Image Map Image Map
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Cacheable RAM Socket7

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Melbourne Australia

    Default Cacheable RAM Socket7

    Guys I need a memory (no pun intended) refresher here.
    The Board has 4x72 Pin slots. It's an 82437VX chipset.
    Can't see any date markings later than 1995.
    I recall in that era it was not uncommon for boards to support say 128MB but only be capable of caching 64MB.
    Caching began at the Top of Memory???
    Top of Memory is Bank 0? or Bank 1?

    A Safe and Blessed Easter to All of You..Rolf.
    Today is the tomorrow u stressed about yesterday.

  2. #2


    Intel had 3 chipsets out at the time - TX, VX, and HX I think. Of the three, only one of them was capable of caching more than 64MB of memory - that was the HX, and it was intended for the server market.

    On chipsets where there is a cachable memory limit, it's low memory not high memory. (At least for Intel stuff.) The memory bank doesn't matter, assuming that you have a legal and supported configuration for your motherboard.

  3. #3


    I really hated Intel's marketing of the VX, TX and HX chipset....also, let's not forget about the FX. I seem to recall that each chipset seemed to have a nice feature that one of the others didn't support. You just couldn't get the best of all worlds. I guess at the time TX would have been the best choice, but these days I'd probably go with HX since cost is no longer an issue, and I can live without ATA33 support since I have SCSI controllers readily available. I believe the HX chipset can cache up to 256MB of system memory. This is quite lame, as I have a 486 motherboard that can also cache 256MB. Intel later pulled similar crap with the i815ep chipset which was PERFECT in every single way except that it lacked support for more than 512MB of system memory (less than the BX!!!). I think this was meant to prevent people from being able to afford high end Tualatin PIII machines which is my dream, but something I am still too poor to afford. Damn you Intel!!! You are my bane.

  4. #4


    I have an HX chipset machine. Until last fall it was my primary Windows machine. It started life with 32MB of RAM and a Cyrix P166. It's still running today as my Linux file server and filewall with a Pentium 233 and 128MB of RAM.

    The HX caches up to 512MB of RAM. It is using SIMMs though. It has some DIMM support, but they are kind of non-standard and hard to find. (5V unbuffered something or other.)

    Yes, all of the Intel chipsets did something different. I think the criticism of the HX is unwarranted though - in 1997 a 512MB PC was unimagineable. 128 was fat. 32 to 64 was normal. For that timeframe, 512 was more than enough room to grow.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts