"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:m8hlf15e019gpe78e04jhg3av4204dgb55@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:30:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >The manual is not too helpful:-
> >
> >"Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline Burst
> >Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.
>
> OK, what's wrong with that?
I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
>
> >
> >I can't find anything in the manual to enable cache for the K6, I get the
> >impression
> >it cannot be done.
>
> You don't seem to be grasping something- you do NOT need to
> "enable the cache for the K6". The cache was already
> enabled the whole time, there is no "enabling" to do.
But I have to disable the pipeline burst bit which seems to disable the
cache altogeather as AIDA32 shows no L2 cache for the K6-2
>
>
> > There are no more jumper setting mentioned and nothing
> >I could do in the BIOS when I booted with the K6.
> >I will try looking at the BIOS with the Cyrix.
> >Maybe a BIOS upgrade might help.
> >
>
> Help with what?
> There are ONLY five things you need(ed) to do to go from
> (having done nothing, right after you made your very first
> post) to being finished:
>
> 1) Buy a 450MHz+ K6-2
> 2) Install it and the heatsink/fan.
> 3) Set jumpers for voltage, multiplier, and FSB. Any other
> jumpers should remain the same, the jumpers should look
> identical to how they would if you had a Pentium 133 MMX
> installed, except voltage would be 2.2V or 2.4V (as stamped
> on the K6-2).
> 4) Run CPU-Z to confirm speed and Sisoft Sandra to check
> performance.
>
> The entire process takes a little under 30 minutes, I can't
> understand why you're making something easy, so difficult.
It didn't take that long it just was not stable at many settings.and
when it crashes it takes a long time to reboot/scandisk on the wrong
speed/slow speed.
As for benchmarks it is whether it will do what I want it to do
in the real world which matters most.
I doubt the 450 CPU would be stable in my system anyway, it has
enough trouble with the 300.
>
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:43:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:m8hlf15e019gpe78e04jhg3av4204dgb55@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:30:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The manual is not too helpful:-
>> >
>> >"Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline Burst
>> >Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.
>>
>> OK, what's wrong with that?
>
>I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
Then you have jumped to a conclusion without any reason to
do so. The cache will be enabled, no matter what CPU,
unless you take specific steps to "disable" it. Since you
haven't disabled it, it is still being used.
As I'd mentioned already, you need to test the cache by
benchmarking. Do not guess about the potential for a
problem, benchmark and focus on any problems factually
shown.
>> You don't seem to be grasping something- you do NOT need to
>> "enable the cache for the K6". The cache was already
>> enabled the whole time, there is no "enabling" to do.
>
>But I have to disable the pipeline burst bit which seems to disable the
>cache altogeather as AIDA32 shows no L2 cache for the K6-2
There is no L2 on a K6-2, but that does not mean there is no
L2 on the board itself. AIDA will not report an L2 on a
board is an L2 on a CPU, apparently, and rightly so because
it ISN'T on the CPU. The jumper does NOT appear to disable
the cache.
Read slowly and carefully, this is the last time I"m going
to tell you:
The board always uses L2 cache unless you see a VERY
specific setting that "DISABLES L2 CACHE". If there is any
other description of Cyrix or Write-Back, Write-through,
etc, etc, it is NOT disabling the L2 cache.
With cache benchmarks it is quite easy to see not only
whether cache is enabled but how much. There is a plateau
that drops off on a graph beyond the cache size. Sisoft
Sandra.
>> The entire process takes a little under 30 minutes, I can't
>> understand why you're making something easy, so difficult.
>
>It didn't take that long it just was not stable at many settings.and
>when it crashes it takes a long time to reboot/scandisk on the wrong
>speed/slow speed.
It did take that long, including the newsgroup posts. I
really meant "total" time, including ordering, receiving,
heatsink compound, reading the manual to get jumper
settings, benchmarking, etc, etc.
>As for benchmarks it is whether it will do what I want it to do
>in the real world which matters most.
Yes but the benchmark is the indicator of proper function,
including the L2 cache. As for whether it will "do what you
want", that depends on the performance potential of the
part, and was why the original suggestion included mention
that it may not be worthwhile, contrasted with a new(er)
system.
>I doubt the 450 CPU would be stable in my system anyway, it has
>enough trouble with the 300.
It usually is stable. I've upgraded dozens if not over 100
old pre-"super" socket 7 boards to run K6-2 CPUs. You had
it easy, sometimes it requires guessing and checking voltage
levels with a multimeter to come up with the correct jumpers
for ~ 2.2-2.4V because many boards came close (enough) to
that target but didn't list any settings not (then used at
the time of creating the manual) applicable to any earlier
socket 7 CPUs.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8jdnf154g8cmpei9l87bnv23af4dffmj4e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:43:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:m8hlf15e019gpe78e04jhg3av4204dgb55@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:30:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> >> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >The manual is not too helpful:-
> >> >
> >> >"Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline Burst
> >> >Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.
> >>
> >> OK, what's wrong with that?
> >
> >I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
>
> Then you have jumped to a conclusion without any reason to
> do so.
Apart from the AIDA reporting no L2 cache, if there was L2
cache why not says so?
Actually I have just looked again and under 'chipset' (not
a great title it does say 512 cache for the cryix, I will have to
put the K6 back in and see what it says for that. I now
expect it will say I have 512 L2 cache too, but not pipeline
burst.
>The cache will be enabled, no matter what CPU,
> unless you take specific steps to "disable" it. Since you
> haven't disabled it, it is still being used.
>
> As I'd mentioned already, you need to test the cache by
> benchmarking. Do not guess about the potential for a
> problem, benchmark and focus on any problems factually
> shown.
>
>
> >> You don't seem to be grasping something- you do NOT need to
> >> "enable the cache for the K6". The cache was already
> >> enabled the whole time, there is no "enabling" to do.
> >
> >But I have to disable the pipeline burst bit which seems to disable the
> >cache altogeather as AIDA32 shows no L2 cache for the K6-2
>
> There is no L2 on a K6-2, but that does not mean there is no
> L2 on the board itself. AIDA will not report an L2 on a
> board is an L2 on a CPU, apparently, and rightly so because
> it ISN'T on the CPU. The jumper does NOT appear to disable
> the cache.
OK the L2 cache is listed under 'Chipset', not a great place to put
it.
>
> Read slowly and carefully, this is the last time I"m going
> to tell you:
>
> The board always uses L2 cache unless you see a VERY
> specific setting that "DISABLES L2 CACHE". If there is any
> other description of Cyrix or Write-Back, Write-through,
> etc, etc, it is NOT disabling the L2 cache.
>
> With cache benchmarks it is quite easy to see not only
> whether cache is enabled but how much. There is a plateau
> that drops off on a graph beyond the cache size. Sisoft
> Sandra.
I have that Software now, had to do another download to get it
to run. (MDAC whatever that is)
I am not sure I can save reports, I cant find the ones I made,
that option might be disabled, maybe I can cut and paste them (nope).
>
>
>
> >> The entire process takes a little under 30 minutes, I can't
> >> understand why you're making something easy, so difficult.
> >
> >It didn't take that long it just was not stable at many settings.and
> >when it crashes it takes a long time to reboot/scandisk on the wrong
> >speed/slow speed.
>
> It did take that long, including the newsgroup posts. I
> really meant "total" time, including ordering, receiving,
> heatsink compound, reading the manual to get jumper
> settings, benchmarking, etc, etc.
>
>
> >As for benchmarks it is whether it will do what I want it to do
> >in the real world which matters most.
>
> Yes but the benchmark is the indicator of proper function,
> including the L2 cache. As for whether it will "do what you
> want", that depends on the performance potential of the
> part, and was why the original suggestion included mention
> that it may not be worthwhile, contrasted with a new(er)
> system.
>
> >I doubt the 450 CPU would be stable in my system anyway, it has
> >enough trouble with the 300.
>
>
> It usually is stable. I've upgraded dozens if not over 100
> old pre-"super" socket 7 boards to run K6-2 CPUs. You had
> it easy, sometimes it requires guessing and checking voltage
> levels with a multimeter to come up with the correct jumpers
> for ~ 2.2-2.4V because many boards came close (enough) to
> that target but didn't list any settings not (then used at
> the time of creating the manual) applicable to any earlier
> socket 7 CPUs.
Main problem was I was trying to run at 75mhz I think, didn't
seem that much higher than 66 (to me). Then all the crashes and
scandisks at about 100 Mhz, very slow.
I will try it again at 4X66 which seemed stable.
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:wjPKe.3585$6i5.3324@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:8jdnf154g8cmpei9l87bnv23af4dffmj4e@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:43:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> > <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> > >news:m8hlf15e019gpe78e04jhg3av4204dgb55@4ax.com.. .
> > >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:30:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> > >> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >The manual is not too helpful:-
> > >> >
> > >> >"Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline
Burst
> > >> >Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.
> > >>
> > >> OK, what's wrong with that?
> > >
> > >I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
> >
> > Then you have jumped to a conclusion without any reason to
> > do so.
>
> Apart from the AIDA reporting no L2 cache, if there was L2
> cache why not says so?
> Actually I have just looked again and under 'chipset' (not
> a great title it does say 512 cache for the cryix, I will have to
> put the K6 back in and see what it says for that. I now
> expect it will say I have 512 L2 cache too, but not pipeline
> burst.
>
> >The cache will be enabled, no matter what CPU,
> > unless you take specific steps to "disable" it. Since you
> > haven't disabled it, it is still being used.
> >
> > As I'd mentioned already, you need to test the cache by
> > benchmarking. Do not guess about the potential for a
> > problem, benchmark and focus on any problems factually
> > shown.
> >
> >
> > >> You don't seem to be grasping something- you do NOT need to
> > >> "enable the cache for the K6". The cache was already
> > >> enabled the whole time, there is no "enabling" to do.
> > >
> > >But I have to disable the pipeline burst bit which seems to disable the
> > >cache altogeather as AIDA32 shows no L2 cache for the K6-2
> >
> > There is no L2 on a K6-2, but that does not mean there is no
> > L2 on the board itself. AIDA will not report an L2 on a
> > board is an L2 on a CPU, apparently, and rightly so because
> > it ISN'T on the CPU. The jumper does NOT appear to disable
> > the cache.
>
> OK the L2 cache is listed under 'Chipset', not a great place to put
> it.
>
> >
> > Read slowly and carefully, this is the last time I"m going
> > to tell you:
> >
> > The board always uses L2 cache unless you see a VERY
> > specific setting that "DISABLES L2 CACHE". If there is any
> > other description of Cyrix or Write-Back, Write-through,
> > etc, etc, it is NOT disabling the L2 cache.
> >
> > With cache benchmarks it is quite easy to see not only
> > whether cache is enabled but how much. There is a plateau
> > that drops off on a graph beyond the cache size. Sisoft
> > Sandra.
>
>
> I have that Software now, had to do another download to get it
> to run. (MDAC whatever that is)
> I am not sure I can save reports, I cant find the ones I made,
> that option might be disabled, maybe I can cut and paste them (nope).
> >
> >
> >
> > >> The entire process takes a little under 30 minutes, I can't
> > >> understand why you're making something easy, so difficult.
> > >
> > >It didn't take that long it just was not stable at many settings.and
> > >when it crashes it takes a long time to reboot/scandisk on the wrong
> > >speed/slow speed.
