Anonymous Coward
Veteran Member
Maybe you can get an additional speed boost by using an ST5x86 with a 4x multiplier.
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
running 5x86 cpu in IBM 5150 with Inboard/386
- Thread starter Cimonvg
- Start date
Maybe you can get an additional speed boost by using an ST5x86 with a 4x multiplier.
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
@ rmay635703, -sorry late reply- at this ponit , i do not own Pentium Overdrive or 80486 Overdrive chips. The p24t i belive is pga235 and my the socket extension only goes as fare as pga168. Of course i will try, if i stumble upon an overdrive chip
@ Anonymous Coward , at this time i would like to buy chips that work (out of the box), and i can not find 100% proof that ST5x86 has the x4 setting.
speaking of buying - this chip certainly would run faster than my chip ! .. but they are rare :|
(Buffalo hyper)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Buffa...z-Pentium-class-CPU-Accelerator-/152999437514
/cimonvg
Anonymous Coward
Veteran Member
I'd have to ask, but I was pretty certain that all ST5x86s are 3x/4x capable. I'd say about 10-20% of the Cyrix branded models are 3x/4x, and I am pretty confident none of the IBM 5x86Cs are.
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
hello
actually I was investegating my own question from post "Different types of Intel Inboard 386/pc's" - do they perform different?
But I was annoyed, not able to manage my "new" cyrix 5x86 x4, and the performance only looked like x3.
(picture of the "new" 5x86x4. There is no "x4" labeled on the chip, but the model "G5FB607B" in my case IS a "x4" cpu.
One remark, the CPU do get hot , and i have to cool it with a fan!
After some hours of testing and i found a way to enable the cache on the 5x86.
And the good and bad news is - the score from DOOM fullscreen test is now:
8621 realticks
equals 74690/8621 = 8,67 Fps !!
..the good news, the 5x86x4 were faster then the 5x86x3.
But the bad news - my prediction that the ISA-bus were the limiting factor
seems to bee non-void. My newes speedtest surpast the 7.x Fps "limmit" i tought were build in the ISA design.
I did try the LSSER and the Branch Target Buffer option - but Winstone94 did NOT like it, and all the test app's crashed.
But simple setup of 5x86 with cache enabled, works well.
The speed600 looks like this:
Discover 2.03 from Helix looks like this:
PS. Puzzle.exe runs in 2.91 secunds
the topbstub score=56.
Winstone94 gave this result:
My quickly assembled and perhaps too long procedure (but it works) :
boot IBM5150
with pcdos and Netroom3
cx5c86.exe /CD (disable cache in 5x86)
after boot finnished
run: encache.com (the tool that came with the imposter)(enable cache in imposter)
run: ET586 /SCD (disable cache)
run: ET586 /WBE (enable write back cache)
run: ET586 /CCD (equals CD=0 and NW=1)
...and the 5x86 then runs in x4 mode.
cyrix settings looks then like this (ET586.EXE /S) :
ET586 (c) 1995 by Evergreen Technologies, Inc. (11/28/95)
Version 1.1 (Release Version)
586 Configuration Register Dump
REGISTER INDEX BITS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 = Hex
-------- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -----
PCR0 20h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
CCR1 C1h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
CCR2 C2h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02h
CCR3 C3h 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10h
CCR4 E8h 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 05h
SMAR0 CDh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
SMAR1 CEh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
SMAR2 CFh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
PMR F0h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02h
DIR0 FEh 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2Ch
DIR1 FFh 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 05h
MSW (CR0) = A0000011
NW Bit = 1
CD Bit = 0
and thanks to forum member feipoa for answering technical questions.
/cimonvg
actually I was investegating my own question from post "Different types of Intel Inboard 386/pc's" - do they perform different?
But I was annoyed, not able to manage my "new" cyrix 5x86 x4, and the performance only looked like x3.
(picture of the "new" 5x86x4. There is no "x4" labeled on the chip, but the model "G5FB607B" in my case IS a "x4" cpu.
One remark, the CPU do get hot , and i have to cool it with a fan!
After some hours of testing and i found a way to enable the cache on the 5x86.
And the good and bad news is - the score from DOOM fullscreen test is now:
8621 realticks
equals 74690/8621 = 8,67 Fps !!
..the good news, the 5x86x4 were faster then the 5x86x3.
But the bad news - my prediction that the ISA-bus were the limiting factor
seems to bee non-void. My newes speedtest surpast the 7.x Fps "limmit" i tought were build in the ISA design.
I did try the LSSER and the Branch Target Buffer option - but Winstone94 did NOT like it, and all the test app's crashed.
But simple setup of 5x86 with cache enabled, works well.
The speed600 looks like this:
Discover 2.03 from Helix looks like this:
PS. Puzzle.exe runs in 2.91 secunds
the topbstub score=56.
Winstone94 gave this result:
My quickly assembled and perhaps too long procedure (but it works) :
boot IBM5150
with pcdos and Netroom3
cx5c86.exe /CD (disable cache in 5x86)
after boot finnished
run: encache.com (the tool that came with the imposter)(enable cache in imposter)
run: ET586 /SCD (disable cache)
run: ET586 /WBE (enable write back cache)
run: ET586 /CCD (equals CD=0 and NW=1)
...and the 5x86 then runs in x4 mode.
cyrix settings looks then like this (ET586.EXE /S) :
ET586 (c) 1995 by Evergreen Technologies, Inc. (11/28/95)
Version 1.1 (Release Version)
586 Configuration Register Dump
REGISTER INDEX BITS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 = Hex
-------- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -----
PCR0 20h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
CCR1 C1h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
CCR2 C2h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02h
CCR3 C3h 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10h
CCR4 E8h 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 05h
SMAR0 CDh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
SMAR1 CEh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
SMAR2 CFh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00h
PMR F0h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02h
DIR0 FEh 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2Ch
DIR1 FFh 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 05h
MSW (CR0) = A0000011
NW Bit = 1
CD Bit = 0
and thanks to forum member feipoa for answering technical questions.
/cimonvg
My results with 50Mhz oscillator on the inboard (=25Mhz bus-speed) and about 8Mhz bus-speed on the 5160 Mainboard. The 4Mb custom expansion was used for these tests. I had to solder the pin B13 on the AMD CPU to VCC to get Write-Back cache instead of Write-Through. It gives a bit more performance (5-10%). Sadly Doom or more advanced benchmarks will not work correctly with the 50Mhz oscillator. I had to switch to a 40/46Mhz oscillator to get stable results without freezing. Doom (from dosbench in fullscreen) runs with that configuration at around 14fps ('timed 2134 gametics in 5274 realtics' for 80Mhz and 5020 realtics at 94Mhz). The Cyrix CPU may be a bit faster at 100Mhz based on the Landmark results.
-Jonas
-Jonas
Last edited:
Agent Orange
Veteran Member
Good job! I love it when you can 'hot rod' an old girl like that and it work out.
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
hello
late responce due IRL activity
Normaly i define my hobby to components from pre 2k and no soldering , but this modification of the Inboard386 is so easy i couldn't help trying it out.
out with the 32 Mhz crystal , in comes the IC-socket-legs and the 40Mhz oscillator.
And - yes, this new clock frequency makes new speed-results:
The winstone94 says result 20,0 !
and Helix-discover2.03 calculates performance to 56Mhz pentium
And "Puzzle" starts-and-stops in 2,36 sec !
BUT landmark 6.00 gets lower results then 64Mhz ?
Dont know exactly why this is lower.
Perhaps some sort of aligment/non-aligment motherboard(frequency) <> Inboard 16/20Mhz ??
but sets new topscorer in the original 5150:
Doom Demo (a) small screen 74690/2093 = 35,6 fps
Doom Demo (b) full screen 74690/8103 = 9,2 Fps
@stynx your setup clearly is more pimped then my setup - the motherboard frequency most likely boosts your results, to the impressive score you get.
@stynx congrats with the 4Mb ram card and the PAL breakthrough - sounds like a fun enhancement of the original inboard, to get around 12 Mb ram in total
I am intrigued by this RAM expansion project and going to try it out my self. I will return with result/findings a later state (dont hold your breath).
And great if large RAM expansion becomes available to the masses - great fun with this expansion.
/cimonvg
late responce due IRL activity
Normaly i define my hobby to components from pre 2k and no soldering , but this modification of the Inboard386 is so easy i couldn't help trying it out.
out with the 32 Mhz crystal , in comes the IC-socket-legs and the 40Mhz oscillator.
And - yes, this new clock frequency makes new speed-results:
The winstone94 says result 20,0 !
and Helix-discover2.03 calculates performance to 56Mhz pentium
And "Puzzle" starts-and-stops in 2,36 sec !
BUT landmark 6.00 gets lower results then 64Mhz ?
Dont know exactly why this is lower.
Perhaps some sort of aligment/non-aligment motherboard(frequency) <> Inboard 16/20Mhz ??
but sets new topscorer in the original 5150:
Doom Demo (a) small screen 74690/2093 = 35,6 fps
Doom Demo (b) full screen 74690/8103 = 9,2 Fps
@stynx your setup clearly is more pimped then my setup - the motherboard frequency most likely boosts your results, to the impressive score you get.
@stynx congrats with the 4Mb ram card and the PAL breakthrough - sounds like a fun enhancement of the original inboard, to get around 12 Mb ram in total
I am intrigued by this RAM expansion project and going to try it out my self. I will return with result/findings a later state (dont hold your breath).
And great if large RAM expansion becomes available to the masses - great fun with this expansion.
/cimonvg
Man I love this these FrankenXT threads. When I built mine I took a LOT of crit and heat and felt like a parish as a result. Now it's acceptable and I find myself cheering all of you on and mightily impressed!
My o' my, 8+ MB of extended mem + 586's - just WOW. I don't know how ya'll are managing to manage the power supply and cooling though, did you ditch the case? I could get Win3.1 working well in 5MB and a 486 plug-and play without ditching the case but I couldn't get Win95 or OS/2 to load so I settled for a Win95 UI shell. Might running Win95 become possible with your rigs?
As an aside I do run all of the old OS's on much faster Pentiums (check out my Multi legacy OS Franken Pentium4 here: (https://pcpartpicker.com/b/yJjcCJ) but I love to see how far the old 5160's can be pushed just for the fun of it. At some point the 8-bit MOB bus has to hit a wall, no?
Regards,
Mike
My o' my, 8+ MB of extended mem + 586's - just WOW. I don't know how ya'll are managing to manage the power supply and cooling though, did you ditch the case? I could get Win3.1 working well in 5MB and a 486 plug-and play without ditching the case but I couldn't get Win95 or OS/2 to load so I settled for a Win95 UI shell. Might running Win95 become possible with your rigs?
As an aside I do run all of the old OS's on much faster Pentiums (check out my Multi legacy OS Franken Pentium4 here: (https://pcpartpicker.com/b/yJjcCJ) but I love to see how far the old 5160's can be pushed just for the fun of it. At some point the 8-bit MOB bus has to hit a wall, no?
Regards,
Mike
Last edited:
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
I think if we collaborate in some way, the sky's the limit :D
..well to be realistic, it takes someone to take the time and research on a topic, get it working and then spread the results. And if we all contribute, we can go far - that i believe.
Personally i value to get acknowledge, when my setup procedure is used, but i imagine other value other aspects about this hobby and the collaborate part of it.
Power consumption:
..i have not messured the total with inboard+5x86 and so on. But my 5x86 is actually undercloked. On the top plate it is rated 100Mhz and at this moment i do only run 80 Mhz. But some day a simple power-consumbtion test would be a good idear.
And no, normally i do not place the casing cover on the computer - but i think it is manageable. Internal heat test - another test to be done
I dont think 8Mb is durable at this moment
(not without stynx's PAL modification).
If we have a 1Mbyte soldered RAM card + 1Mbyte plugged-in RAM AND the 4Mbyte module, in total 6 Mb is the limit without the PAL reprogramming.
I have no hardware to prove this statement - just how i (at this moment) see the RAM setup possibilities.
(I "only" have the 4 Mb module at this moment - not any bigger).
Windows 95.
I think it is possible. Why not... :D
But it demands A LOT of testing and driver patching/reprogramming !!
(once again - i am not a programmer, so i would proply not be the correct person to answer if windows 95 will run or not). But if we dont try - we wil not get it working.
At one point i did install win95, and the PC did the first boot, but then the PC frose. It seems at the point where windows enter protected mode (after loading realmode drivers) - all stops.
Is it the PC BIOS setup, not AT compatible but XT compatible ? ...is it the missing second DMA chip ? ...the A20 not 100% compatible ?..Alot to test and determine.
ISA limit...and well i thought there were limmit about 7.x fps (doom demo), but then 8,6 fps and my new 9,2 fps, now i dont know where the limit is ??
/cimonvg
Just to make sure everyone understands: at the moment 4mb is the max on the onboard for the expansion. The 2mb board occupies the same address space as the 4mb expansion. The Pal 301094 has to be modified to get anything more than that.
