VX/TX chipset - any problems with memory amounts over 64 MB?

[Eug]

A friend has I believe a VX or TX chipset with 64 MB RAM. Any issues with going over 64 MB? I know that memory over 64 MB isn't cached but I'm thinking we'd still be better off sticking 128 MB in there (Pentium 233 I think), and sticking with Win 98.

 

[bendixG15]

My old Asus TX mobo supports 256mb...according to the manual

 

[sandorski]

I think it depends on the L2 cache size. Not sure of those chipset(been a long time), but more than 64mb should work, though due to the lack of caching there would be a performance decrease.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: bendixG15
My old Asus TX mobo supports 256mb...according to the manual

Yeah, I think VX supports 128 MB and TX supports 256.

I'm just wondering if there are any other potential issues (hardware wise or with Win 98) before I run out and buy some PC100 memory. I also wonder how much of a slow down there will be because of the lack of caching over 64 MB, but I'm thinking that even with the slow down it will overall be noticeably faster.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: bendixG15
My old Asus TX mobo supports 256mb...according to the manual

Yeah, I think VX supports 128 MB and TX supports 256.

I'm just wondering if there are any other potential issues (hardware wise or with Win 98) before I run out and buy some PC100 memory. I also wonder how much of a slow down there will be because of the lack of caching over 64 MB, but I'm thinking that even with the slow down it will overall be noticeably faster.

It depends what you do. If you use apps that need more than 64mb, then you'll probably benefit. If not, it'll be slower.

I don't exactly remember the details, but the caching kinda mucks up with more ram than cacheable. IIRC it works kinda like this: Windows and other apps use the non-cached ram first, once that is filled up then the cached ram is used. Because of that, the cpu checks the cache and finds nothing, then it bypasses the cache and acesses the ram directly, which is much slowe than the cache and causes a slowdown. Many who tried it back then noticed the difference and all, except those using Photoshop and other ram intensive apps, noticed the performance difference. If you have the ram, try it out and see, but I wouldn't spend any money on it(unless the shop you get the ram from has a good return policy).

 

[MadRat]

Only the first 64MB is linked to the on-board cache, the other memory is not. Not alot of TX boards out there really supported all that much SDRAM, let alone any modern SDRAM. The one that sticks out in my mind required 5v DIMMs! That was pretty tough finding a pair of 32MB 5v DIMMs, the largest it supported. The board could handle 5v SIMMs or DIMMs by the manual.

At first I thought it could only handle up to a pair of 32MB 5v DIMMS, too.

Then I put in a pair of 32MB 5v SIMMs and they registered, too!

Other than the 1X AGP and the 64MB cacheable RAM limit, the TX/VX chipsets were quite fine for everyday tasks. Plus you can throw K6-2/450's (6x 75fsb) or K6-III/450's (6x 75fsb) in them as long as your hard drive can handle to odd FSB. Had one for a year and sold it to a guy who has kept it now for several years. He swears by his P200MMX. :beer:

 

[MadRat]

Note: I said 5v not 3.3v DIMMs. It makes a huge difference... and fewer sparks... if you get it right.

 

[PhlashFoto]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Only the first 64MB is linked to the on-board cache, the other memory is not. Not alot of TX boards out there really supported all that much SDRAM, let alone any modern SDRAM. The one that sticks out in my mind required 5v DIMMs! That was pretty tough finding a pair of 32MB 5v DIMMs, the largest it supported. The board could handle 5v SIMMs or DIMMs by the manual. At first I thought it could only handle up to a pair of 32MB 5v DIMMS, too. Then I put in a pair of 32MB 5v SIMMs and they registered, too! Other than the 1X AGP and the 64MB cacheable RAM limit, the TX/VX chipsets were quite fine for everyday tasks. Plus you can throw K6-2/450's (6x 75fsb) or K6-III/450's (6x 75fsb) in them as long as your hard drive can handle to odd FSB. Had one for a year and sold it to a guy who has kept it now for several years. He swears by his P200MMX. :beer:

I never recall seeing an Intel designed 430 VX/TX chipset with AGP...... ALI, SIS and VIA yes.. not Intel. I still have a socket 7 system as a spare pc/print server which has 64MB of ram. From what i read a long time ago, OS and programs load from the top - downward.

