I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus C-P6S1
Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They
were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.

I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier jumpers
set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after announcing the BIOS
version - no CPU identification is displayed. My POST diagnostic card
says x0D, which is undocumented but IME means "BIOS does not support
CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It got a little further -
correctly displays the CPU type (but not speed) and POST code x0E before
freezing.

The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are supported,
but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system with the Intel�
440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory space and 64 KB + 3 of
addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they are.

Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to
use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have 440BX
chipsets.

TIA

P2B

P2B wrote:

> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
> grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus C-P6S1
> Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They
> were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>
> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier jumpers
> set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after announcing the BIOS
> version - no CPU identification is displayed. My POST diagnostic card
> says x0D, which is undocumented but IME means "BIOS does not support
> CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It got a little further -
> correctly displays the CPU type (but not speed) and POST code x0E before
> freezing.
>
> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are supported,
> but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system with the Intel�
> 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory space and 64 KB + 3 of
> addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they are.
>
> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to
> use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have 440BX
> chipsets.
>
> TIA
>
> P2B

I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but

Intel� 440BX AGPset:
82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
Datasheet
April 1998

makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig memory).

You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged (slot
cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less expensive
(slower cache) Pentium Pro.

Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.

David Maynard wrote:
> P2B wrote:
>
>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
>> grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus
>> C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2
>> CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>>
>> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier
>> jumpers set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after announcing
>> the BIOS version - no CPU identification is displayed. My POST
>> diagnostic card says x0D, which is undocumented but IME means "BIOS
>> does not support CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It got a
>> little further - correctly displays the CPU type (but not speed) and
>> POST code x0E before freezing.
>>
>> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are
>> supported, but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system with
>> the Intel� 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory space and
>> 64 KB + 3 of addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they are.
>>
>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to
>> use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have
>> 440BX chipsets.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> P2B
>
>
> I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but
>
> Intel� 440BX AGPset:
> 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
> Datasheet
> April 1998

Yup :-)

> makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
> doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig memory).
>
> You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged (slot
> cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less expensive
> (slower cache) Pentium Pro.
>
> Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.

Must be - since it POSTs :-?

Googling for PPro & 440BX doesn't yield much. I don't know of any BX
boards with 'official' support for PPro.

Has anyone got it to work?

P2B wrote:

>
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today,
>>> and grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus
>>> C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2
>>> CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>>>
>>> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier
>>> jumpers set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after announcing
>>> the BIOS version - no CPU identification is displayed. My POST
>>> diagnostic card says x0D, which is undocumented but IME means "BIOS
>>> does not support CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It got a
>>> little further - correctly displays the CPU type (but not speed) and
>>> POST code x0E before freezing.
>>>
>>> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are
>>> supported, but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system
>>> with the Intel� 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory
>>> space and 64 KB + 3 of addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they
>>> are.
>>>
>>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to
>>> use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have
>>> 440BX chipsets.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> P2B
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but
>>
>> Intel� 440BX AGPset:
>> 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
>> Datasheet
>> April 1998
>
>
> Yup :-)
>
>> makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
>> doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig
>> memory).
>>
>> You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged (slot
>> cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less
>> expensive
>> (slower cache) Pentium Pro.
>>
>> Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.
>
>
> Must be - since it POSTs :-?
>
> Googling for PPro & 440BX doesn't yield much. I don't know of any BX
> boards with 'official' support for PPro.

Neither do I and it doesn't surprise me because, as much as that spec sheet
says about Pentium Pro, why would anyone want to? The Pro isn't a 100Mhz
FSB processor and BX was specifically made for the 100Mhz FSB P-IIs.

Nearest thing I found to a Pro on a P-II motherboard, besides the Asus that
slot adapter was made for, is this one

http://www.fonck.nl/computer/asuslxpro.htm

(note that he mentions only a particular rev BIOS works)

And then this, sort of, 'PCChips, like, dual socket' (ooo that hurt.. but
then it felt good too <g>) supermicro board with a socket 8 and Slot-1
both. (That'll confuse the heck out of someone with a PPGA celeron)

http://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/1997/press050797.cfm

You hack around in the BIOS. Can't you 'steal' the CPU codes from one of
those and patch it onto the one you want?

Although, I beginning to suspect that it isn't just processor
identification, or even microcode, and that the Pro needs the registers set
up a bit differently that the P-II.

>
> Has anyone got it to work?

David Maynard wrote:

> P2B wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> P2B wrote:
>>>
>>>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today,
>>>> and grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus
>>>> C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2
>>>> CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier
>>>> jumpers set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after
>>>> announcing the BIOS version - no CPU identification is displayed. My
>>>> POST diagnostic card says x0D, which is undocumented but IME means
>>>> "BIOS does not support CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It
>>>> got a little further - correctly displays the CPU type (but not
>>>> speed) and POST code x0E before freezing.
>>>>
>>>> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are
>>>> supported, but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system
>>>> with the Intel� 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory
>>>> space and 64 KB + 3 of addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like
>>>> to use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available
>>>> have 440BX chipsets.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> P2B
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but
>>>
>>> Intel� 440BX AGPset:
>>> 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
>>> Datasheet
>>> April 1998
>>
>>
>>
>> Yup :-)
>>
>>> makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
>>> doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig
>>> memory).
>>>
>>> You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged (slot
>>> cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less
>>> expensive
>>> (slower cache) Pentium Pro.
>>>
>>> Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Must be - since it POSTs :-?
>>
>> Googling for PPro & 440BX doesn't yield much. I don't know of any BX
>> boards with 'official' support for PPro.
>
>
> Neither do I and it doesn't surprise me because, as much as that spec
> sheet says about Pentium Pro, why would anyone want to? The Pro isn't a
> 100Mhz FSB processor and BX was specifically made for the 100Mhz FSB P-IIs.
>
> Nearest thing I found to a Pro on a P-II motherboard, besides the Asus
> that slot adapter was made for, is this one
>
> http://www.fonck.nl/computer/asuslxpro.htm
>
> (note that he mentions only a particular rev BIOS works)
>
> And then this, sort of, 'PCChips, like, dual socket' (ooo that hurt..
> but then it felt good too <g>) supermicro board with a socket 8 and
> Slot-1 both. (That'll confuse the heck out of someone with a PPGA celeron)
>
> http://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/1997/press050797.cfm
>
> You hack around in the BIOS. Can't you 'steal' the CPU codes from one of
> those and patch it onto the one you want?
>
> Although, I beginning to suspect that it isn't just processor
> identification, or even microcode, and that the Pro needs the registers
> set up a bit differently that the P-II.
>
>>
>> Has anyone got it to work?
>
>

Well, I found something else that doesn't necessarily resolve anything but
is, nonetheless, rather interesting. This guy's Dell BX motherboard

http://www.psychowire.com/mainboards/slocket.html

reported his new P-III 700 on a slotket as a "Pentium Pro 500."

Apparently there was something in that BIOS that had, even if nothing else,
at least the string "Pentium Pro" in it.

Maybe you should be looking for the oldest BIOS you can find for those
boards in the hopes they might have 'Pro' remnants left.

P2B wrote:
> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
> grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus C-P6S1
> Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They
> were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
Wow, didn't know such adapters exist...

> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to
> use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have 440BX
> chipsets.
Is it possible the PPro might have some erratas which make it necessary
to have PCB/bios workarounds? I haven't looked at the spec update, but
such errors are not uncommon. And the workarounds might not be present
on the P2B.
And I hope the bios doesn't use some mmx code to initialize it...
Also, google shows some people got it to work in P2L97 boards, but not
with all bios versions (only the oldest one worked?), which probably
indicates it is a bios problem on the p2b too.

Roland

"P2B" <p2b@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:PR19d.22231$jj2.1076413@news20.bellglobal.com...
>I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
>grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus C-P6S1
>Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They
>were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>
> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier jumpers
> set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after announcing the BIOS
> version - no CPU identification is displayed. My POST diagnostic card says
> x0D, which is undocumented but IME means "BIOS does not support CPU" - so
> I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It got a little further - correctly
> displays the CPU type (but not speed) and POST code x0E before freezing.
>
> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are supported,
> but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system with the Intel�
> 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory space and 64 KB + 3 of
> addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they are.
>
> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to use
> the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have 440BX
> chipsets.
>
> TIA
>
> P2B

I wouldnt piss about with them too boards too much, BX chipsets can take
upto 1GHz P3's which is somewhat faster than a PPro

hamman

Hamman wrote:

> "P2B" <p2b@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:PR19d.22231$jj2.1076413@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
>>grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus C-P6S1
>>Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They
>>were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>>
>>I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier jumpers
>>set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after announcing the BIOS
>>version - no CPU identification is displayed. My POST diagnostic card says
>>x0D, which is undocumented but IME means "BIOS does not support CPU" - so
>>I tried a rom.by patched BIOS. It got a little further - correctly
>>displays the CPU type (but not speed) and POST code x0E before freezing.
>>
>>The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are supported,
>>but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system with the Intel�
>>440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory space and 64 KB + 3 of
>>addressable I/O space" strongly suggests they are.
>>
>>Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to use
>>the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have 440BX
>>chipsets.
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>P2B
>
>
> I wouldnt piss about with them too boards too much, BX chipsets can take
> upto 1GHz P3's which is somewhat faster than a PPro
>
> hamman

BX can do better than that :-) The board was running a Tualatin P3-S @
1575Mhz (150Mhz FSB) before I pulled it to try the PPro.

I "piss about" for interest's sake. I've explored the high end of BX
capabilities, now curious about the low end...

P2B

http://tipperlinne.com/p2bmod

David Maynard wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>> P2B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today,
>>>>> and grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before:
>>>>> Asus C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro
>>>>> 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier
>>>>> jumpers set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after
>>>>> announcing the BIOS version - no CPU identification is displayed.
>>>>> My POST diagnostic card says x0D, which is undocumented but IME
>>>>> means "BIOS does not support CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched
>>>>> BIOS. It got a little further - correctly displays the CPU type
>>>>> (but not speed) and POST code x0E before freezing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are
>>>>> supported, but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system
>>>>> with the Intel� 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory
>>>>> space and 64 KB + 3 of addressable I/O space" strongly suggests
>>>>> they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like
>>>>> to use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available
>>>>> have 440BX chipsets.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>> P2B
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but
>>>>
>>>> Intel� 440BX AGPset:
>>>> 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
>>>> Datasheet
>>>> April 1998
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup :-)
>>>
>>>> makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
>>>> doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig
>>>> memory).
>>>>
>>>> You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged
>>>> (slot
>>>> cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less
>>>> expensive
>>>> (slower cache) Pentium Pro.
>>>>
>>>> Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Must be - since it POSTs :-?
>>>
>>> Googling for PPro & 440BX doesn't yield much. I don't know of any BX
>>> boards with 'official' support for PPro.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither do I and it doesn't surprise me because, as much as that spec
>> sheet says about Pentium Pro, why would anyone want to? The Pro isn't
>> a 100Mhz FSB processor and BX was specifically made for the 100Mhz FSB
>> P-IIs.
>>
>> Nearest thing I found to a Pro on a P-II motherboard, besides the Asus
>> that slot adapter was made for, is this one
>>
>> http://www.fonck.nl/computer/asuslxpro.htm

LX chipset... getting warmer :-)

>> (note that he mentions only a particular rev BIOS works)

Perhaps not... the 'particular rev' is the very first release for that
board, and he says later versions didn't work :-(

>> And then this, sort of, 'PCChips, like, dual socket' (ooo that hurt..
>> but then it felt good too <g>) supermicro board with a socket 8 and
>> Slot-1 both. (That'll confuse the heck out of someone with a PPGA
>> celeron)
>>
>> http://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/1997/press050797.cfm

FX chipset - same as the Asus board the adapter was made for.

>> You hack around in the BIOS. Can't you 'steal' the CPU codes from one
>> of those and patch it onto the one you want?

Sure I can... but it isn't a microcode problem - POST doesn't get
anywhere near that far,

>> Although, I beginning to suspect that it isn't just processor
>> identification, or even microcode, and that the Pro needs the
>> registers set up a bit differently that the P-II.

My thinking too - I hoped Bios Patcher would help. Quoting from the manual:

______________________________________
=> Patcher can add support of CPU:

- AMD K6/K6-2/K6-III/K6-2+/K6-III+
- Intel Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Pentium III/Celeron
- AMD K7/K75/Athlon/Duron/Athlon 4/Athlon MP/Athlon XP (tested!)
- Intel Pentium 4/Celeron-478 (tested!)

"Support" means not only names of CPUs (which shows with kernel name and
can be change) but correct init of L2-cache, FSB, Multiplyer, support of
different steppings. There are many thing that patcher makes, and all of
them that the manufacturer didn't make for correct support of CPU.
______________________________________

The patched BIOS is able to identify the CPU, but goes no further :-(

>>> Has anyone got it to work?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, I found something else that doesn't necessarily resolve anything
> but is, nonetheless, rather interesting. This guy's Dell BX motherboard
>
> http://www.psychowire.com/mainboards/slocket.html
>
> reported his new P-III 700 on a slotket as a "Pentium Pro 500."
>
> Apparently there was something in that BIOS that had, even if nothing
> else, at least the string "Pentium Pro" in it.
>
> Maybe you should be looking for the oldest BIOS you can find for those
> boards in the hopes they might have 'Pro' remnants left.

Good suggestion.

The oldest BX BIOS I have archived is 1006 for a P2B-DS (09/15/98), but
the results are identical - freezes at the same point, patched or not :-(

Anyone got a truly *ancient* Asus BX BIOS they'd be willing to send me?

Roland Scheidegger wrote:

> P2B wrote:
>
>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today, and
>> grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before: Asus
>> C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2
>> CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>
> Wow, didn't know such adapters exist...

New one on me too - piqued my interest :-)

Very little to them - a Socket 8, 6 filter capacitors and a dozen or so
surface mount caps, nothing else.

>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like to
>> use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available have
>> 440BX chipsets.
>
> Is it possible the PPro might have some erratas which make it necessary
> to have PCB/bios workarounds? I haven't looked at the spec update, but
> such errors are not uncommon. And the workarounds might not be present
> on the P2B.
> And I hope the bios doesn't use some mmx code to initialize it...
> Also, google shows some people got it to work in P2L97 boards, but not
> with all bios versions (only the oldest one worked?), which probably
> indicates it is a bios problem on the p2b too.

It's definitely starting to look that way - further research shows the
initial KN97-X BIOS didn't support PPro either, Asus released one to go
with the adapters.

Do you have any ancient Asus BX BIOSes? The oldest I have is 1006
(which, surprisingly, boots a P3-S but gets no further along with the PPro).