> >
> > It did take that long, including the newsgroup posts. I
> > really meant "total" time, including ordering, receiving,
> > heatsink compound, reading the manual to get jumper
> > settings, benchmarking, etc, etc.
> >
> >
> > >As for benchmarks it is whether it will do what I want it to do
> > >in the real world which matters most.
> >
> > Yes but the benchmark is the indicator of proper function,
> > including the L2 cache. As for whether it will "do what you
> > want", that depends on the performance potential of the
> > part, and was why the original suggestion included mention
> > that it may not be worthwhile, contrasted with a new(er)
> > system.
> >
> > >I doubt the 450 CPU would be stable in my system anyway, it has
> > >enough trouble with the 300.
> >
> >
> > It usually is stable. I've upgraded dozens if not over 100
> > old pre-"super" socket 7 boards to run K6-2 CPUs. You had
> > it easy, sometimes it requires guessing and checking voltage
> > levels with a multimeter to come up with the correct jumpers
> > for ~ 2.2-2.4V because many boards came close (enough) to
> > that target but didn't list any settings not (then used at
> > the time of creating the manual) applicable to any earlier
> > socket 7 CPUs.
>
> Main problem was I was trying to run at 75mhz I think, didn't
> seem that much higher than 66 (to me). Then all the crashes and
> scandisks at about 100 Mhz, very slow.
> I will try it again at 4X66 which seemed stable.
Well where should I start, I ran a load of benchmaks on the cyrix
from Sandra.
Switched to K6, fail to boot (reboooted itself), check jumpers, all OK,
checked CPU, cleaned new thermal blob. Retried gain still at 4X66,
booted OK **BUT** it took 4:12 minutes to boot almost twice as long
as cyrix at 2:10.
So no point in benchmarking that it's obviously useless!!
AIDA reports 512 external cache enabled, sync pipeline burst.
One other thing from http://www.uktsupport.co.uk/pb/mb/850.htm
PCI/ CPU Bus Synch.
JP18 1-2 Asynch. (CPU Bus Speed at 75 MHz)
2-3 Synch. (CPU Bus Speed 66.6 MHz or less)
So I am going to try the 2-3 setting as I am at 66.6Mhz
Anyhowits not looking good, something is seriously wrong the
boot was just too slow.
> Well where should I start, I ran a load of benchmaks on the cyrix
> from Sandra.
> Switched to K6, fail to boot (reboooted itself), check jumpers, all OK,
> checked CPU, cleaned new thermal blob. Retried gain still at 4X66,
> booted OK **BUT** it took 4:12 minutes to boot almost twice as long
> as cyrix at 2:10.
> So no point in benchmarking that it's obviously useless!!
> AIDA reports 512 external cache enabled, sync pipeline burst.
>
> One other thing from
> http://www.uktsupport.co.uk/pb/mb/850.htm
> PCI/ CPU Bus Synch.
> JP18 1-2 Asynch. (CPU Bus Speed at 75 MHz)
> 2-3 Synch. (CPU Bus Speed 66.6 MHz or less)
>
> So I am going to try the 2-3 setting as I am at 66.6Mhz
>
> Anyhowits not looking good, something is seriously wrong the
> boot was just too slow.
>
>
> FRom sandra multimedia bench
>
> int float
>
> cyr 646 124
> k6 1414 1729
>
> So K6 faster here
OK... I tried the new J18 setting (sync/async) and rebooted, it rebooted in
2:23 which is OK but a little slower than the 2:11 for the cyrix, but 'not
bad',
and fairlt proportional to the bus speed ratio 66/75 =0.88 (131s/143s)
=0.91.
However I think it has booted at a similar speed before without the J18
change
so I am not sure of the reason why.
Donald McTrevor wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:37iff1lsdssfiv619o54nohsrjn7a7sm0s@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:04:37 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't see why we should doubt the figures as I a sure they would
>>> have been questioned if the results looked wong.
>>
>> They are being questioned, there are far too many benchmarks
>> to count, that directly contradict the 'site you linked.
>
> Really? Well I struggled to find them with google, I even posted here
> earlier, requesting benchmarks (without any replies).
> If any one can post benchmarks to contradict the site please do!!
"Benchmark Marathon: 65 CPUs from 100MHz to 3066MHz".
While they don't actually benchmark your particular CPU they do include the
K6-2 500 (CPU#1). Also they don't include the PIII 933 so I'll use the PII
800 (CPU#2) for comparative purposes:
On the Multimedia PC Mark 2002 benchmark CPU#1 got 725, CPU#2 got 2194
On the PC Mark 2002 memory access benchmark CPU#1 got 683 and CPU#2 got 2405
(Keep in mind that CPU#1 is in fact a lot faster than yours and CPU#2 is
slower than the one you're crowing about yours being better than).
Etcetera. Read it yourself.
Tom's Hardware is a pretty reputable site
> If they were incorrect I imagine it would have been spotted now,
> after several years!!
Probably been laughed at for years. I see you've used it to make yourself
feel happy about your purchase. Therefore the site has it's uses.
> If you still doubt them why not drop them an email?
> mailto:webmaster@cpu-world.com
And spoil it for people who want to feel good about buying junk? Why would I
do that? ;-)
>>> Anyway the 300mhz K6/2 I bought for a £1 out performed the PIII
>>> 933mhz!! So I am happy,
See? You're happy! That's the main thing. It's a shame to spoil that with
hard evidence. Sorry.
>> On average a properly configured P3 box will be over 50%
>> faster, sometimes over 100% faster. So long as you're happy
>> though, I suppose that's what matters in the end.
>
> Well yes but you cannot compare CPU's running in boxes with
> vastly different configurations.
