesn't have built-in mass storage (i.e. USB stick) support, but drivers are available.

In BSD it's much simpler: the controller is an Intel UHCI USB controller and will work out the box if the BSD version you are using supports USB - i.e. at least version 3.1 (though still with USB 1.0 hardware limitations). Linux is a bit more complicated: in later 2.2 kernels limited USB support was present, but no USB storage, for example. Full USB support came in kernel 2.4.

dionb wrote on 2025-08-15, 10:47:

It's real USB - although real USB 1.0 which limits both throughput and compatibility vs the more widely adopted later USB 1.1. Note that the pinout of the headers was not yet standardized this early on, so don't assume any 'regular' USB bracket will work without modification. Find documentation - and double-check which pin gives +5V with a multimeter to avoid unpleasant surprises.

As for USB under Win95 and Win98... Win95 OSR2 (not OSR1) theoretically supported it, but finding working Win95 device drivers for just about anything is going to be fun. HID (mice&keyboards) work and there are some mass storage drivers for USB sticks, but YMMV. Win98SE is a bit better - USB support is in there by default, as are HID drivers. Most period-correct USB devices will have Win98SE drivers; Win98SE doesn't have built-in mass storage (i.e. USB stick) support, but drivers are available.

In BSD it's much simpler: the controller is an Intel UHCI USB controller and will work out the box if the BSD version you are using supports USB - i.e. at least version 3.1 (though still with USB 1.0 hardware limitations). Linux is a bit more complicated: in later 2.2 kernels limited USB support was present, but no USB storage, for example. Full USB support came in kernel 2.4.

Thanks for pointing out the lack of standard on the pinout, etc. I am much more inclined to install Windows. I mean, it is already running 95, because I hooked up the original hard drive. 😉