I have tried to get a Cyrix 5x86 to work without luck. Pin J1 was bent out of the way (not connected), which helped a bit. But I could not get anything to run stable and would get NMI-errors and a freezed system. I have used 20Mhz, 23Mhz, 24Mhz Inboard busclock without any change between the speeds. I could run simple realmode apps nothing else. I would get parity errors or just a freeze system as a result. The short timeframe when the Cyrix went into dos, I could run topbench and got a score of 78 at 70Mhz (23.3x3) without any of the Cyrix specific optimizations. Doom would not run at all getting parity errors or just stopping.
At the moment the Cyrix 5x86 does not seem to be very reliable on the inboard. The Cyrix 5x86 4x will most likely be around 30% faster than the AMD5x86. With the Cyrix specific optimisations it will become even faster. The Cyrix seems to benefit much more from the faster XT-bus (7.2Mhz in my case) than the AMD5x86. The AMD-CPU gets a huge boost from the WB-mode that works flawlessly on the inboard. The AMD seems to be much more stable.
The post is slow with the Cyrix and there are unnaturally long pauses when the system accesses the SCSI HDD. The floppy-controller would often hang the system and the floppy check was very slow.
I will get back to the Cyrix this weekend.
At the moment the Cyrix 5x86 does not seem to be very reliable on the inboard. The Cyrix 5x86 4x will most likely be around 30% faster than the AMD5x86. With the Cyrix specific optimisations it will become even faster. The Cyrix seems to benefit much more from the faster XT-bus (7.2Mhz in my case) than the AMD5x86. The AMD-CPU gets a huge boost from the WB-mode that works flawlessly on the inboard. The AMD seems to be much more stable.
The post is slow with the Cyrix and there are unnaturally long pauses when the system accesses the SCSI HDD. The floppy-controller would often hang the system and the floppy check was very slow.
I will get back to the Cyrix this weekend.
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
Thank you for the clarification.
I wondered what the "region" did show when running XMSSTAT.exe from JEMM579B, but now i see point in the information.
running MEMSTAT.EXE:
--------------------
conventional memory (Int 12h): 640 kB
no XBDA on this system
Int 15h, ah=C0h failed
Int 15h, ah=88h, extended memory: 0 kB
Int 15h, ax=E801h failed
Int 15h, eax=E820h failed
and XMSSTAT.EXE with the 2Mb ram module:
----------------------------------------
XMS call address: c800:64
XMS version: 3.0
HMA handled by XMS host, HMA is allocated
v2 free memory largest/total (kB): 1948/1948
v3 free memory largest/total (kB): 1948/1948, highest addr: 33ffff
XMS handle table at c800:a0, handle cnt/size=32/10
XMS handle array at c800:a8
no handle region size(kB) locks flags
--------------------------------------------------------
1 a8 00110000-00158fff 292 1 2 used
2 b2 00159000-0033ffff 1948 0 1 free
--------------------------------------------------------
2240
free handles: 30
no free UMBs available
---------------------------------------------------
and XMSSTAT.EXE with the 4Mb ram module:
----------------------------------------
XMS call address: c800:64
XMS version: 3.0
HMA handled by XMS host, HMA is allocated
v2 free memory largest/total (kB): 3996/3996
v3 free memory largest/total (kB): 3996/3996, highest addr: 53ffff
XMS handle table at c800:a0, handle cnt/size=32/10
XMS handle array at c800:a8
no handle region size(kB) locks flags
--------------------------------------------------------
1 a8 00110000-00158fff 292 1 2 used
2 b2 00159000-0053ffff 3996 0 1 free
--------------------------------------------------------
4288
free handles: 30
no free UMBs available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yes , the two boards have same address and i see the trouble in using both together at same time.
/cimonvg
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
Hello
Strange - i have tried c5x86-100x3 , c5x85-120x3 , and latest c5x86-100x4 at first running at 16Mhz times 3 or 4 (48Mhz/64Mhz) and later cx586 x4 at 80 Mhz and only a few incidents with trouble.
Back when i first did install the cyrix in the imposter i did read some data-charts about the cpu. I figured that leg J1 needed to be floating, but later read the PDF again and wondered if other legs should also float ? (perhaps worth investigating).
I have had a system not booting at all - due i had not pressed the CPU pile (cpu,VRM,imposter) firmly down into the Inboard.
I have had strange windows chrashes with cx5x86-100x4 in Winstone WITH the LSSER and the Branch Target Buffer option - and it did run like a charm at lower speeds , but with x4 it chrashed ? (perhaps the fact that the cx586x4 is the newer stepping 0 revision 5 type , and not the s1r3 type , has some effect ??)