P2B

P2B wrote:

>
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> P2B wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> P2B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster today,
>>>>>> and grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen before:
>>>>>> Asus C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with PPro
>>>>>> 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X IIRC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier
>>>>>> jumpers set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after
>>>>>> announcing the BIOS version - no CPU identification is displayed.
>>>>>> My POST diagnostic card says x0D, which is undocumented but IME
>>>>>> means "BIOS does not support CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched
>>>>>> BIOS. It got a little further - correctly displays the CPU type
>>>>>> (but not speed) and POST code x0E before freezing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are
>>>>>> supported, but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system
>>>>>> with the Intel� 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory
>>>>>> space and 64 KB + 3 of addressable I/O space" strongly suggests
>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd like
>>>>>> to use the processors, but the only spare motherboards available
>>>>>> have 440BX chipsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P2B
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but
>>>>>
>>>>> Intel� 440BX AGPset:
>>>>> 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
>>>>> Datasheet
>>>>> April 1998
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup :-)
>>>>
>>>>> makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
>>>>> doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig
>>>>> memory).
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged
>>>>> (slot
>>>>> cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less
>>>>> expensive
>>>>> (slower cache) Pentium Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Must be - since it POSTs :-?
>>>>
>>>> Googling for PPro & 440BX doesn't yield much. I don't know of any BX
>>>> boards with 'official' support for PPro.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Neither do I and it doesn't surprise me because, as much as that spec
>>> sheet says about Pentium Pro, why would anyone want to? The Pro isn't
>>> a 100Mhz FSB processor and BX was specifically made for the 100Mhz
>>> FSB P-IIs.
>>>
>>> Nearest thing I found to a Pro on a P-II motherboard, besides the
>>> Asus that slot adapter was made for, is this one
>>>
>>> http://www.fonck.nl/computer/asuslxpro.htm
>
>
> LX chipset... getting warmer :-)

Yeah. That was part of the reason for mentioning it: Not 'strictly' FX.

>
>>> (note that he mentions only a particular rev BIOS works)
>
>
> Perhaps not... the 'particular rev' is the very first release for that
> board, and he says later versions didn't work :-(

Yes, I know: 'old'.

>
>>> And then this, sort of, 'PCChips, like, dual socket' (ooo that hurt..
>>> but then it felt good too <g>) supermicro board with a socket 8 and
>>> Slot-1 both. (That'll confuse the heck out of someone with a PPGA
>>> celeron)
>>>
>>> http://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/1997/press050797.cfm
>
>
> FX chipset - same as the Asus board the adapter was made for.

Right. But both on the same board from a different manufacturer suggested
there's nothing particularly 'special' in the hardware for one vs the other
and that the Asus adapter shouldn't need an 'Asus' board. Not 'proof', but
a suggestion.


>>> You hack around in the BIOS. Can't you 'steal' the CPU codes from one
>>> of those and patch it onto the one you want?
>
>
> Sure I can... but it isn't a microcode problem - POST doesn't get
> anywhere near that far,
>
>>> Although, I beginning to suspect that it isn't just processor
>>> identification, or even microcode, and that the Pro needs the
>>> registers set up a bit differently that the P-II.
>
>
> My thinking too - I hoped Bios Patcher would help. Quoting from the manual:
>
> ______________________________________
> => Patcher can add support of CPU:
>
> - AMD K6/K6-2/K6-III/K6-2+/K6-III+
> - Intel Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Pentium III/Celeron
> - AMD K7/K75/Athlon/Duron/Athlon 4/Athlon MP/Athlon XP (tested!)
> - Intel Pentium 4/Celeron-478 (tested!)
>
> "Support" means not only names of CPUs (which shows with kernel name and
> can be change) but correct init of L2-cache, FSB, Multiplyer, support of
> different steppings. There are many thing that patcher makes, and all of
> them that the manufacturer didn't make for correct support of CPU.
> ______________________________________
>
> The patched BIOS is able to identify the CPU, but goes no further :-(

That does seem like it should work, unless it didn't go in right for some
reason.

Ya know, after all that talking I did about being hardware similar, I
suppose it's possible there's some 'magic' pin/power/signal somewhere, like
FC-PGA vs PPGA, that just didn't get put on later boards. I wonder if
scouring old Intel Slot-1 docs would uncover some rev level change in the
slot=1 wiring from model #1 to the later ones.

Come to think of it, are your BX boards able to supply the Pro's 3.3v Vcore?

>
>>>> Has anyone got it to work?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, I found something else that doesn't necessarily resolve anything
>> but is, nonetheless, rather interesting. This guy's Dell BX motherboard
>>
>> http://www.psychowire.com/mainboards/slocket.html
>>
>> reported his new P-III 700 on a slotket as a "Pentium Pro 500."
>>
>> Apparently there was something in that BIOS that had, even if nothing
>> else, at least the string "Pentium Pro" in it.
>>
>> Maybe you should be looking for the oldest BIOS you can find for those
>> boards in the hopes they might have 'Pro' remnants left.
>
>
> Good suggestion.
>
> The oldest BX BIOS I have archived is 1006 for a P2B-DS (09/15/98), but
> the results are identical - freezes at the same point, patched or not :-(
>
> Anyone got a truly *ancient* Asus BX BIOS they'd be willing to send me?

P2B wrote:
> Hamman wrote:
>>
>> I wouldnt piss about with them too boards too much, BX chipsets can
>> take upto 1GHz P3's which is somewhat faster than a PPro
>>
>
> BX can do better than that :-) The board was running a Tualatin P3-S @
> 1575Mhz (150Mhz FSB) before I pulled it to try the PPro.

I agree. I have a Tui Celeron running at 1.6Ghz on a BX here.

> I "piss about" for interest's sake. I've explored the high end of BX
> capabilities, now curious about the low end...

Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked the P
Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with on-die,
full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?

Interesting project, keep us informed if you feel so inclined. I'd like to
know how you go.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked the P
> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with on-die,
> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?

I built and maintained a bunch of PPro workstations
way back in those olde days of yore. Bleeding edge
x86 workstations by the standards of those days :-)

My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.

My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
put side by side into a single cpu package.

I would be happy to concede that my ancient
memories are wrong if someone could provide a link
to a reputable source.



--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.

P2B wrote:
> It's definitely starting to look that way - further research shows the
> initial KN97-X BIOS didn't support PPro either, Asus released one to go
> with the adapters.
>
> Do you have any ancient Asus BX BIOSes? The oldest I have is 1006
> (which, surprisingly, boots a P3-S but gets no further along with the
> PPro).
Unfortunately, no. I doubt though it would help, since the p2b boards
are quite a bit newer than the p2L97 boards it seems unlikely asus used
the same code which permits the oldest p2l97 bios to run the ppro in the
initial p2b bios.

Roland

Rob Stow wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked the P
>> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with on-die,
>> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?
>
>
> I built and maintained a bunch of PPro workstations
> way back in those olde days of yore. Bleeding edge
> x86 workstations by the standards of those days :-)
>
> My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.
>
> My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
> The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
> put side by side into a single cpu package.
>
> I would be happy to concede that my ancient
> memories are wrong if someone could provide a link
> to a reputable source.

Not sure if the L2 is on-die, but it definitely runs at full bus speed:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL259

Roland Scheidegger wrote:

> P2B wrote:
>
>> It's definitely starting to look that way - further research shows the
>> initial KN97-X BIOS didn't support PPro either, Asus released one to
>> go with the adapters.
>>
>> Do you have any ancient Asus BX BIOSes? The oldest I have is 1006
>> (which, surprisingly, boots a P3-S but gets no further along with the
>> PPro).
>
> Unfortunately, no. I doubt though it would help, since the p2b boards
> are quite a bit newer than the p2L97 boards it seems unlikely asus used
> the same code which permits the oldest p2l97 bios to run the ppro in the
> initial p2b bios.

Sigh... I expect you are correct (pessimist!), but I (optimistically)
think it's worth a try *if* I can find a very early BX bios.