> Well I might get my K6 tomorrow, I have already forked out
> £2.50 on some thermal compound, (more than it cost for the CPU!!).
>
> On slighty unhappier note it seems that a an AMD K6-2 will
> interpretate a X2 clock as a X6 clock, so I might be able to run a
> 450MHz AMD.
> So maybe I should have bought a faster processor!!
> Will I have to spend another £1 to get one?!!
>
> Maybe the graphics card was a bottle neck but it still showed the
> PIII running slower.
>
> I don't think the benchmarks are wrong because if they are they
> must have got a whole series of them wrong, here the PIII 700
> is also slower.
> I think the truth is the K6-2 is a great processor which punches
> above it weight in some applications.
Then, sorry to say, you are deluded. The _K6-3_ was a good CPU but even
that, at 450MHz, was "slower" than Intel's lowly Celeron 400 Mendicino.
I never thought I'd see the day! Me, a dyed-in-the-wool AMD man posting
evidence that certain Intel CPUs were better than certain AMD ones.
--
~misfit~
kony wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:30:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The manual is not too helpful:-
>>
>> "Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline Burst
>> Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.
>
> OK, what's wrong with that?
>
>>
>> I can't find anything in the manual to enable cache for the K6, I
>> get the impression
>> it cannot be done.
>
> You don't seem to be grasping something- you do NOT need to
> "enable the cache for the K6". The cache was already
> enabled the whole time, there is no "enabling" to do.
>
>
>> There are no more jumper setting mentioned and nothing
>> I could do in the BIOS when I booted with the K6.
>> I will try looking at the BIOS with the Cyrix.
>> Maybe a BIOS upgrade might help.
>>
>
> Help with what?
> There are ONLY five things you need(ed) to do to go from
> (having done nothing, right after you made your very first
> post) to being finished:
>
> 1) Buy a 450MHz+ K6-2
> 2) Install it and the heatsink/fan.
> 3) Set jumpers for voltage, multiplier, and FSB. Any other
> jumpers should remain the same, the jumpers should look
> identical to how they would if you had a Pentium 133 MMX
> installed, except voltage would be 2.2V or 2.4V (as stamped
> on the K6-2).
> 4) Run CPU-Z to confirm speed and Sisoft Sandra to check
> performance.
>
> The entire process takes a little under 30 minutes, I can't
> understand why you're making something easy, so difficult.
LOL. I remember the days of messing about with systems like this. If I
hadn't done that I doubt I would be at the stage where I can build a new PC
in a few hours with the latest components etc.
Don't forget Dave, it wasn't always easy for us (or at least for me) when we
were learning. I'll always remember the sense of achievement I got when I
got my Pentium 200 MMX running stably at 250Mhz on an 83MHz FSB. That was
one fast machine. <g>.
If I was Donald, playing with old PCs, I'd get a socket 370 board that
supports Coppermines (Maybe a Slot 1 with slocket) and have a play with some
of the Celerons in the ~600Mhz range. They should be cheap enough, several
times faster than what he's currently playing with, and eminently
overclockable. I've had the only two 600s I've owned running stably at 900.
Quite a usable machine for very little money.
Even cheaper, get a Mendicino 400. Not a bad little work-horse. Hell, if he
wasn't on the other side of the world from me I'd give him one, and probably
a mobo too. I have at least 3 Celly 400's in my CPU drawer. One or two 500's
as well, *and* my two Coppermine 600's. They're not worth selling and I
can't bring myself to throw them out. :-(
It seems we're a dying breed mate. Just about everyone I know is buying Dell
etc. these days. So cheap! I used to build quite a few machines for friends,
save them some money and they'd get a good, solid machine. Now, there are
Dells around at less than I can build a machine for. Granted they're crap
but everything is made to be thrown away in a couple years these days
anyway. I've heard people say "So what if it craps out afer the warranty is
up? I'll have got my money's worth, I'll just get another, faster one".
Very sad. When I started playing with hardware the average PC cost 4 times
what it does now and the average wage was probably half. It was worth
knowing how to upgrade and build machines then, I had good systems and could
help friends. Practical, you could save money. Now it's just a hobby that
actually costs me money truth-be-told.
--
~misfit~
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:21:32 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
>>
>> Then you have jumped to a conclusion without any reason to
>> do so.
>
>Apart from the AIDA reporting no L2 cache, if there was L2
>cache why not says so?
It is reporting CPU specs, apparently.
There is no point in wondering, benchmark the cache.
>
>OK the L2 cache is listed under 'Chipset', not a great place to put
>it.
It is a great place to put it. The cache is part of the
chipset and motherboard, not the CPU.
>I have that Software now, had to do another download to get it
>to run. (MDAC whatever that is)
>I am not sure I can save reports, I cant find the ones I made,
>that option might be disabled, maybe I can cut and paste them (nope).
Why would you need to cut & paste it?
Just look at the graph and note where it drops. There
should be a sharp decline in memory throughput right after
512K.
>
>Main problem was I was trying to run at 75mhz I think, didn't
>seem that much higher than 66 (to me). Then all the crashes and
>scandisks at about 100 Mhz, very slow.
>I will try it again at 4X66 which seemed stable.
>
If you run it at 75MHz, you'd need two things:
1) Set the PCI divider jumper as shown on the previously
linked charts.
2) A CPU spec'd for that FSB or higher- the CPU you bought
is a rare K6-2 in that it's only spec'd to 66MHz FSB. Most
are rated for 100MHz.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:41:50 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
<snip>
>booted OK **BUT** it took 4:12 minutes to boot almost twice as long
>as cyrix at 2:10.
>So no point in benchmarking that it's obviously useless!!
Hmmmmm.
You seem to have forgotten to mention that it wasn't
application performance that you were trying to improve but
rather boot time.