At this moment my system will not warmboot (5x86 and Netroom), but then i just coldboot it.
..i dont remeber any SCSI HDD trouble at all.
Floppy becomes inoperable when (in DOS) you enable cache , but some time ago i did read/write floppies inside Windows 3.1 with cache enabled.
Questions/comments on you setup:
* Perhaps worth trieng other BIOS in your IBM5160 ?
- my PC-xt clone (years ago) did run the best with Phoenix bios.
* Do you test with the new RAM board or the original 2Mb Intel RAM card ?
* And yes, the slower WriteThrough is more relaiable then the fast Writeback setting.
Some data and comments about cache enable and speed.
boot in dos with NO cache in config.sys :
device=c:\inbrdpc.sys nopause
device=c:\cx5x86.exe /CD
device.....
| Boot-process | Puzzle: | Speed600 CPU/FPU | Note |
| Speed after in config.sys disabled the cache | 41.74 sec | 30.1 Mhz / 110,2 Mhz | Config.sys: (cx5x86.exe /CD) |
| then from Autoexec imposter's cache enable | 3.36 sec | 300.0 Mhz / 656,6 Mhz | Autoexec.bat: (encache.exe) |
| (disable cache) and (enable write back cache) | 41.74 sec | 30.1 Mhz / 110,2 Mhz | Autoexec.bat: (ET586 /SCD) and (ET586 /WBE) |
| (equals CD=0 and NW=1) | 2.36 sec | 305.5 Mhz / 756,6 Mhz | Autoexec.bat: (ET586 /CCD) |
above shows me that only Encache.exe (from the imposter floppy), do not give the total power from the 586-CPU..
..a bit strange , but thats how i see the best cache settings (at this moment)
/cimonvg
I could get the Cyrix boot and run Doom successfully after changing the 386->486 adapter. Strangely, only the smaller adapter (B) version works with the Cyrix 5x86. The bigger (C) and older (A) version does not work...
I will get 11.2 FPS in Doom (6643 realtiks) at 60Mhz (20x3) and XT 7.2Mhz Busclock without Cyrix specific optimization. The best result with the AMD5x86 (WB mode) was just over 15 FPS at 96Mhz (24x4) and 7.2Mhz XT-bus. In WT mode the AMD5x86 gives about 13 FPS.
EDIT:
A 23Mhz Inboard clock will not allow me to test Doom and gives parity errors. Landmark 6 gives me 295Mhz/670Mhz at 70Mhz for the Cyrix 5x86 and 306Mhz/756Mhz for the AMD5x86 at 96Mhz in WT mode.
The internal cache of the AMD is much slower than the Cyrix CPU. The AMD gives a max of 96Mb/s at 96Mhz for L1 cache (4 clocks) and the Cyrix gives 135Mb/s at 70Mhz for L1 cache (2 clocks).
EDIT2:
Cyrix 5x86/60Mhz, 20Mhz Inboard, 7.2Mhz XT-Bus, ET4000 with "ET586 /CCD":
Landmark 6: 307Mhz/575Mhz
CACHECHK: 116MB/s for L1; 17MB/s for Memory
Topbench: 85 (77 with WT)
Doom: 13.4 FPS (5566 realtics)
-Jonas
I will get 11.2 FPS in Doom (6643 realtiks) at 60Mhz (20x3) and XT 7.2Mhz Busclock without Cyrix specific optimization. The best result with the AMD5x86 (WB mode) was just over 15 FPS at 96Mhz (24x4) and 7.2Mhz XT-bus. In WT mode the AMD5x86 gives about 13 FPS.
EDIT:
A 23Mhz Inboard clock will not allow me to test Doom and gives parity errors. Landmark 6 gives me 295Mhz/670Mhz at 70Mhz for the Cyrix 5x86 and 306Mhz/756Mhz for the AMD5x86 at 96Mhz in WT mode.
The internal cache of the AMD is much slower than the Cyrix CPU. The AMD gives a max of 96Mb/s at 96Mhz for L1 cache (4 clocks) and the Cyrix gives 135Mb/s at 70Mhz for L1 cache (2 clocks).