P2B

David Maynard wrote:

> P2B wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>> P2B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> P2B wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I intercepted some old systems on their way to the dumpster
>>>>>>> today, and grabbed a couple of interesting items I hadn't seen
>>>>>>> before: Asus C-P6S1 Socket-8 to Slot-1 adapters, complete with
>>>>>>> PPro 200Mhz/1MB L2 CPUs. They were on Asus 440FX boards, KN97-X
>>>>>>> IIRC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried them on a few Asus 440BX boards (with FSB and multiplier
>>>>>>> jumpers set appropriately), and they POST but freeze after
>>>>>>> announcing the BIOS version - no CPU identification is displayed.
>>>>>>> My POST diagnostic card says x0D, which is undocumented but IME
>>>>>>> means "BIOS does not support CPU" - so I tried a rom.by patched
>>>>>>> BIOS. It got a little further - correctly displays the CPU type
>>>>>>> (but not speed) and POST code x0E before freezing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 440BX datasheet does not *explicitly* state PPro CPUs are
>>>>>>> supported, but quotes like "A Pentium� Pro processor-based system
>>>>>>> with the Intel� 440BX AGPset supports 4 GB of addressable memory
>>>>>>> space and 64 KB + 3 of addressable I/O space" strongly suggests
>>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone know if this is a chipset issue, or strictly BIOS? I'd
>>>>>>> like to use the processors, but the only spare motherboards
>>>>>>> available have 440BX chipsets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P2B
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which of the 440BX data sheets you've got but
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Intel� 440BX AGPset:
>>>>>> 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller
>>>>>> Datasheet
>>>>>> April 1998
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> makes it pretty clear that BX works with the Pentium Pro although it
>>>>>> doesn't support all it's capabilities (such as PCI ECC and > 4 gig
>>>>>> memory).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd think it would work because a P-II is basically a repackaged
>>>>>> (slot
>>>>>> cart), fewer features (removed the 'mission critical' ones), less
>>>>>> expensive
>>>>>> (slower cache) Pentium Pro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of that I'd say it's a BIOS problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Must be - since it POSTs :-?
>>>>>
>>>>> Googling for PPro & 440BX doesn't yield much. I don't know of any
>>>>> BX boards with 'official' support for PPro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither do I and it doesn't surprise me because, as much as that
>>>> spec sheet says about Pentium Pro, why would anyone want to? The Pro
>>>> isn't a 100Mhz FSB processor and BX was specifically made for the
>>>> 100Mhz FSB P-IIs.
>>>>
>>>> Nearest thing I found to a Pro on a P-II motherboard, besides the
>>>> Asus that slot adapter was made for, is this one
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fonck.nl/computer/asuslxpro.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> LX chipset... getting warmer :-)
>
>
> Yeah. That was part of the reason for mentioning it: Not 'strictly' FX.
>
>>
>>>> (note that he mentions only a particular rev BIOS works)
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps not... the 'particular rev' is the very first release for that
>> board, and he says later versions didn't work :-(
>
>
> Yes, I know: 'old'.
>
>>
>>>> And then this, sort of, 'PCChips, like, dual socket' (ooo that
>>>> hurt.. but then it felt good too <g>) supermicro board with a socket
>>>> 8 and Slot-1 both. (That'll confuse the heck out of someone with a
>>>> PPGA celeron)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/1997/press050797.cfm
>>
>>
>>
>> FX chipset - same as the Asus board the adapter was made for.
>
>
> Right. But both on the same board from a different manufacturer
> suggested there's nothing particularly 'special' in the hardware for one
> vs the other and that the Asus adapter shouldn't need an 'Asus' board.
> Not 'proof', but a suggestion.

Agreed - all available information so far points back to BIOS as the
issue :-(

>>>> You hack around in the BIOS. Can't you 'steal' the CPU codes from
>>>> one of those and patch it onto the one you want?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure I can... but it isn't a microcode problem - POST doesn't get
>> anywhere near that far,
>>
>>>> Although, I beginning to suspect that it isn't just processor
>>>> identification, or even microcode, and that the Pro needs the
>>>> registers set up a bit differently that the P-II.
>>
>>
>>
>> My thinking too - I hoped Bios Patcher would help. Quoting from the
>> manual:
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> => Patcher can add support of CPU:
>>
>> - AMD K6/K6-2/K6-III/K6-2+/K6-III+
>> - Intel Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Pentium III/Celeron
>> - AMD K7/K75/Athlon/Duron/Athlon 4/Athlon MP/Athlon XP (tested!)
>> - Intel Pentium 4/Celeron-478 (tested!)
>>
>> "Support" means not only names of CPUs (which shows with kernel name
>> and can be change) but correct init of L2-cache, FSB, Multiplyer,
>> support of different steppings. There are many thing that patcher
>> makes, and all of them that the manufacturer didn't make for correct
>> support of CPU.
>> ______________________________________
>>
>> The patched BIOS is able to identify the CPU, but goes no further :-(
>
>
> That does seem like it should work, unless it didn't go in right for
> some reason.
>
> Ya know, after all that talking I did about being hardware similar, I
> suppose it's possible there's some 'magic' pin/power/signal somewhere,
> like FC-PGA vs PPGA, that just didn't get put on later boards. I wonder
> if scouring old Intel Slot-1 docs would uncover some rev level change in
> the slot=1 wiring from model #1 to the later ones.
>
> Come to think of it, are your BX boards able to supply the Pro's 3.3v
> Vcore?

Not a problem, they support 1.3v -> 3.5v

>>>>> Has anyone got it to work?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I found something else that doesn't necessarily resolve
>>> anything but is, nonetheless, rather interesting. This guy's Dell BX
>>> motherboard
>>>
>>> http://www.psychowire.com/mainboards/slocket.html
>>>
>>> reported his new P-III 700 on a slotket as a "Pentium Pro 500."
>>>
>>> Apparently there was something in that BIOS that had, even if nothing
>>> else, at least the string "Pentium Pro" in it.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should be looking for the oldest BIOS you can find for
>>> those boards in the hopes they might have 'Pro' remnants left.
>>
>>
>>
>> Good suggestion.
>>
>> The oldest BX BIOS I have archived is 1006 for a P2B-DS (09/15/98),
>> but the results are identical - freezes at the same point, patched or
>> not :-(
>>
>> Anyone got a truly *ancient* Asus BX BIOS they'd be willing to send me?
>
>

Rob Stow schrieb:

> My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.

Nope, full speed. That's why it was so expen$ive and Intel preferred to
use half-speed SRAM chips for the PII. Everything on the same die was
first to be found with the 2nd gen Mobile PIIs (.25�, 256K L2) of which
the well-known Mendocino Celerons apparently were a scaled-down version
(same CPUID at least).

> My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
> The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
> put side by side into a single cpu package.

AFAIK that's correct.

I've always wanted to have one of these BIG chips (just for looks),
maybe I'll run across one cheap some day.

Stephan

PS: My P2B-D now finally runs 2 667@500Es - that's what I call a longish
upgrade. Since I was unable to find any S370-DLs, I had to have my 6905
Masters modified, then the 2nd proc took a while to arrive, but now it's
running fine. I had to increase the VCore from 1.30 to 1.35 V, otherwise
performance was too low with both procs loaded. (I guess ye olde cA2
CuMine is pretty much at its limits when run at 500 MHz with 1.30 V
core.) Hey, it's still plenty cool enough... :D
--
Meine Andere Seite: http://stephan.win31.de/
PC#6: i440BX, 2xP3-500E, 512 MiB, 18+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W
This is a SCSI-inside, Legacy-plus, TCPA-free computer :)

~misfit~ wrote:
> P2B wrote:
>
>>Hamman wrote:
>>
>>>I wouldnt piss about with them too boards too much, BX chipsets can
>>>take upto 1GHz P3's which is somewhat faster than a PPro
>>>
>>
>>BX can do better than that :-) The board was running a Tualatin P3-S @
>>1575Mhz (150Mhz FSB) before I pulled it to try the PPro.
>
>
> I agree. I have a Tui Celeron running at 1.6Ghz on a BX here.
>
>
>>I "piss about" for interest's sake. I've explored the high end of BX
>>capabilities, now curious about the low end...
>
>
> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked the P
> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with on-die,
> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?

It's a second chip on the same chip carrier; not on CPU die. It does run
full speed.