Frankly, at this point I think the experiment is over, you
have all the data you need and I have nothing more to add,
except that now all you have left to do is see if it will
help with those 2 card table game screens you wanted.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:39:00 +1200, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoot.co.nz> wrote:
>Don't forget Dave, it wasn't always easy for us (or at least for me) when we
>were learning. I'll always remember the sense of achievement I got when I
>got my Pentium 200 MMX running stably at 250Mhz on an 83MHz FSB. That was
>one fast machine. <g>.
Yes, you're right... but look at how long this thread was to
install a K6-2. IMO, there are some occasions where a new
Dell doesn't look so bad.
>
>If I was Donald, playing with old PCs, I'd get a socket 370 board that
>supports Coppermines (Maybe a Slot 1 with slocket) and have a play with some
>of the Celerons in the ~600Mhz range. They should be cheap enough, several
>times faster than what he's currently playing with, and eminently
>overclockable. I've had the only two 600s I've owned running stably at 900.
>Quite a usable machine for very little money.
Yes that would do well for the intended purpose, but read
over the whole thread and then tell me if you think o'c is a
good idea for his (situation).
>
>Even cheaper, get a Mendicino 400. Not a bad little work-horse. Hell, if he
>wasn't on the other side of the world from me I'd give him one, and probably
>a mobo too. I have at least 3 Celly 400's in my CPU drawer. One or two 500's
>as well, *and* my two Coppermine 600's. They're not worth selling and I
>can't bring myself to throw them out. :-(
Coppermine 600 do well for passively cooled fileservers.
I've had some running a touch under 1.35V and the 'sink felt
stone cold on an OS using ACPI with no fan.
>It seems we're a dying breed mate. Just about everyone I know is buying Dell
>etc. these days. So cheap! I used to build quite a few machines for friends,
>save them some money and they'd get a good, solid machine. Now, there are
>Dells around at less than I can build a machine for. Granted they're crap
>but everything is made to be thrown away in a couple years these days
>anyway. I've heard people say "So what if it craps out afer the warranty is
>up? I'll have got my money's worth, I'll just get another, faster one".
I don't think they know what they're missing though, usually
I see those types of users spending another couple hundred
(US) $ ever two years (on average) when their uses would've
been fullfilled if they'd only spent around $60 more for a
better board, fans and power a few years ago. Dell
certainly has some cheap boxes now but for those of us who
realize the drawbacks of integrated video or sound, a
Celeron skt 478, etc, there's not much left to want.
I had a Dell 2.4GHz Celeron box here till a few days ago...
had most of the Dell factory installation on it, ran
dog-slow and only did the basics. Complete waste of $ for
the person who bought it as I could've slapped together some
old $80 box that'd done everything that user did, as well
and as fast.
>Very sad. When I started playing with hardware the average PC cost 4 times
>what it does now and the average wage was probably half. It was worth
>knowing how to upgrade and build machines then, I had good systems and could
>help friends. Practical, you could save money. Now it's just a hobby that
>actually costs me money truth-be-told.
Yep, it certainly does add up in cost after awhile, but then
again there are still perks like having the spare parts to
get any system fixed in a few minutes, or pop out a new one
should it be needed. Funny thing is I now always have at
least 3 systems under my main-use desk at home at any moment
and 2 KVMs. If I ever needed to watch several TV shows,
play a couple games simultaneously and also get worth done,
all I'd need to do is clone myself a few times and buy some
more chairs.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:l79of11jkhmn42kl4ahtii9414rs8o8u8q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:41:50 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >booted OK **BUT** it took 4:12 minutes to boot almost twice as long
> >as cyrix at 2:10.
> >So no point in benchmarking that it's obviously useless!!
>
> Hmmmmm.
>
> You seem to have forgotten to mention that it wasn't
> application performance that you were trying to improve but
> rather boot time.
Some application performance is done at boot tine.
And A long boot time would not be OK even if the machine was
generally faster, which it obviously wouldnt be.
>
> Frankly, at this point I think the experiment is over, you
> have all the data you need and I have nothing more to add,
> except that now all you have left to do is see if it will
> help with those 2 card table game screens you wanted.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:jl8of15hr64fge8ehfv2a7ki6r89qvqcpp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:21:32 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> >I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
> >>
> >> Then you have jumped to a conclusion without any reason to
> >> do so.
> >
> >Apart from the AIDA reporting no L2 cache, if there was L2
> >cache why not says so?
>
> It is reporting CPU specs, apparently.
>
> There is no point in wondering, benchmark the cache.
>
>
> >
> >OK the L2 cache is listed under 'Chipset', not a great place to put
> >it.
>
> It is a great place to put it. The cache is part of the
> chipset and motherboard, not the CPU.
>
>
> >I have that Software now, had to do another download to get it
> >to run. (MDAC whatever that is)
> >I am not sure I can save reports, I cant find the ones I made,
> >that option might be disabled, maybe I can cut and paste them (nope).
>
> Why would you need to cut & paste it?
> Just look at the graph and note where it drops. There
> should be a sharp decline in memory throughput right after
> 512K.
thats a bit vague.
>
>
>
> >
> >Main problem was I was trying to run at 75mhz I think, didn't
> >seem that much higher than 66 (to me). Then all the crashes and
> >scandisks at about 100 Mhz, very slow.
> >I will try it again at 4X66 which seemed stable.
> >
>
>
> If you run it at 75MHz, you'd need two things:
>
> 1) Set the PCI divider jumper as shown on the previously
> linked charts.
>
> 2) A CPU spec'd for that FSB or higher- the CPU you bought
> is a rare K6-2 in that it's only spec'd to 66MHz FSB. Most
> are rated for 100MHz.