So if you have 64MB of RAM in a socket7 system it loads from the 64MB first then downward, which is all cached. If you have 128MB, the OS will start to load from 128MB down which is obviously uncached till it gets to 64MB area. I read that info a long long time ago.... Could be wrong, could be out-dated by now. Just my 4 cents....

 

[Rankor]

i430TX Maximum Cacheable DRAM Area: 64MB
i430VX Maximum Cacheable DRAM Area: 64MB

Now if you had an Intel HX, 512MB.

I had a SuperMicro P5STE w/c had the HX and I maxxed it to the full 512MB.

These were taken from AT's Chipset guide dated August 1, 1997.

AT Chipset Guide

 

[PhlashFoto]

Ahh, yes I highlighted the "64MB cache limit" by accident.

I remember having a tough choice between the HX and the TX. HX was dual cpu, parity, and higher ram support, but only used EDO. While the TX had SDRAM, no ECC/parity and only cached 64MB.

I went cheap and modern with the TX instead.

 

[Jeff7]

Besides the obvious voltage problem, 3.3v vs 5v, the other problem is going to be that most sDRAM available now is high density, which those chipsets probably won't work with.

 

[andreasl]

I once expanded an old TX motherboard (with a K6 200) from 64MB to 128MB. I thought there would be a decrease in performance due to lack of cacheing of the upper 64MB but the result was quite the opposite. I figure the less swapping to the HD more than made up for the small loss in performance for the CPU/RAM. The system became alot more responsive (running Win98 or WinME).

So maybe your 3Dmark98 scores will suffer but Windows will improve alot..

 

[MadRat]

AGP with Intel 430TX Chipset

Does the 430TX support AGP?
Chipsets that do support AGP, such as the 440BX, has a secondary internal arbiter within the chipset, exclusive to AGP. This second arbiter works directly between the graphics device and memory, improving performance. Without the arbiter, AGP cannot be used, since it cannot operate fast enough. Chipsets such as the 430TX do not have the additional pins required to connect a separate AGP controller for the chipset. There are AGP connectors for the PCI bus, which provide AGP support. These connectors are available through Third Party Vendors, not from Intel.

Shucks, I though that board was an Intel plain-labelled board, too. Must have been a FIC or something. Still, was definitely a 430TX.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: andreasl
I once expanded an old TX motherboard (with a K6 200) from 64MB to 128MB. I thought there would be a decrease in performance due to lack of cacheing of the upper 64MB but the result was quite the opposite. I figure the less swapping to the HD more than made up for the small loss in performance for the CPU/RAM. The system became alot more responsive (running Win98 or WinME).

So maybe your 3Dmark98 scores will suffer but Windows will improve alot..

So I added another 64 MB. Man, this computer was old. It turns out it only had 2 memory slots total and no USB, and no burner. It was a pain in the @ss trying to get files off of it for backup, via floppy only.

Anyways, 128 MB for Win 98 is a HUGE improvement just for booting up and shutting down, and of course, running software. The small loss because of lack of caching is barely noticeable to me.

 

[TerryMathews]

As I recall, processors with internal L2 caches like K6-2+ and K6-3 get around this problem.

 

[MadRat]

Eug-

Ever hear of USB and NIC cards?

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Eug-

Ever hear of USB and NIC cards?

Yeah. Bought a USB card but Windows 98 wouldn't work with any of my USB devices, despite the fact the drivers seemed to install properly.

 

[Matt84]

More (slower memory) in most cases is > Less (faster memory)

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: SpeedKing
More (slower memory) in most cases is > Less (faster memory)

Indeed. Plus if the system sports a HDD as old as the chipset, a modern HDD and controller makes a huge performance improvement. Even with only 64MB, I found 2000/XP fine and preferable to '98.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: SpeedKing
More (slower memory) in most cases is > Less (faster memory)

Indeed. Plus if the system sports a HDD as old as the chipset, a modern HDD and controller makes a huge performance improvement. Even with only 64MB, I found 2000/XP fine and preferable to '98.

The machine only has a 4 GB drive, but this was just a machine to get files off, and then to donate it to someone else. I already have faster machines for my own use. I wasn't going to invest too much in upgrading it (other than the USB and extra memory).

Actually, it's quite speedy with the old drive in Win 98, with the 128 MB RAM, after I cleaned all the crap off of it and defragged it. The entire OS with MS Office and some other apps is all of 470 MB. 3.5 GB left for data.