EDIT2:
Cyrix 5x86/60Mhz, 20Mhz Inboard, 7.2Mhz XT-Bus, ET4000 with "ET586 /CCD":
Landmark 6: 307Mhz/575Mhz
CACHECHK: 116MB/s for L1; 17MB/s for Memory
Topbench: 85 (77 with WT)
Doom: 13.4 FPS (5566 realtics)
-Jonas
Last edited:
I did a lot of optimizations on the registers (a bit too much ;-) )
Cyrix 5x86/60Mhz "TOO MUCH of register optimizations":
Landmark 6: 499Mhz/711Mhz
CACHECHK: CARSH
Topbench: 85
Doom: CRASH
---->
Better/stable config ("5x86.exe /BTB_EN=on /FP_FAST=on /CWB"):
Landmark 6: 499Mhz/722Mhz
CACHECHK: 118Mb/s;17.9Mb/s
Topbench: 86
Doom: 13.5 FPS (5515 realtics)
Even though the benchmarks seem to imply much more speed for the 60Mhz Cyrix 5x86, the 96Mhz AMD5x86WB, it is still 1.5FPS faster in Doom.
If it would run at a faster Inboard clock (23 or 24Mhz) it would easily beat the AMD5x86. A 4X Cyrix will beat the AMD easily even with 80Mhz vs 96Mhz.
-Jonas
Cyrix 5x86/60Mhz "TOO MUCH of register optimizations":
Landmark 6: 499Mhz/711Mhz
CACHECHK: CARSH
Topbench: 85
Doom: CRASH
---->
Better/stable config ("5x86.exe /BTB_EN=on /FP_FAST=on /CWB"):
Landmark 6: 499Mhz/722Mhz
CACHECHK: 118Mb/s;17.9Mb/s
Topbench: 86
Doom: 13.5 FPS (5515 realtics)
Even though the benchmarks seem to imply much more speed for the 60Mhz Cyrix 5x86, the 96Mhz AMD5x86WB, it is still 1.5FPS faster in Doom.
If it would run at a faster Inboard clock (23 or 24Mhz) it would easily beat the AMD5x86. A 4X Cyrix will beat the AMD easily even with 80Mhz vs 96Mhz.
-Jonas
Last edited:
Cimonvg
Experienced Member
hello
yes i have been running Cx586 on the smaller imposter (with the 5 small PAL's) for some time now.
...pyh so many different settings inside this Cyrix586 !...
new test:
setup: Cyrix 5x86x4/80Mhz, 20Mhz Inboard, pc-Bus, ATI-vga , and did follow your settings :
(encache.exe (imposter enable))
Ex586.exe /BTB_EN
ex586.exe /FP_FAST=ON
ex586.exe /cwb
But i did not get high result, then a
ET586 /CCD afterwards, and bingo:
puzzle in 2.19 sec.
Doom demo 74690/8056 = 9,27 Fps
and Landmark:
.....must say 665 / 915Mhz is some high numbers :wow:
BUT windows halts :/
-----------------------------------------------------
Newer test without the BrancePredict (BTB_EN)
Landmark6 : 405/904 Mhz
Topbstub: 58
Doom demo 74690/8089 = 9,22 Fps
now Winstone 94 says score 19.8
and Discover 2.03 from Helix says - PC running like a 60Mhz pentium
Perhaps we er entering area where different settings goes well with some applications but bad with other.
From here on some indivduel settings perhaps best for best performance in individuel programs
And perhaps the ISA limit is around 9.2 FPS ? , my recent scores have all settled at 9,x regardless of how i tune the CPU.
/cimonvg
yes i have been running Cx586 on the smaller imposter (with the 5 small PAL's) for some time now.
...pyh so many different settings inside this Cyrix586 !...
new test:
setup: Cyrix 5x86x4/80Mhz, 20Mhz Inboard, pc-Bus, ATI-vga , and did follow your settings :
(encache.exe (imposter enable))
Ex586.exe /BTB_EN
ex586.exe /FP_FAST=ON
ex586.exe /cwb
But i did not get high result, then a
ET586 /CCD afterwards, and bingo:
puzzle in 2.19 sec.
Doom demo 74690/8056 = 9,27 Fps
and Landmark:
.....must say 665 / 915Mhz is some high numbers :wow:
BUT windows halts :/
-----------------------------------------------------
Newer test without the BrancePredict (BTB_EN)
Landmark6 : 405/904 Mhz
Topbstub: 58
Doom demo 74690/8089 = 9,22 Fps
now Winstone 94 says score 19.8
and Discover 2.03 from Helix says - PC running like a 60Mhz pentium
Perhaps we er entering area where different settings goes well with some applications but bad with other.
From here on some indivduel settings perhaps best for best performance in individuel programs
And perhaps the ISA limit is around 9.2 FPS ? , my recent scores have all settled at 9,x regardless of how i tune the CPU.
/cimonvg
