Jump to content

This really sucks!

RJARRRPCGP

By RJARRRPCGP
in Windows 9x/ME

 Share

Recommended Posts

RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
Posted

Super Pi always takes longer under Windows 98 SE than under Windows 2000 and Windows XP!!

I find this strange, because Super Pi is from 1995!

Super Pi 1 MB benchmark results:

Windows XP Pro SP2: 47 s

Windows 2000 Pro SP4: 47 s

Windows 98 SE: 53 s

:realmad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLXX

LLXX

Posted
Posted

What CPU are you using? AMD right?

Your CPU needs a microcode update. Either get a new BIOS with new m/c update or use manual updater utility.

Win2k and XP already have a later microcode update in the form of Driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
What CPU are you using? AMD right?

Your CPU needs a microcode update. Either get a new BIOS with new m/c update or use manual updater utility.

Win2k and XP already have a later microcode update in the form of Driver.

It's probably not related to the BIOS, because it's a new motherboard. I have an Asus A7N8X-X motherboard.

The BIOS revisions later than I have only have smaller updates. Probably don't require a BIOS flash unless it's a Sempron. I have a regular Athlon XP. It's a Barton core, thus there shall not be any problems with this motherboard!!

A later BIOS date isn't gonna fix anything unless it's something that prevents the motherboard from POSTing.

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
miko

miko

Posted
Posted
Super Pi always takes longer under Windows 98 SE than under Windows 2000 and Windows XP!!

I find this strange, because Super Pi is from 1995!

Super Pi 1 MB benchmark results:

Windows XP Pro SP2: 47 s

Windows 2000 Pro SP4: 47 s

Windows 98 SE: 53 s

:realmad:

meh, i can live with that. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Update:

This just popped up in my head, Windows 98 SE likely isn't taking advantage of more than 256 KB of L2 cache!!

I have a "Barton" core, which has 512 KB of L2 cache. I wonder if you can get Windows 98 SE to use more than 256 KB of L2 cache?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miko

miko

Posted
Posted (edited)

surely 98 SE must use the full L2 cache already ?

otherwise what would have been the point of the 512KB-1MB-2MB external L2 cache super socket 7 boards produced during it's prime ?

i have 2 (almost totally identical in terms of chipset) super socket 7 boards and the 1MB L2 cache one performs way better than it's 512KB sibling.

Edited by miko
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LLXX

LLXX

Posted
Posted (edited)
Update:

This just popped up in my head, Windows 98 SE likely isn't taking advantage of more than 256 KB of L2 cache!!

I have a "Barton" core, which has 512 KB of L2 cache. I wonder if you can get Windows 98 SE to use more than 256 KB of L2 cache?

L1,L2,L3 caches are managed by the hardware. The software need not intervene.

Regarding size of cache, I have a circa. 1993 80486dx2-66 with 512KB of L2, and that was around before 98se...

Edited by LLXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Update:

This just popped up in my head, Windows 98 SE likely isn't taking advantage of more than 256 KB of L2 cache!!

I have a "Barton" core, which has 512 KB of L2 cache. I wonder if you can get Windows 98 SE to use more than 256 KB of L2 cache?

L1,L2,L3 caches are managed by the hardware. The software need not intervene.

Regarding size of cache, I have a circa. 1993 80486dx2-66 with 512KB of L2, and that was around before 98se...

But, this may be because of another problem. It's possible that Windows 98 SE assumes that it only has 256 KB of L2 cache, because most Athlon processors have 256 KB of L2 cache. (before "Barton") The Windows 98 SE processor driver may be getting confused. It may not like the fact that the L2 cache is integrated. Most processors at the time Windows 98 SE was released didn't have integrated L2 cache!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LLXX

LLXX

Posted
Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as a "processor driver" - what seems to be a driver for the processor is only a microcode updater... see \windows\system32\drivers\update.sys which on my system claims to have the following microcode updates:

1632-0,2,611-0,b27,612-0,c6,616-0,c6,617-0,c6,619-0,d2,633-0,36,634-0,37,650-4,19,650-20,2e,650-80,2f,650-1,32,651-1,30,652-1,14,652-8,15,652-4,29,652-2,8,653-1,1,653-4,4,660-1,4,665-10,1,66a-2,3,66a-8,7,66a-20,6,671-4,14,672-4,21,672-1,4

Also see http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=44388

The microcode updates supplied with original 98se only updates Intel processors and does not support AMD.

Edited by LLXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
There is no such thing as a "processor driver" - what seems to be a driver for the processor is only a microcode updater... see \windows\system32\drivers\update.sys which on my system claims to have the following microcode updates:
1632-0,2,611-0,b27,612-0,c6,616-0,c6,617-0,c6,619-0,d2,633-0,36,634-0,37,650-4,19,650-20,2e,650-80,2f,650-1,32,651-1,30,652-1,14,652-8,15,652-4,29,652-2,8,653-1,1,653-4,4,660-1,4,665-10,1,66a-2,3,66a-8,7,66a-20,6,671-4,14,672-4,21,672-1,4

Also see http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=44388

The microcode updates supplied with original 98se only updates Intel processors and does not support AMD.

I knew that already. But, I'm wondering if it's not updating the microcode because of it not recognizing the L2 cache type? Even if it has microcode information for Athlon processors (at least the pre-T-bird Athlons) Athlon processors before the T-bird don't have integrated L2 cache!!

Also, which driver versions should I use for nForce2?

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as a "processor driver" - what seems to be a driver for the processor is only a microcode updater... see \windows\system32\drivers\update.sys which on my system claims to have the following microcode updates:

1632-0,2,611-0,b27,612-0,c6,616-0,c6,617-0,c6,619-0,d2,633-0,36,634-0,37,650-4,19,650-20,2e,650-80,2f,650-1,32,651-1,30,652-1,14,652-8,15,652-4,29,652-2,8,653-1,1,653-4,4,660-1,4,665-10,1,66a-2,3,66a-8,7,66a-20,6,671-4,14,672-4,21,672-1,4

Also see http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=44388

The microcode updates supplied with original 98se only updates Intel processors and does not support AMD.

I knew that already. But, I'm wondering if it's not updating the microcode because of it not recognizing the L2 cache type? Even if it has microcode information for Athlon processors (at least the pre-T-bird Athlons) Athlon processors before the T-bird don't have integrated L2 cache!!

Also, which driver versions should I use for nForce2?

Wow! No reply! I been noticing that people have a tendency to ignore my posts. :( I'm requiring some help here, because I'm lost at what to do about this. I wonder if this issue only affects a couple of benchmarks?

Windows 98 SE should be faster, because of less bloat. I wonder if most games arn't affected?

I remember from back in 2002, when running Nintendo 64 emulation, it felt faster than under Windows XP!

It does still seem true that the following applies: Later Windows version=requires more processor power just for itself. :(

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...