Is the pipeline burst cache in the 430FX responsible for the socket 7 clobbering its same-chipset, socket 5, older brother? Do you have any motherboards which allow for asynchronous SRAM and a PB COAST module on the same board? It would be interesting to see the changes with these benchmarks. Was there already a thread on this? /me thinks there was.
Were there any 430HX boards which allow one to plop in an AMD K6-3+ with just a BIOS mod and no interposer board? I suppose this was one of the glories of the 430TX.
Very nice work Vetz. You certainly have a nice stash of socket 5/7 boards. One day I'd like to run a similar comparison with my holdings of 486 and 386 motherboards.
Yes, basically the cache type has alot to say. If you look at the results my FIC PT-2003 board has been tested with 256kb, 512kb Pipeline Burst cache and 256kb async cache. I also have a ASUS P55 board (430FX) which supports both types of cache (COAST and DIP sockets), but the keyboard DIN plug has been damaged and needs to be replaced.
I believe the Gigabyta 586HX revision 2.0 and above supports the AMD K6-3+ with just a BIOS update (according to info on the web). I have the 1.56 which doesn't work 🙁 The problem is that you won't get 100mhz FSB. Maximum in a HX/TX is probably 83mhz. So if you're going to use a AMD K6-3+ to its fullest potential you need a SS7 board. If you're going to limit your build to a 233mhz MMX then by all means, go for a HX or TX board 😀
Thanks 😀 I'm mostly trying to find Socket 5 boards. I find the early Pentium boards interesting. It was a time when they were crazy expensive and most people used 386/486's.
I added the result I got during Phil's benchmark and now I'm looking forward to testing my two other boards based on 430HX and 4 […]
I added the result I got during Phil's benchmark and now I'm looking forward to testing my two other boards based on 430HX and 430TX chip sets.
Phil uses a different method for SUM of FPS.
It would be great to lock cells people are not supposed to change (Sum of fps, Doom FPS, etc.).
Cheers! Nice result from a 430FX board 😀
I know he uses a different method for SUM. He omits the 3DBench2 score. From my knowledge this was done because it created stranger results on some slower 386's and faster Pentium III+ machines. 3DBench2 is made for slow Pentiums so I felt omitting didn't fit for this benchmark test.
I've tried to lock the those cells, see if it works now. I don't have that much experience with Google Spreadsheets.
Can I request additional tests with the same CPU: The slowest the board is capable of with L1/ L2 caches enabled, using Turbo switch, if available. And fastest the board is capable with the same CPU overclocked.
That's 2 additional tests, maybe too many? Thought I'd mention it because I was just doing these tests for an AT build...
What do you mean, "the fastest with the CPU overclocked?" You want to overclock the Pentium 100 CPU? Or do you mean the fastest CPU you can use in the board?
Regarding slowest capable speeds, I*m doing a benchmark project on my Socket 5 boards since they can be slowed much more than the Socket 7's and give much more insight to how these boards can work as a very flexible substitute for a 486. I probably won't go back testing all the other boards right now though.
I only got AGP Matrox cards.
I'll test my AGP Matrox cards in a MVP3 and see how big the difference is.
As soon as I get my hands back on my mystique, i'll add the input (I guess P133 is 1.5x compatible)
My MB is socket 5, 430FX, 256KB PB.
Great! It should perform very well with that PB cache 😀 Rare to have a Socket 5 board with PB cache. I know they were available, but it was the most expensive option. Mostly Socket 5 430FX boards are just missing extra multiplier options to make them Socket 7 boards. For instance my ASUS board just goes up to 2.0x multipler, but the upgraded model the P55TP4 have up to 3.5x