• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

cache modules for Shuttle HOT419 R2

Close, but not close enough.
1. Those chips are 600mil wide, your board needs 300mil wide.
2. Those chips are 100ns, you are going to need <= 20ns
 
joekster said:
Close, but not close enough.
1. Those chips are 600mil wide, your board needs 300mil wide.
2. Those chips are 100ns, you are going to need <= 20ns
Click to expand...

Haha, this is not as easy as I hoped :D
Thanks again for your help !
 
luckybob said:
BANG: http://www.ebay.com/itm/110887907277

there you go champ!

i'm thinking about buying nine for my 486 setup for 1mb cache. ^.^
Click to expand...

Great !
Thank you !

edit : Just to be sure, when you add more cache on a 486, all you do is extend the cacheable area ?
So 1MB would only be needed to be able to cache 256MB in write through or 128MB in write back ?
In other terms, is there anything to gain going to 1MB if I have only 64MB RAM ? (for my shuttle HOT433 system ... :) )
 
Last edited:
You gain more in the dick waving area than anything else. With a 486 you will be hard pressed to fully use 64mb of ram. That said, more cache is better, I've been benchmarking pentium pro's and the difference between 256kb and 1mb cache makes no difference in benchmarks EXCEPT for gaming. doom and quake got a good 10% improvement in fps.
 
I didn't really think of dick waving in building a 486, those need hours to complete a Super Pi :D

I don't know if the cache works the same on 486 and P6.
Actually I don't know how it works at all on 486. If You have more but the last part is sitting duck because it can only access the 64-128MB RAM, it's a bit sad :D

So, ordered some modules ?
How many do you think one need to order to get 4 working ones ? :D
 
last 3-4 things i've gotten from china have been all good. its hard to say. order 5 and call it a day imho.
 
a larger cache should help performance in addition to cachable size/amount/area. The cacheable size/amount/area is determined by the chipset and tag cache setup, but in general on 486 boards: 128k = 16mb cached, 256k = 32mb cached, 512k = 64mb cached, 1mb = 128mb cached.

Ordering 5 may not work... the cache tag setup for 512k should be a 32k chip, which is a 28pin - not 32pin. I'd check your board as I suspect that one of the 5 cache sockets is of a different length.

As far as performance, I remember seeing performace gains of a whoping 2% when going from 256k to 512k cache, hehehe.
 
In some cases performance can drop when upgrading from 256kb to 512kb cache. You can achieve either cache size using two difference configurations (depends on motherboard).

256k is usually accomplished with [8] 32Kx8 chips + Tag. This normally runs in interleaved mode (two 32-bit banks simulating a 64-bit datapath). However, in later boards it is sometimes achieved using [4] 64Kx8 chips + Tag, and this is always single bank.

The same for 512kb. Sometimes [8] 64Kx8 chips + Tag for interleave, or [4] 128K x8 chips + Tag for single bank.

Please note that if you are using interleaved 256KB cache and "upgrade" to single bank 512KB cache, you will extend your cacheable memory area but take a performance hit.

Whether you run single bank or interleave cache, either is of course better than no cache at all.
 
Anonymous Coward said:
In some cases performance can drop when upgrading from 256kb to 512kb cache. You can achieve either cache size using two difference configurations (depends on motherboard).

256k is usually accomplished with [8] 32Kx8 chips + Tag. This normally runs in interleaved mode (two 32-bit banks simulating a 64-bit datapath). However, in later boards it is sometimes achieved using [4] 64Kx8 chips + Tag, and this is always single bank.

The same for 512kb. Sometimes [8] 64Kx8 chips + Tag for interleave, or [4] 128K x8 chips + Tag for single bank.

Please note that if you are using interleaved 256KB cache and "upgrade" to single bank 512KB cache, you will extend your cacheable memory area but take a performance hit.

Whether you run single bank or interleave cache, either is of course better than no cache at all.
Click to expand...

And thats why I made sure the 486 board I bought off ebay would let me do both. meaning I need nine 128x8 chips for a total of 1mb. I'll probably get the chips on my next paycheck. probably.
 
My MB is on 8 chips for 256K, 4 for 512k. Didn't know it was interleaved on 8 chips.
So I guess I'll have better keep 256K with only 32MB for better performances, instead of 512K+64M.
Or I'll do 256K+64M, and I'll make a 32M ramdisk in the upper 32M.
Well I'll bench everything :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top