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%BSKe.6383$JB4.3890@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> > Well where should I start, I ran a load of benchmaks on the cyrix
> > from Sandra.
> > Switched to K6, fail to boot (reboooted itself), check jumpers, all OK,
> > checked CPU, cleaned new thermal blob. Retried gain still at 4X66,
> > booted OK **BUT** it took 4:12 minutes to boot almost twice as long
> > as cyrix at 2:10.
> > So no point in benchmarking that it's obviously useless!!
> > AIDA reports 512 external cache enabled, sync pipeline burst.
> >
> > One other thing from
> > http://www.uktsupport.co.uk/pb/mb/850.htm
> > PCI/ CPU Bus Synch.
> > JP18 1-2 Asynch. (CPU Bus Speed at 75 MHz)
> > 2-3 Synch. (CPU Bus Speed 66.6 MHz or less)
> >
> > So I am going to try the 2-3 setting as I am at 66.6Mhz
> >
> > Anyhowits not looking good, something is seriously wrong the
> > boot was just too slow.
> >
> >
> > FRom sandra multimedia bench
> >
> > int float
> >
> > cyr 646 124
> > k6 1414 1729
> >
> > So K6 faster here
>
> OK... I tried the new J18 setting (sync/async) and rebooted, it rebooted
in
> 2:23 which is OK but a little slower than the 2:11 for the cyrix, but 'not
> bad',
> and fairlt proportional to the bus speed ratio 66/75 =0.88 (131s/143s)
> =0.91.
> However I think it has booted at a similar speed before without the J18
> change
> so I am not sure of the reason why.
>
> Anyway I did the Sandra cache benchemark.
> cryix k6 k6 with new J18 (or the quick boot)
> Combo 128 87 94
> speed 22.8 3.6 4.6
> 2kb 751 176 237 MB/s
> 4 776 176 206
> 8 772 172 186
> 16 772 166 178
> 32 769 157 161
> 64 464 135 132
> 128 151 103 103
> 256 72 87 103
> 512kb 54 74 82
> 1 meg 41 61 64
> 4 35 50 52
> 16 35 50 52
> 64 meg 35 49 54 MB/s
Actally these figures tell a story, the Cyrix is much better at some things
than the K6, over 4 times.
It also seems that I don't do much of what the K2 is good at (multimedia
maths)
but a lot of what it is bad at - shifting smallish blocks of data about.
I played poker with it but it seems a fair bit slower than the cyrix.
YEs if you want to draw a mandlebrok fractal the K2 is great, but I don't
do much of that.
>
>
> So....it seems the cyrix is much faster on the small data sizes but
> slower on the larger stuff.
>
> Something to do with the caches I expect??
>
> I also did a test playing a smallish (4meg) .wmv file and the results
> were basically identical.
>
> So overall similar perforamce I think.
>
> However I am not sure if I would trust this K6 to play poker with,
> it might cost me more than I paid fot the chip.
>
>
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:jl8of15hr64fge8ehfv2a7ki6r89qvqcpp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:21:32 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> >I think only the Cyrix can use that cache.
> >>
> >> Then you have jumped to a conclusion without any reason to
> >> do so.
> >
> >Apart from the AIDA reporting no L2 cache, if there was L2
> >cache why not says so?
>
> It is reporting CPU specs, apparently.
>
> There is no point in wondering, benchmark the cache.
>
>
> >
> >OK the L2 cache is listed under 'Chipset', not a great place to put
> >it.
>
> It is a great place to put it. The cache is part of the
> chipset and motherboard, not the CPU.
>
>
> >I have that Software now, had to do another download to get it
> >to run. (MDAC whatever that is)
> >I am not sure I can save reports, I cant find the ones I made,
> >that option might be disabled, maybe I can cut and paste them (nope).
>
> Why would you need to cut & paste it?
> Just look at the graph and note where it drops. There
> should be a sharp decline in memory throughput right after
> 512K.
What I have noticed is the the Cyrix out performs the K6 by
a factor of about three on moving smallish (>64KB) data
and that is the sort of thing my computer tends to be doing a lot.
It was even miles slower doing this running at 6X66=400Mhx.
The K2 would need to be running at 1000Mhz or more to beat the
cyrix in that respect.
>
>
>
> >
> >Main problem was I was trying to run at 75mhz I think, didn't
> >seem that much higher than 66 (to me). Then all the crashes and
> >scandisks at about 100 Mhz, very slow.
> >I will try it again at 4X66 which seemed stable.
> >
>
>
> If you run it at 75MHz, you'd need two things:
>
> 1) Set the PCI divider jumper as shown on the previously
> linked charts.
>
> 2) A CPU spec'd for that FSB or higher- the CPU you bought
> is a rare K6-2 in that it's only spec'd to 66MHz FSB. Most
> are rated for 100MHz.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:36:12 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>Actally these figures tell a story, the Cyrix is much better at some things
>than the K6, over 4 times.
Cache transfer or memory isn't a "thing", you would have to
bechmark actual applications (or synthetically simulate them
with unassocated bechmarks) to determine this.
>It also seems that I don't do much of what the K2 is good at (multimedia
>maths)
>but a lot of what it is bad at - shifting smallish blocks of data about.
>I played poker with it but it seems a fair bit slower than the cyrix.
>YEs if you want to draw a mandlebrok fractal the K2 is great, but I don't
>do much of that.
Actually, K6-2 is horrible at that too compared to a
Celeron. At this point there is no real purpose to the
thread except to note that your observations seem to be
about what your particular motherboard and settings produce.
It's true that there isn't much difference between a
K6-2/300 and a Cyrix 225, but K6-2/400 or higher should have
significantly better performance at ALL things.
"Significant" is only relative to that era though, as
mentioned initially if you really want a substantial overall
performance increase you need to replace the _ENTIRE_
system.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:23:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> You seem to have forgotten to mention that it wasn't
>> application performance that you were trying to improve but
>> rather boot time.
>
>Some application performance is done at boot tine.
? Not applicable to most uses.
>And A long boot time would not be OK even if the machine was
>generally faster, which it obviously wouldnt be.
Nope, the only thing obvious is that you're guessing. A
boot-time over 2 minutes is incredibly long for any
configuration you've been running.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:26:50 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Why would you need to cut & paste it?
>> Just look at the graph and note where it drops. There
>> should be a sharp decline in memory throughput right after
>> 512K.
>
>thats a bit vague.
>
>
Yes, I"m not going to write paragraph after paragraph when
less will suffice. The graphs make it quite clear where L2
cache is exceeded and main memory becomes the bottleneck.
kony wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:39:00 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz@yahoot.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>> Don't forget Dave, it wasn't always easy for us (or at least for me)
>> when we were learning. I'll always remember the sense of achievement
>> I got when I got my Pentium 200 MMX running stably at 250Mhz on an
>> 83MHz FSB. That was one fast machine. <g>.
>
> Yes, you're right... but look at how long this thread was to
> install a K6-2. IMO, there are some occasions where a new
> Dell doesn't look so bad.
I hadn't looked in here for a while and there were well over 1,000 posts.
This one was near the top. When I replied I didn't realise that nearly half
the posts were from Donald on this same subject.
>> If I was Donald, playing with old PCs, I'd get a socket 370 board
>> that supports Coppermines (Maybe a Slot 1 with slocket) and have a
>> play with some of the Celerons in the ~600Mhz range. They should be
>> cheap enough, several times faster than what he's currently playing
>> with, and eminently overclockable. I've had the only two 600s I've
>> owned running stably at 900. Quite a usable machine for very little
>> money.
>
> Yes that would do well for the intended purpose, but read
> over the whole thread and then tell me if you think o'c is a
> good idea for his (situation).
Yeah, point taken. A Dell would be good for him methinks.
>> Even cheaper, get a Mendicino 400. Not a bad little work-horse.
>> Hell, if he wasn't on the other side of the world from me I'd give
>> him one, and probably a mobo too. I have at least 3 Celly 400's in
>> my CPU drawer. One or two 500's as well, *and* my two Coppermine
>> 600's. They're not worth selling and I can't bring myself to throw
>> them out. :-(
>
> Coppermine 600 do well for passively cooled fileservers.
> I've had some running a touch under 1.35V and the 'sink felt
> stone cold on an OS using ACPI with no fan.
They *are* excellent CPUs. I've even had one running XP SP2 and it's easilly
responsive enough for everyday use like emailing, simple wordprocessing,
surfing etc.
>> It seems we're a dying breed mate. Just about everyone I know is
>> buying Dell etc. these days. So cheap! I used to build quite a few
>> machines for friends, save them some money and they'd get a good,
>> solid machine. Now, there are Dells around at less than I can build
>> a machine for. Granted they're crap but everything is made to be
>> thrown away in a couple years these days anyway. I've heard people
>> say "So what if it craps out afer the warranty is up? I'll have got
>> my money's worth, I'll just get another, faster one".
>
> I don't think they know what they're missing though, usually
> I see those types of users spending another couple hundred
> (US) $ ever two years (on average) when their uses would've
> been fullfilled if they'd only spent around $60 more for a
> better board, fans and power a few years ago. Dell
> certainly has some cheap boxes now but for those of us who
> realize the drawbacks of integrated video or sound, a
> Celeron skt 478, etc, there's not much left to want.
I'd never buy one myself. I've been building my own since the end of the 486
era. Even if it costs me more tha a Dell I know I'm getting better gear.
> I had a Dell 2.4GHz Celeron box here till a few days ago...
> had most of the Dell factory installation on it, ran
> dog-slow and only did the basics. Complete waste of $ for
> the person who bought it as I could've slapped together some
> old $80 box that'd done everything that user did, as well
> and as fast.
See my Celeron 600/XP comment above. On a clean install, without a lot of
guff running it would probably be as fast as one of these Dells
out-of-the-box.
>> Very sad. When I started playing with hardware the average PC cost 4
>> times what it does now and the average wage was probably half. It
>> was worth knowing how to upgrade and build machines then, I had good
>> systems and could help friends. Practical, you could save money. Now
>> it's just a hobby that actually costs me money truth-be-told.
>
> Yep, it certainly does add up in cost after awhile, but then
> again there are still perks like having the spare parts to
> get any system fixed in a few minutes, or pop out a new one
> should it be needed. Funny thing is I now always have at
> least 3 systems under my main-use desk at home at any moment
> and 2 KVMs. If I ever needed to watch several TV shows,
> play a couple games simultaneously and also get worth done,
> all I'd need to do is clone myself a few times and buy some
> more chairs.
LOl, I have four PCs here on my LAN. My main two (Barton and T'bred B) on a
KVM on my desk, another running as a jukebox (Celly Tui 1.4/440BX) and
another just because (Celly Tui 1.3/440BX). Those Tualatin/440BX combos are
surprisingly powerful considering their age. I just need some PCI IDE
controllers for them as the BX chipset is only ATA33 and that really
bottle-necks them.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:haiqf1p1n3gebs8j98pqa7vjcthrv87gtc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:23:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> You seem to have forgotten to mention that it wasn't
> >> application performance that you were trying to improve but
> >> rather boot time.
> >
> >Some application performance is done at boot tine.
>
> ? Not applicable to most uses.
>
>
> >And A long boot time would not be OK even if the machine was
> >generally faster, which it obviously wouldnt be.
>
> Nope, the only thing obvious is that you're guessing. A
> boot-time over 2 minutes is incredibly long for any
> configuration you've been running.