> Interesting project, keep us informed if you feel so inclined. I'd like to
> know how you go.
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

P2B wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> That does seem like it should work, unless it didn't go in right for
>> some reason.
>>
>> Ya know, after all that talking I did about being hardware similar, I
>> suppose it's possible there's some 'magic' pin/power/signal somewhere,
>> like FC-PGA vs PPGA, that just didn't get put on later boards. I
>> wonder if scouring old Intel Slot-1 docs would uncover some rev level
>> change in the slot=1 wiring from model #1 to the later ones.
>>
>> Come to think of it, are your BX boards able to supply the Pro's 3.3v
>> Vcore?
>
>
> Not a problem, they support 1.3v -> 3.5v
>

Interesting, because according to the P-II data sheets, while codes up to
3.5 are defined, only up to 2.8 is 'required' for P-II motherboards.

MIght be worth breaking out the DVM just to make sure it's really doing it.

P2B wrote:
>
>
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked
>>> the P
>>> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with on-die,
>>> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>> I built and maintained a bunch of PPro workstations
>> way back in those olde days of yore. Bleeding edge
>> x86 workstations by the standards of those days :-)
>>
>> My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.
>>
>> My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
>> The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
>> put side by side into a single cpu package.
>>
>> I would be happy to concede that my ancient
>> memories are wrong if someone could provide a link
>> to a reputable source.
>
>
> Not sure if the L2 is on-die, but it definitely runs at full bus speed:
>
> http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL259
>

That link gives the following:
CPU speed = 200 MHz
Bus speed = 66 MHz
L2 speed = 66 MHz

Not something that supports your contention - but
it doesn't support mine either.

--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.

Rob Stow wrote:

> P2B wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked
>>>> the P
>>>> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with on-die,
>>>> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I built and maintained a bunch of PPro workstations
>>> way back in those olde days of yore. Bleeding edge
>>> x86 workstations by the standards of those days :-)
>>>
>>> My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.
>>>
>>> My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
>>> The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
>>> put side by side into a single cpu package.
>>>
>>> I would be happy to concede that my ancient
>>> memories are wrong if someone could provide a link
>>> to a reputable source.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure if the L2 is on-die, but it definitely runs at full bus speed:
>>
>> http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL259
>>
>
> That link gives the following:
> CPU speed = 200 MHz
> Bus speed = 66 MHz
> L2 speed = 66 MHz
>
> Not something that supports your contention - but
> it doesn't support mine either.
>

Yeah, that doesn't make it clear but the intro page for the 200 Mhz, 1 meg
L2 cache data sheet download does.

http://support.intel.com/design/archives/processors/pro/docs/243570.htm

The Pentium� Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache is a multichip module
targeted for use in high-end 4-way multiprocessor capable server systems.
The component package contains an Intel Pentium Pro processor core, and 1
MB of L2 cache. The 1 MB cache is built using two of the 512 KB SRAM die
found in the 512 KB version of the Pentium Pro processor. While the 512 K
version uses a conventional ceramic package, the Pentium Pro processor with
1 MB L2 cache integrates the three die in a plastic package with an
aluminum heat spreader. This 387-pin package is compatible with the current
Pentium Pro processor footprint. The Pentium Pro processor with 1 MB L2
cache routes all of the processor's high-speed cache interface bus through
balanced nets on a thin film interconnect substrate to the two L2 SRAMs.
This allows for internal component operation speeds of 200 MHz between the
Pentium Pro processor and the L2 cache die.

David Maynard wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>>
>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked
>>>>> the P
>>>>> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with
>>>>> on-die,
>>>>> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I built and maintained a bunch of PPro workstations
>>>> way back in those olde days of yore. Bleeding edge
>>>> x86 workstations by the standards of those days :-)
>>>>
>>>> My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.
>>>>
>>>> My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
>>>> The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
>>>> put side by side into a single cpu package.
>>>>
>>>> I would be happy to concede that my ancient
>>>> memories are wrong if someone could provide a link
>>>> to a reputable source.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure if the L2 is on-die, but it definitely runs at full bus speed:
>>>
>>> http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL259
>>>
>>
>> That link gives the following:
>> CPU speed = 200 MHz
>> Bus speed = 66 MHz
>> L2 speed = 66 MHz
>>
>> Not something that supports your contention - but
>> it doesn't support mine either.
>>
>
> Yeah, that doesn't make it clear but the intro page for the 200 Mhz, 1
> meg L2 cache data sheet download does.
>
> http://support.intel.com/design/archives/processors/pro/docs/243570.htm
>
> The Pentium� Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache is a multichip module
> targeted for use in high-end 4-way multiprocessor capable server
> systems. The component package contains an Intel Pentium Pro processor
> core, and 1 MB of L2 cache. The 1 MB cache is built using two of the 512
> KB SRAM die found in the 512 KB version of the Pentium Pro processor.
> While the 512 K version uses a conventional ceramic package, the Pentium
> Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache integrates the three die in a plastic
> package with an aluminum heat spreader. This 387-pin package is
> compatible with the current Pentium Pro processor footprint. The Pentium
> Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache routes all of the processor's
> high-speed cache interface bus through balanced nets on a thin film
> interconnect substrate to the two L2 SRAMs. This allows for internal
> component operation speeds of 200 MHz between the Pentium Pro processor
> and the L2 cache die.
>

Ta-dah! And we have a winner folks.



--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.

Rob Stow wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> P2B wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always
>>>>>> liked the P
>>>>>> Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU with
>>>>>> on-die,
>>>>>> full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I built and maintained a bunch of PPro workstations
>>>>> way back in those olde days of yore. Bleeding edge
>>>>> x86 workstations by the standards of those days :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> My recollection is that the PPro L2 cache ran at half speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recollection is also that the PPro L2 was not "on-die".
>>>>> The cpu core and the L2 were separate chips that were
>>>>> put side by side into a single cpu package.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be happy to concede that my ancient
>>>>> memories are wrong if someone could provide a link
>>>>> to a reputable source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if the L2 is on-die, but it definitely runs at full bus speed:
>>>>
>>>> http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL259
>>>>
>>>
>>> That link gives the following:
>>> CPU speed = 200 MHz
>>> Bus speed = 66 MHz
>>> L2 speed = 66 MHz
>>>
>>> Not something that supports your contention - but
>>> it doesn't support mine either.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that doesn't make it clear but the intro page for the 200 Mhz, 1
>> meg L2 cache data sheet download does.
>>
>> http://support.intel.com/design/archives/processors/pro/docs/243570.htm
>>
>> The Pentium� Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache is a multichip module
>> targeted for use in high-end 4-way multiprocessor capable server
>> systems. The component package contains an Intel Pentium Pro processor
>> core, and 1 MB of L2 cache. The 1 MB cache is built using two of the
>> 512 KB SRAM die found in the 512 KB version of the Pentium Pro
>> processor. While the 512 K version uses a conventional ceramic
>> package, the Pentium Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache integrates the
>> three die in a plastic package with an aluminum heat spreader. This
>> 387-pin package is compatible with the current Pentium Pro processor
>> footprint. The Pentium Pro processor with 1 MB L2 cache routes all of
>> the processor's high-speed cache interface bus through balanced nets
>> on a thin film interconnect substrate to the two L2 SRAMs. This allows
>> for internal component operation speeds of 200 MHz between the Pentium
>> Pro processor and the L2 cache die.
>>
>
> Ta-dah! And we have a winner folks.
>
>
>

Btw, from that you can see that a P-II is essentially a repackaged, for
lower cost, Pentium Pro. (The P-II data sheets even give a 'side by side'
package comparison.)

'Typical' ICs on a 'conventional' PCB, the slot cartridge, rather than a
ceramic (or plastic) chip carrier and the cache lowered to half speed,
although you're back to 200 MHz cache speed with the P-II 400 (and back to
the Pentium Pro 150's cache speed as early as a P-II 300).

