It's a tualatin board.
It's pretty rare for anyone in that era to have bothered with a triple ppga, fcpga, fcpga2 compatible board.

The pinouts are fairly different. Enough that the enable pin is shorted to ground so the chip won't even start.

myne wrote on 2025-06-09, 09:33:

It's pretty rare for anyone in that era to have bothered with a triple ppga, fcpga, fcpga2 compatible board.

Thank you, given it has the CPU µCode I find this rather surprising.

It's not real issue for me as I only whished to check what is in MSR 0x011E (BBL_CR_CTL3) for a Mendocino. With a bit of luck someone with a Mendocino running Windows NT/2K/XP will you post SIV save files, I have very old ones, generate before BBL_CR_CTL3 was saved.

red-ray wrote on 2025-06-09, 10:40:

With a bit of luck someone with a Mendocino running Windows NT/2K/XP will you post SIV save files

Would these work?

A crudely put together test platform, Mendocino 466 + 440LX

Note: The motherboard is a MS-6160 but it's running the latest (1.6, ~2000) MS-6159 BIOS, with just the PCI routing table edited to suit.
Note2: MS-6160 and MS-6159 are essentially the same board, but the 60 has an AGP slot, while the 59 has an onboard Rage Pro
Note3: Despite being ACPI capable and actually ACPI working (that's why I updated the bios) XP installed a Standard PC HAL, but I only noticed shutting down after the test. If it's important I'll reinstall with the ACPI HAL.

If you need more tests please let me know

andrea wrote on 2025-06-09, 16:11:

[Note3: Despite being ACPI capable and actually ACPI working (that's why I updated the bios) XP installed a Standard PC HAL, but I only noticed shutting down after the test. If it's important I'll reinstall with the ACPI HAL.

Thank you, the save files tell me what I wished to know, on the initial screen there is Range 4GB which comes from MSR 0x011E.

For what I wished to know the HAL does not matter. If you wish to change the HAL I think you can just use Device Manager to select the ACPI HAL for the device within Computer .

I seem to recall WXP RTM was quite buggy, do you plan to install the service packs?

I'm not planning on keeping it built to be honest, it was some spare components quickly put together.

As for why XP RTM I chose it because it was going to be the least slow build of XP on this hardware, and I didn't want to bother with finding graphics drivers for 2k.
But if it were a permanent build then W2k all the way.

andrea wrote on 2025-06-09, 19:26:

W2k all the way.

OK and thank you again for generating the save files for me. I tend to run 2003 server on many of my older systems as it better handles multiple graphics cards better than 2000 does.