It's not that long if your run Zone Alarm at boot up.
>
>
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:51:35 GMT, "half_pint"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Nope, the only thing obvious is that you're guessing. A
>> boot-time over 2 minutes is incredibly long for any
>> configuration you've been running.
>
>It's not that long if your run Zone Alarm at boot up.
Some version of Zone Alarm is buggy and hangs for dozens of
seconds?
Perhaps I should restate what I wrote, that if a system is
taking that long to boot there is either a configuration
problem or it's loading disproportionately more than
appropriate. In other words, the problem with performance
may not be the CPU at all but the mere 128MB of memory.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:npusf11j17n588rm9ucdbhs0ueshdbkph3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:51:35 GMT, "half_pint"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Nope, the only thing obvious is that you're guessing. A
> >> boot-time over 2 minutes is incredibly long for any
> >> configuration you've been running.
> >
> >It's not that long if your run Zone Alarm at boot up.
>
> Some version of Zone Alarm is buggy and hangs for dozens of
> seconds?
>
> Perhaps I should restate what I wrote, that if a system is
> taking that long to boot there is either a configuration
> problem or it's loading disproportionately more than
> appropriate. In other words, the problem with performance
> may not be the CPU at all but the mere 128MB of memory.
The version of ZA I have adds about an extra 20 seconds to the boot time
for some reason.
There seems to be a minimum boot time which you cant go below
even with a faster processor.
I took the brave step of over clocking my cyrix to 262Mhz from 225Mhz
and the boot time is about the same, although I see about a 15% improvement
in other benchmarks. Seems pretty stable too, I had a couple of glitches
but they may have been from other reasons because I converted a .wmv
to a .mpg and that needed about 20 minutes of 100% CPU.
That was 3.5 X 75 and I may even try 4 X 7.5.
Other speeds I could try are 4.5X, 5X, and 6X. 6X would double the original
3X speed. Hopefully I will get 'warnings' if I go too high.
Even if I do damage the chip I have the K6 to fall back on.
I could try more RAM but the 64MB 72pin sticks are rare, none on Ebay,
and usually pretty expensive on the rare occcasions there are.
Gonna give it a go a 4x. Fingers crossed :O)
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1QvLe.8393$1F5.7525@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:npusf11j17n588rm9ucdbhs0ueshdbkph3@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:51:35 GMT, "half_pint"
> > <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Nope, the only thing obvious is that you're guessing. A
> > >> boot-time over 2 minutes is incredibly long for any
> > >> configuration you've been running.
> > >
> > >It's not that long if your run Zone Alarm at boot up.
> >
> > Some version of Zone Alarm is buggy and hangs for dozens of
> > seconds?
> >
> > Perhaps I should restate what I wrote, that if a system is
> > taking that long to boot there is either a configuration
> > problem or it's loading disproportionately more than
> > appropriate. In other words, the problem with performance
> > may not be the CPU at all but the mere 128MB of memory.
>
> The version of ZA I have adds about an extra 20 seconds to the boot time
> for some reason.
> There seems to be a minimum boot time which you cant go below
> even with a faster processor.
> I took the brave step of over clocking my cyrix to 262Mhz from 225Mhz
> and the boot time is about the same, although I see about a 15%
improvement
> in other benchmarks. Seems pretty stable too, I had a couple of glitches
> but they may have been from other reasons because I converted a .wmv
> to a .mpg and that needed about 20 minutes of 100% CPU.
> That was 3.5 X 75 and I may even try 4 X 7.5.
> Other speeds I could try are 4.5X, 5X, and 6X. 6X would double the
original
> 3X speed. Hopefully I will get 'warnings' if I go too high.
> Even if I do damage the chip I have the K6 to fall back on.
>
> I could try more RAM but the 64MB 72pin sticks are rare, none on Ebay,
> and usually pretty expensive on the rare occcasions there are.
> Gonna give it a go a 4x. Fingers crossed :O)
Seems like it won't do 4X, came up as 2X, seems like maybe the chip
is 'throttled back', either that or it didn't detect one of the jumpers, but
that
seems pretty unlilkely. I will maybe check 4.5X and 5X some other time.
>
>
>
>
kony wrote:
> "half_pint" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> Nope, the only thing obvious is that you're guessing. A
>>> boot-time over 2 minutes is incredibly long for any
>>> configuration you've been running.
>>
>> It's not that long if your run Zone Alarm at boot up.
>
> Some version of Zone Alarm is buggy and hangs for dozens of
> seconds?
>
> Perhaps I should restate what I wrote, that if a system is
> taking that long to boot there is either a configuration
> problem or it's loading disproportionately more than
> appropriate. In other words, the problem with performance
> may not be the CPU at all but the mere 128MB of memory.
I just turned my 486-80 with 64 meg. system on, and started the
stopwatch. It is also running Zone Alarm. At 2.0 minutes I get a
blank screen, at 2:21 a desktop, at 2:40 the DOS window is up, and
at 3:15 ZA is finished loading. Running W98. It's an old ZA, from
2000, 2.1.4 I believe.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:47:09 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> I could try more RAM but the 64MB 72pin sticks are rare, none on Ebay,
>> and usually pretty expensive on the rare occcasions there are.
>> Gonna give it a go a 4x. Fingers crossed :O)
>
>Seems like it won't do 4X, came up as 2X, seems like maybe the chip
>is 'throttled back', either that or it didn't detect one of the jumpers, but
>that
>seems pretty unlilkely. I will maybe check 4.5X and 5X some other time.
It's all pointless.
There is no cost nor time effective upgrade for that system.
$100 used box will run circles around it.
Re: AMD K6/2 faster than a 933MHz Pentium II? 