The P-II also dropped some of the 'mission critical' features of the
Pentium Pro but added MMX.

'P-III' added SSE, but stayed with the same slot configuration.

'Coppermine' was simply the next logical progression, moving the cache onto
the die rather than separate components; achieving what the Pentium Pro's
chip carrier package had been 'simulating'.


Actually, the P-II mobile went to on-die cache before the P-III did,
because the space constraints are obviously tighter and mobiles can sustain
a higher cost premium.

David Maynard wrote:

Hi David,

> Btw, from that you can see that a P-II is essentially a repackaged,
> for lower cost, Pentium Pro. (The P-II data sheets even give a 'side
> by side' package comparison.)
>
> 'Typical' ICs on a 'conventional' PCB, the slot cartridge, rather
> than a ceramic (or plastic) chip carrier and the cache lowered to
> half speed, although you're back to 200 MHz cache speed with the P-II
> 400 (and back to the Pentium Pro 150's cache speed as early as a P-II
> 300).
>
> The P-II also dropped some of the 'mission critical' features of the
> Pentium Pro but added MMX.
>
> 'P-III' added SSE, but stayed with the same slot configuration.
>
> 'Coppermine' was simply the next logical progression, moving the
> cache onto the die rather than separate components; achieving what
> the Pentium Pro's chip carrier package had been 'simulating'.

Thanks for that. Maybe I should have said 'on-CPU' rather than on-die. I
don't know if there's actually much of a difference in performance. I knew
that the L2 cache was definately full-speed. And also had ECC.(?)

> Actually, the P-II mobile went to on-die cache before the P-III did,

What about the Mendicino Celerons?
--
~misfit~

David Maynard wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>> Hamman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wouldnt piss about with them too boards too much, BX chipsets can
>>>> take upto 1GHz P3's which is somewhat faster than a PPro
>>>>
>>>
>>> BX can do better than that :-) The board was running a Tualatin
>>> P3-S @ 1575Mhz (150Mhz FSB) before I pulled it to try the PPro.
>>
>>
>> I agree. I have a Tui Celeron running at 1.6Ghz on a BX here.
>>
>>
>>> I "piss about" for interest's sake. I've explored the high end of BX
>>> capabilities, now curious about the low end...
>>
>>
>> Me too. These slockets you've found fascinate me. I've always liked
>> the P Pro, especially the 1MB, 200Mhz version. The first x86 CPU
>> with on-die, full-speed ECC cache wasn't it?
>
> It's a second chip on the same chip carrier; not on CPU die. It does
> run full speed.

Thanks. I thought about it after I posted and realised I should have said
that. Too casual, where I meant 'on CPU (or "chip-carrier")' I said 'on
die'.

Was the L2 ECC?
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>>Btw, from that you can see that a P-II is essentially a repackaged,
>>for lower cost, Pentium Pro. (The P-II data sheets even give a 'side
>>by side' package comparison.)
>>
>>'Typical' ICs on a 'conventional' PCB, the slot cartridge, rather
>>than a ceramic (or plastic) chip carrier and the cache lowered to
>>half speed, although you're back to 200 MHz cache speed with the P-II
>>400 (and back to the Pentium Pro 150's cache speed as early as a P-II
>>300).
>>
>>The P-II also dropped some of the 'mission critical' features of the
>>Pentium Pro but added MMX.
>>
>>'P-III' added SSE, but stayed with the same slot configuration.
>>
>>'Coppermine' was simply the next logical progression, moving the
>>cache onto the die rather than separate components; achieving what
>>the Pentium Pro's chip carrier package had been 'simulating'.
>
>
> Thanks for that. Maybe I should have said 'on-CPU' rather than on-die. I
> don't know if there's actually much of a difference in performance. I knew
> that the L2 cache was definately full-speed. And also had ECC.(?)

Depends on how you define 'on-cpu'. The P-II has it on the cart but it's
half speed.

>
>
>>Actually, the P-II mobile went to on-die cache before the P-III did,
>
>
> What about the Mendicino Celerons?

True.

It's obvious what the idea behind the original celerons was: P-II with the
cache chips dropped off. People complained there was no L2 so, one theory
goes, the 128K cache celerons were originally half cache P-II mobiles
(MMC-2 mobiles were first 512k cache chips like the desktop P-II and then
256k on-die like the coppermines. PGA mobiles were 512k on-die cache).

Or maybe the celeron was first and they increased it for the mobiles.

> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

David Maynard wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>> Btw, from that you can see that a P-II is essentially a repackaged,
>>> for lower cost, Pentium Pro. (The P-II data sheets even give a 'side
>>> by side' package comparison.)
>>>
>>> 'Typical' ICs on a 'conventional' PCB, the slot cartridge, rather
>>> than a ceramic (or plastic) chip carrier and the cache lowered to
>>> half speed, although you're back to 200 MHz cache speed with the
>>> P-II 400 (and back to the Pentium Pro 150's cache speed as early as
>>> a P-II 300).
>>>
>>> The P-II also dropped some of the 'mission critical' features of the
>>> Pentium Pro but added MMX.
>>>
>>> 'P-III' added SSE, but stayed with the same slot configuration.
>>>
>>> 'Coppermine' was simply the next logical progression, moving the
>>> cache onto the die rather than separate components; achieving what
>>> the Pentium Pro's chip carrier package had been 'simulating'.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that. Maybe I should have said 'on-CPU' rather than
>> on-die. I don't know if there's actually much of a difference in
>> performance. I knew that the L2 cache was definately full-speed. And
>> also had ECC.(?)
>
> Depends on how you define 'on-cpu'. The P-II has it on the cart but
> it's half speed.

It does indeed. I don't think of the slot CPU's as CPUs really, more of a
daughter-board. Like a slocket with an embedded CPU (and half-speed L2
sometimes). Real CPUs have pins. :-)

>>> Actually, the P-II mobile went to on-die cache before the P-III did,
>>
>>
>> What about the Mendicino Celerons?
>
> True.
>
> It's obvious what the idea behind the original celerons was: P-II
> with the cache chips dropped off. People complained there was no L2

More like people complained because they were dog-slow. I once ran a P-1 200
with no L2 cache and it was slower (subjectively) than a P-120 with 256KB
on-board. At the time I first used it I didn't realise it had no L2 and
couldn't work out why it was so slow.

> so, one theory goes, the 128K cache celerons were originally half
> cache P-II mobiles (MMC-2 mobiles were first 512k cache chips like
> the desktop P-II and then 256k on-die like the coppermines.

Were they the same physical pagkaging as the Mendicino? That would shed some
light on that theory.

> PGA
> mobiles were 512k on-die cache).
>
> Or maybe the celeron was first and they increased it for the mobiles.

I don't know how the time-frame went. All I know is I really liked the
Mendicino. Heaps better performance than the desktop PIIs (in a slocket for
the PGA ones). Good to OC too, (up to about 565Mhz stable for me) and
out-performed the PIIs easilly. That one was significantly better (on
benchmarks) than a P-III Katmai 500Mhz too.

I've collected a bunch of P-Pros over the last few years but they're all
256KB L2 cache ones. Believe it or not the 512/1024KB L2 versions still
fetch good money. At least in this neck of the woods. Also, there were a lot
less of them made. I only ever had one P Pro system working, and then only
for a day or two. It was a dual board and I had a matched pair of 200Mhz
CPUs in it and it worked perfectly. I had an OS installed, XP Pro (don't
laugh, it was slow but it was the only multi-CPU capable OS I had access to
and was familiar with). Then I noticed on the mobo that I could OC it to
233Mhz. How could I resist? I moved the jumpers and it booted fine. Once.
Ran for a few hours, seemed nice and cool. Next time I went to boot it it
was as dead as a parrot in a Monty Python sketch. I never got that board to
work again. Tried clocking it back, underclocking it, just one, then the
other CPU, nothing. It was an ASUS board (Just noticed the crosspost).

