If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory
I have a Packard-bell 4x4/PB-450M+ computer I would like know about the
availability about additional memory, specifically about: "two 256Kx16 (70ns) ZIP DRAM chips with (two) CAS lines (symetrical)": the specified memory for a two megabyte video upgrade "(4) 128Kx8 (20ns), (1) 32Kx8 (15ns) and (1) 64Kx1 (15ns) cache SRAM chips)": the specified memory for for a 512K Cache upgrade. These are quotation out of the "486 users Guide" that I have and been searching for these items on and off for years. Would anyone happen to have a clue where I can find these parts or explain why (apart from age) they are so hard to find? ---End of message--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory
Kenn Caesius wrote:
I have a Packard-bell 4x4/PB-450M+ computer I would like know about the availability about additional memory, specifically about: "two 256Kx16 (70ns) ZIP DRAM chips with (two) CAS lines (symetrical)": the specified memory for a two megabyte video upgrade "(4) 128Kx8 (20ns), (1) 32Kx8 (15ns) and (1) 64Kx1 (15ns) cache SRAM chips)": the specified memory for for a 512K Cache upgrade. These are quotation out of the "486 users Guide" that I have and been searching for these items on and off for years. Would anyone happen to have a clue where I can find these parts or explain why (apart from age) they are so hard to find? ---End of message--- Kenn, Some of these chips were especially scarce. For example, the 32Kx8 15ns SRAM DIP chips were very common, used in a great many 486 and some Pentium motherboards before Intel (and AMD) began designing on-chip cache memory. 64Kx1 is not found too frequently. 128Kx8 was used in just a few designs with large cache memory like 512KB. Most 486 and Pentium boards maxed out the cache at 256K. Some Pentium boards used a pretty standard COAST (Cache On A STick) module, either 256K or 512K. I still have a collection of cache chips I never recycled. I'll see if I have any 128Kx8 and 64Kx1. If so, you'd need to pay a few bucks for them including first class postage. As for the video memory, I haven't a clue... Ben Myers |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory
Ben Myers wrote:
Kenn Caesius wrote: I have a Packard-bell 4x4/PB-450M+ computer I would like know about the availability about additional memory, specifically about: "two 256Kx16 (70ns) ZIP DRAM chips with (two) CAS lines (symetrical)": the specified memory for a two megabyte video upgrade "(4) 128Kx8 (20ns), (1) 32Kx8 (15ns) and (1) 64Kx1 (15ns) cache SRAM chips)": the specified memory for for a 512K Cache upgrade. These are quotation out of the "486 users Guide" that I have and been searching for these items on and off for years. Would anyone happen to have a clue where I can find these parts or explain why (apart from age) they are so hard to find? ---End of message--- Kenn, Some of these chips were especially scarce. For example, the 32Kx8 15ns SRAM DIP chips were very common, used in a great many 486 and some Pentium motherboards before Intel (and AMD) began designing on-chip cache memory. 64Kx1 is not found too frequently. 128Kx8 was used in just a few designs with large cache memory like 512KB. Most 486 and Pentium boards maxed out the cache at 256K. Some Pentium boards used a pretty standard COAST (Cache On A STick) module, either 256K or 512K. I still have a collection of cache chips I never recycled. I'll see if I have any 128Kx8 and 64Kx1. If so, you'd need to pay a few bucks for them including first class postage. As for the video memory, I haven't a clue... Ben Myers Sorry to disappoint. I have plenty of 32x8 SRAM chips, both 15 and 20ns, but no 128x8 or 64x1. Where to find? Try DigiKey, but be prepared to pay absurdly high prices... Ben Myers |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory - Acknowledgement and Question.
Thank for the information, Ben Meyers.
In a addition to my original post, would you happen to know if I could expect a noticeable performance gain if I do install the additional cache memory? ---End of message--- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory- Acknowledgement and Question.
Kenn Caesius wrote:
Thank for the information, Ben Myers. In a addition to my original post, would you happen to know if I could expect a noticeable performance gain if I do install the additional cache memory? ---End of message--- The general rule of thumb is that the faster processors benefit more from cache memory than the slower ones. For example, a 486-33 or 486-25 would not show much performance improvement at all, whereas a 66MHz 486-DX2 or a 100MHz 486-DX4 (or 83MHz Pentium OverDrive) would. Also, going from no (zero K) cache at all (as shipped on some PB systems) to ANY size of cache will result in the largest performance gains... Ben Myers |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory- Acknowledgement and Question.
On Jul 17, 2:20*pm, Ben Myers wrote:
Kenn Caesius wrote: Thank for the information, Ben Myers. In a addition to my original post, would you happen to know if I could expect a noticeable performance gain if I do install the additional cache memory? ---End of message--- The general rule of thumb is that the faster processors benefit more from cache memory than the slower ones. *For example, a 486-33 or 486-25 would not show much performance improvement at all, whereas a 66MHz 486-DX2 or a 100MHz 486-DX4 (or 83MHz Pentium OverDrive) would. Also, going from no (zero K) cache at all (as shipped on some PB systems) to ANY size of cache will result in the largest performance gains... Ben Myers Hello I am here but have to limit my time. I am still recovering and will be doing so for a while. I had a PB 450mb system legend 10CD I did use the above memory as it was cheap and available last century. It worked some what better with the original 486 processor. It worked better and best with 486 100mhz as opposed to the 83mhz POD In fact I was not that impressed with the pentium 83 which was really the 63 that was clocked at 83 by me. One note it did run much better when I used the modified bios that I rewrote. I did not actually write it I hijacked it and made some modifications. If my memory is still active it would allow for a HD of around 4gb. It may have just ran better because the added HD was not running in compressed mode. I know someone is going to say the heat with overdriving. I believe that Intel just labelled them each as such and they were maybe the same CPU. Maybe not the 1st run but after a few runs they knew it was cheaper to use one assembly line as opposed to runiing a 2nd that was not needed . I see tis all the time with drugs. Protonix which is a name brand acid reflux drug is also packaged as a generic by Lederle. Same drug same logo on the generic same bottle with markings excepr printed label. Lot sumbers are in same sequence. Manufacturing plant is same address. The generic is 100 dollars less a bottle at acquisition. Some people tell me they are allergic to the generic when I dispense it in the original gereic bottle. The allergies gfo aay when placed in a rgular amber bottle. Freakin amazing how people are allergic to a name. I am still able to ramble perhaps I may be getting back to para normal. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory - Acknowledgement and Question.
HI Gang !
Inserting comments as I go..... as usual.... "metronid" wrote in message ... On Jul 17, 2:20 pm, Ben Myers wrote: Kenn Caesius wrote: Thank for the information, Ben Myers. In a addition to my original post, would you happen to know if I could expect a noticeable performance gain if I do install the additional cache memory? Ah, a person who thinks just like I do. Yep, L2 cache is important, especially if you have NONE like ( for reasons that escape everyone ) Packard Bell *usually* provided. I have a few Packard Bell's with L2, and surprisingly, (only 256K, as opposed to everyone else using 512k on most Pentium boards. ) the difference is not that great. I always suspected that PB did "something" in BIOS that made their machines run pretty good without it. Don't know what it would be though.......... I have searched out PB's with L2 without much success, although like I stated, I do have a few with it. ---End of message--- The general rule of thumb is that the faster processors benefit more from cache memory than the slower ones. For example, a 486-33 or 486-25 would not show much performance improvement at all, whereas a 66MHz 486-DX2 or a 100MHz 486-DX4 (or 83MHz Pentium OverDrive) would. Also, going from no (zero K) cache at all (as shipped on some PB systems) to ANY size of cache will result in the largest performance gains... Ben Myers Good idea to read what Ben types carefully, it's always good information. :-) Hello I am here but have to limit my time. I am still recovering and will be doing so for a while. From what ? Just curious. Hope you're doing well! I had a PB 450mb system legend 10CD I did use the above memory as it was cheap and available last century. It worked some what better with the original 486 processor. It worked better and best with 486 100mhz as opposed to the 83mhz POD In fact I was not that impressed with the pentium 83 which was really the 63 that was clocked at 83 by me. One note it did run much better when I used the modified bios that I rewrote. Which more or less confirms what I said earlier. The way a BIOS is written can make a difference in performance. Also, the POD usually disables the L2 on PB motherboards. Dumb. PB did so many DUMB things. I did not actually write it I hijacked it and made some modifications. If my memory is still active it would allow for a HD of around 4gb. It may have just ran better because the added HD was not running in compressed mode. I know someone is going to say the heat with overdriving. I believe that Intel just labelled them each as such and they were maybe the same CPU. Maybe not the 1st run but after a few runs they knew it was cheaper to use one assembly line as opposed to runiing a 2nd that was not needed . Nothing so tricky. Intel merely labled them 83 or 63 MHz for the "masses". Most people can't figure out bus speed, so it was easier if people knew if their computer ran at (16), 20, 25, 33, 50, or 66MHz which Overdrive POD to buy. You and I didn't care, just cranked up the bus speed and let 'er rip. Ever tried the POD at 100MHz ? ( 2½X40MHz ) Runs pretty good ! I am still able to ramble perhaps I may be getting back to para normal. Nothing wrong with rambling. :-) -- bobwatts Watts Carburetion Service WhizzBang Computers " collector of Asian transfat plastic trinkets ! " EartH // KlaXXoN |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory - Resolution
Again that you Ben Myers for your very informative posts regarding
memory. Regretfully, I must decline the offer of the cache memory citing my preference for "all or nothing": if I could find all the components for a 512K upgrade I would not consider anything less. I much more disappointed the video memory is extinct; I have grown very accustomed the 1024x768 32-bit color I find it hard to work with anything less. ---End of message--- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Request for information about the existance of additional memory- Acknowledgement and Question.
Robert E. Watts wrote:
HI Gang ! Inserting comments as I go..... as usual.... "metronid" wrote in message ... On Jul 17, 2:20 pm, Ben Myers wrote: Kenn Caesius wrote: Thank for the information, Ben Myers. In a addition to my original post, would you happen to know if I could expect a noticeable performance gain if I do install the additional cache memory? Ah, a person who thinks just like I do. Yep, L2 cache is important, especially if you have NONE like ( for reasons that escape everyone ) Packard Bell *usually* provided. I have a few Packard Bell's with L2, and surprisingly, (only 256K, as opposed to everyone else using 512k on most Pentium boards. ) the difference is not that great. I always suspected that PB did "something" in BIOS that made their machines run pretty good without it. Don't know what it would be though.......... I have searched out PB's with L2 without much success, although like I stated, I do have a few with it. ---End of message--- The general rule of thumb is that the faster processors benefit more from cache memory than the slower ones. For example, a 486-33 or 486-25 would not show much performance improvement at all, whereas a 66MHz 486-DX2 or a 100MHz 486-DX4 (or 83MHz Pentium OverDrive) would. Also, going from no (zero K) cache at all (as shipped on some PB systems) to ANY size of cache will result in the largest performance gains... Ben Myers Good idea to read what Ben types carefully, it's always good information. :-) Hello I am here but have to limit my time. I am still recovering and will be doing so for a while. From what ? Just curious. Hope you're doing well! I had a PB 450mb system legend 10CD I did use the above memory as it was cheap and available last century. It worked some what better with the original 486 processor. It worked better and best with 486 100mhz as opposed to the 83mhz POD In fact I was not that impressed with the pentium 83 which was really the 63 that was clocked at 83 by me. One note it did run much better when I used the modified bios that I rewrote. Which more or less confirms what I said earlier. The way a BIOS is written can make a difference in performance. Also, the POD usually disables the L2 on PB motherboards. Dumb. PB did so many DUMB things. I did not actually write it I hijacked it and made some modifications. If my memory is still active it would allow for a HD of around 4gb. It may have just ran better because the added HD was not running in compressed mode. I know someone is going to say the heat with overdriving. I believe that Intel just labelled them each as such and they were maybe the same CPU. Maybe not the 1st run but after a few runs they knew it was cheaper to use one assembly line as opposed to runiing a 2nd that was not needed . Nothing so tricky. Intel merely labled them 83 or 63 MHz for the "masses". Most people can't figure out bus speed, so it was easier if people knew if their computer ran at (16), 20, 25, 33, 50, or 66MHz which Overdrive POD to buy. You and I didn't care, just cranked up the bus speed and let 'er rip. Ever tried the POD at 100MHz ? ( 2½X40MHz ) Runs pretty good ! I am still able to ramble perhaps I may be getting back to para normal. Nothing wrong with rambling. :-) The Socket 3 Pentium OverDrive was Intel's worst OverDrive disaster because it was designed to run with a write-through external cache rather than write-back, and probably 0.00005% faster than if it had been designed for write-through. Prior to the annoucement and general availability of the POD, almost all of the 486 boards ever built had either write-back cache or no cache at all (like many PB models). Installing a POD on one of these write-through boards made the system incredibly slow. Intel also had an interposer board that would sit between the POD and the Socket 3, effectively disabling the write-back feature, enabling write-back instead. But interposers were always extremely difficult to come by. There was a class action suit against Gateway for advertising and delivering "Pentium Ready" 486 systems. The suit was settled by paying off all the lawyer suits and giving class action participants a couplon good for $50 (???) off on the same stupid Pentium OverDrive that would not work on their systems. I sold hand-assembled kits using a 133MHz AMD 486 workalike, a 486 socket interposer, cooling fan, and a write back/write through jumper. I never had a customer return one for lack of satisfaction. Evergreen and Kingston also sold kits, far more than my 200 or so kits. I also had a bundle with cache chips and nicely illustrated documentation. I still have some of this stuff around for chump change, if anyone wants to torque up their PB system. Not sure how much I have in the pile of archeological remains from previous computer civilizations... Ben Myers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Additional Printer Memory Questions | blah[_2_] | Printers | 3 | September 5th 07 03:26 AM |
Request for information on 'card'...please see inside. | [email protected] | Printers | 4 | January 14th 07 05:49 PM |
Request for Information | Dennis J. Tuchler | Dell Computers | 12 | January 10th 05 12:45 PM |
HP printer problem, printer stops mid page, additional information | Greetings! | Printers | 0 | December 31st 03 07:54 PM |
Additional Memory for Dim 4600- what kind? | Clark | Dell Computers | 4 | December 5th 03 06:55 PM |