I'd still like to have one running and am always on the look-out for a
Socket 8 board. Make a good firewall with linux coyote or something similar
methinks. Gotta build me a firewall box now I have ADSL on and a fixed
IP/speed upgrade soon. I'm not confident just with software firewalls. A
mate's talked me into Coyote. A P1, two PCI 10/base-T NICs, a graphics card
(to set it up) minimum 32MB RAM and a floppy. No HDD needed. He's set up a
couple for friends. Use 'em in a mini-tower and he reckons you can use
passive cooling on the CPU and remove the fan from the PSU and cut out the
grilles a bit.. Heat rising takes care of the minimal heat-transfer needed.
he set up a box like this over two years ago and it hasn't been turned off
in all that time. Costs next to nothing to run, no heavy processing and all
done in RAM, just uses the floppy to boot from and to store settings if he
tel-nets (?) into it to update it/set permissions.

I'm in the process of finding a nice case now, sorting through my back room.
I want a case that will have a good air-path for a thermal gradient
flow-through. I have some large passive HS's for socket 7. I suggested to
him that I might use a PSU fan on 5 or 7 volts and he said totally not
needed. It works fine without and with no moving parts (or fans to suck dust
in) they run for years without being touched. He said the usual place to put
them is in a wardrobe, (big) cupboard or even in the crawl-space. He tried
with desktop cases but the thermal gradient wasn't there and they failed
often. He hasn't had a single one fail in a good tower.

Oopps, got a bit off track. You get that at 3:15am.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi David,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Btw, from that you can see that a P-II is essentially a repackaged,
>>>>for lower cost, Pentium Pro. (The P-II data sheets even give a 'side
>>>>by side' package comparison.)
>>>>
>>>>'Typical' ICs on a 'conventional' PCB, the slot cartridge, rather
>>>>than a ceramic (or plastic) chip carrier and the cache lowered to
>>>>half speed, although you're back to 200 MHz cache speed with the
>>>>P-II 400 (and back to the Pentium Pro 150's cache speed as early as
>>>>a P-II 300).
>>>>
>>>>The P-II also dropped some of the 'mission critical' features of the
>>>>Pentium Pro but added MMX.
>>>>
>>>>'P-III' added SSE, but stayed with the same slot configuration.
>>>>
>>>>'Coppermine' was simply the next logical progression, moving the
>>>>cache onto the die rather than separate components; achieving what
>>>>the Pentium Pro's chip carrier package had been 'simulating'.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for that. Maybe I should have said 'on-CPU' rather than
>>>on-die. I don't know if there's actually much of a difference in
>>>performance. I knew that the L2 cache was definately full-speed. And
>>>also had ECC.(?)
>>
>>Depends on how you define 'on-cpu'. The P-II has it on the cart but
>>it's half speed.
>
>
> It does indeed. I don't think of the slot CPU's as CPUs really, more of a
> daughter-board. Like a slocket with an embedded CPU (and half-speed L2
> sometimes). Real CPUs have pins. :-)

hehe. It's 'packaging', when you think about it. Even 'on-die' is a
packaging choice.


>>>>Actually, the P-II mobile went to on-die cache before the P-III did,
>>>
>>>
>>>What about the Mendicino Celerons?
>>
>>True.
>>
>>It's obvious what the idea behind the original celerons was: P-II
>>with the cache chips dropped off. People complained there was no L2
>
>
> More like people complained because they were dog-slow. I once ran a P-1 200
> with no L2 cache and it was slower (subjectively) than a P-120 with 256KB
> on-board. At the time I first used it I didn't realise it had no L2 and
> couldn't work out why it was so slow.

Running no L2 wasn't really all that uncommon back then.


>>so, one theory goes, the 128K cache celerons were originally half
>>cache P-II mobiles (MMC-2 mobiles were first 512k cache chips like
>>the desktop P-II and then 256k on-die like the coppermines.
>
>
> Were they the same physical pagkaging as the Mendicino? That would shed some
> light on that theory.

I never paid that much attention to it but I don't see it would reveal
much. It's the die that's 'the thing'.

>
>
>>PGA
>>mobiles were 512k on-die cache).
>>
>>Or maybe the celeron was first and they increased it for the mobiles.
>
>
> I don't know how the time-frame went. All I know is I really liked the
> Mendicino. Heaps better performance than the desktop PIIs (in a slocket for
> the PGA ones). Good to OC too, (up to about 565Mhz stable for me) and
> out-performed the PIIs easilly. That one was significantly better (on
> benchmarks) than a P-III Katmai 500Mhz too.

Well, they only matched, or exceeded, the P-II when overlcocking. When used
'as specified' the P-II was always faster.

> I've collected a bunch of P-Pros over the last few years but they're all
> 256KB L2 cache ones. Believe it or not the 512/1024KB L2 versions still
> fetch good money. At least in this neck of the woods. Also, there were a lot
> less of them made. I only ever had one P Pro system working, and then only
> for a day or two. It was a dual board and I had a matched pair of 200Mhz
> CPUs in it and it worked perfectly. I had an OS installed, XP Pro (don't
> laugh, it was slow but it was the only multi-CPU capable OS I had access to
> and was familiar with). Then I noticed on the mobo that I could OC it to
> 233Mhz. How could I resist? I moved the jumpers and it booted fine. Once.
> Ran for a few hours, seemed nice and cool. Next time I went to boot it it
> was as dead as a parrot in a Monty Python sketch. I never got that board to
> work again. Tried clocking it back, underclocking it, just one, then the
> other CPU, nothing. It was an ASUS board (Just noticed the crosspost).
>
> I'd still like to have one running and am always on the look-out for a
> Socket 8 board. Make a good firewall with linux coyote or something similar
> methinks. Gotta build me a firewall box now I have ADSL on and a fixed
> IP/speed upgrade soon. I'm not confident just with software firewalls. A
> mate's talked me into Coyote. A P1, two PCI 10/base-T NICs, a graphics card
> (to set it up) minimum 32MB RAM and a floppy. No HDD needed. He's set up a
> couple for friends. Use 'em in a mini-tower and he reckons you can use
> passive cooling on the CPU and remove the fan from the PSU and cut out the
> grilles a bit.. Heat rising takes care of the minimal heat-transfer needed.
> he set up a box like this over two years ago and it hasn't been turned off
> in all that time. Costs next to nothing to run, no heavy processing and all
> done in RAM, just uses the floppy to boot from and to store settings if he
> tel-nets (?) into it to update it/set permissions.

Right. telnet. command line kind of interface.

>
> I'm in the process of finding a nice case now, sorting through my back room.
> I want a case that will have a good air-path for a thermal gradient
> flow-through. I have some large passive HS's for socket 7. I suggested to
> him that I might use a PSU fan on 5 or 7 volts and he said totally not
> needed. It works fine without and with no moving parts (or fans to suck dust
> in) they run for years without being touched. He said the usual place to put
> them is in a wardrobe, (big) cupboard or even in the crawl-space. He tried
> with desktop cases but the thermal gradient wasn't there and they failed
> often. He hasn't had a single one fail in a good tower.
>
> Oopps, got a bit off track. You get that at 3:15am.
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

David Maynard wrote:
> P2B wrote:
>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> That does seem like it should work, unless it didn't go in right for
>>> some reason.
>>>
>>> Ya know, after all that talking I did about being hardware similar, I
>>> suppose it's possible there's some 'magic' pin/power/signal
>>> somewhere, like FC-PGA vs PPGA, that just didn't get put on later
>>> boards. I wonder if scouring old Intel Slot-1 docs would uncover some
>>> rev level change in the slot=1 wiring from model #1 to the later ones.
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, are your BX boards able to supply the Pro's 3.3v
>>> Vcore?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not a problem, they support 1.3v -> 3.5v
>>
>
> Interesting, because according to the P-II data sheets, while codes up
> to 3.5 are defined, only up to 2.8 is 'required' for P-II motherboards.
>
> MIght be worth breaking out the DVM just to make sure it's really doing it.

The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if the
CPU wasn't getting Vcore.

P2B wrote:

>
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>> That does seem like it should work, unless it didn't go in right for
>>>> some reason.
>>>>
>>>> Ya know, after all that talking I did about being hardware similar,
>>>> I suppose it's possible there's some 'magic' pin/power/signal
>>>> somewhere, like FC-PGA vs PPGA, that just didn't get put on later
>>>> boards. I wonder if scouring old Intel Slot-1 docs would uncover
>>>> some rev level change in the slot=1 wiring from model #1 to the
>>>> later ones.
>>>>
>>>> Come to think of it, are your BX boards able to supply the Pro's
>>>> 3.3v Vcore?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a problem, they support 1.3v -> 3.5v
>>>
>>
>> Interesting, because according to the P-II data sheets, while codes up
>> to 3.5 are defined, only up to 2.8 is 'required' for P-II motherboards.
>>
>> MIght be worth breaking out the DVM just to make sure it's really
>> doing it.
>
>
> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if the
> CPU wasn't getting Vcore.

It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.

Just thought it might be worth verifying.

David Maynard wrote:

>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if the
>> CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>
>
> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>
> Just thought it might be worth verifying.

Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)

Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.

P2B wrote:

>
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if
>>> the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>>
>>
>>
>> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>>
>> Just thought it might be worth verifying.
>
>
> Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)

Hehe

>
> Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.

Doesn't look like that's 'the problem' ;)

David Maynard wrote:
> P2B wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if
>>>> the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>>>
>>> Just thought it might be worth verifying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)
>
>
> Hehe
>
>>
>> Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.
>
>
> Doesn't look like that's 'the problem' ;)

No.

Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't make
any difference either.

I'm about out of ideas - I suspect getting this to work would require
disassembling a working LX or FX BIOS and porting the CPU initialisation
code into a BX BIOS, just not sure I'm sufficiently motivated to learn
the requisite skills. Where's apple_rom when you need him? :-)

P2B wrote:
>
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if
>>>>> the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>>>>
>>>> Just thought it might be worth verifying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hehe
>>
>>>
>>> Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't look like that's 'the problem' ;)
>
>
> No.
>
> Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't make
> any difference either.

... to booting the PPro - but it had a somewhat surprising side-effect:

I forgot to re-enable the CPU caches when I re-installed the Tualatin-S
today to test some new software. XP Pro wouldn't even boot with the
caches off - it sat at the splash screen for 3-4 minutes, then BSOD. I
assumed the hardware had been disturbed (it's a board-on-the-bench
system) and re-plugged it all, same thing. Then I remembered the caches...

Interesting - NT and W2K systems are dead slow but otherwise unaffected
by lack of CPU cache, however it stops XP Pro cold.

P2B

> I'm about out of ideas - I suspect getting this to work would require
> disassembling a working LX or FX BIOS and porting the CPU initialisation
> code into a BX BIOS, just not sure I'm sufficiently motivated to learn
> the requisite skills. Where's apple_rom when you need him? :-)

Here's a random idea for you: get a P2 overdrive chip like this one
http://www.valuelist.co.uk/ProductDetailPage.asp?guid=&ticketid=0&productID=2735
and put it on one of those slotkets just for fun...

P2B wrote:

>
>
> P2B wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> P2B wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST if
>>>>>> the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just thought it might be worth verifying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hehe
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't look like that's 'the problem' ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't make
>> any difference either.
>
>
> .. to booting the PPro - but it had a somewhat surprising side-effect:
>
> I forgot to re-enable the CPU caches when I re-installed the Tualatin-S
> today to test some new software. XP Pro wouldn't even boot with the
> caches off - it sat at the splash screen for 3-4 minutes, then BSOD. I
> assumed the hardware had been disturbed (it's a board-on-the-bench
> system) and re-plugged it all, same thing. Then I remembered the caches...
>
> Interesting - NT and W2K systems are dead slow but otherwise unaffected
> by lack of CPU cache, however it stops XP Pro cold.

Well, that is strange. Why would XP give a hoot whether cache is enabled or
not?

Hmm. Maybe it's trying to time something and being super slow screws up a
counter somewhere, or tells it crucial things are missing/defective (from
time-out).

BananaOfTheNight wrote:

> Here's a random idea for you: get a P2 overdrive chip like this one
> http://www.valuelist.co.uk/ProductDetailPage.asp?guid=&ticketid=0&productID=2735
> and put it on one of those slotkets just for fun...

If/when one turns up in the dumpster, I'll do just that. Can't see
*buying* one, though, even at that price :-)

David Maynard wrote:

> P2B wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>> P2B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST
>>>>>>> if the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just thought it might be worth verifying.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hehe
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't look like that's 'the problem' ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't make
>>> any difference either.
>>
>>
>>
>> .. to booting the PPro - but it had a somewhat surprising side-effect:
>>
>> I forgot to re-enable the CPU caches when I re-installed the
>> Tualatin-S today to test some new software. XP Pro wouldn't even boot
>> with the caches off - it sat at the splash screen for 3-4 minutes,
>> then BSOD. I assumed the hardware had been disturbed (it's a
>> board-on-the-bench system) and re-plugged it all, same thing. Then I
>> remembered the caches...
>>
>> Interesting - NT and W2K systems are dead slow but otherwise
>> unaffected by lack of CPU cache, however it stops XP Pro cold.
>
>
> Well, that is strange. Why would XP give a hoot whether cache is enabled
> or not?

Dunno, but it's also the only OS I've used that objects to you removing
one CPU in a dual setup - similar issues result.

> Hmm. Maybe it's trying to time something and being super slow screws up
> a counter somewhere, or tells it crucial things are missing/defective
> (from time-out).

It certainly was sloooow - I didn't know XP displayed the black & white
progress bar (like W2K) before the splash, I guess it's normally not
there long enough to see - but surely if it's timing something it would
use system clock timer-ticks, which are presumably unaffected.

P2B wrote:

>
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> P2B wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> P2B wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> P2B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The VRM datasheet says 1.3 -> 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST
>>>>>>>> if the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just thought it might be worth verifying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hehe
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't look like that's 'the problem' ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't
>>>> make any difference either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .. to booting the PPro - but it had a somewhat surprising side-effect:
>>>
>>> I forgot to re-enable the CPU caches when I re-installed the
>>> Tualatin-S today to test some new software. XP Pro wouldn't even boot
>>> with the caches off - it sat at the splash screen for 3-4 minutes,
>>> then BSOD. I assumed the hardware had been disturbed (it's a
>>> board-on-the-bench system) and re-plugged it all, same thing. Then I
>>> remembered the caches...
>>>
>>> Interesting - NT and W2K systems are dead slow but otherwise
>>> unaffected by lack of CPU cache, however it stops XP Pro cold.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, that is strange. Why would XP give a hoot whether cache is
>> enabled or not?
>
>
> Dunno, but it's also the only OS I've used that objects to you removing
> one CPU in a dual setup - similar issues result.
>
>> Hmm. Maybe it's trying to time something and being super slow screws
>> up a counter somewhere, or tells it crucial things are
>> missing/defective (from time-out).
>
>
> It certainly was sloooow - I didn't know XP displayed the black & white
> progress bar (like W2K) before the splash, I guess it's normally not
> there long enough to see

Hehe. Yeah. I caught it going by once too. Don't remember why. Maybe I
blinked just right ;)

> - but surely if it's timing something it would
> use system clock timer-ticks, which are presumably unaffected.

One would think so but MS has been known to use timing loops. At any rate,
the second half of my 'hmm' doesn't depend on a counter overflow for the
'problem'. It might simply think something critical is not working, hence
'missing', because it failed to respond in a timely manner.