Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

TASOS

Members
  • Posts

    1526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by TASOS

  1. The early Jan 1997 screenshot of the QDI ftp shows very few options

    https://web.archive.org/web/19970130115152/http://www.qdigrp.com/html/bios.html

     

    You are looking for this one (with UMC um8886f / um8881f chipset)

    https://www.elhvb.com/webhq/models/486pci/p4u885.htm

     

    Your best shot at the moment , is to test one of those bios that are still available at the old mobokive archive.

    https://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/Archive/Qdi - Legend/bios/486/index.html

     

    The worst scenario is that you will programm the new bios chip but the board will not start.

    Start with the 885v23 , it was made for the P4U885P3 (it looks very similar to yours).

    http://www.amoretro.de/2012/09/qdi-mp4-p4u885p3-pcb-v2-0-umc-88818886-486-pci-motherboard.html

     

    • Like 1
  2. On 7/11/2021 at 5:30 PM, Leeghoofd said:

    Moved Start date to 1st of August , so you have 2 months to play

    Well , the two month period is for people that dont plan to take a summer holiday and stay home i guess ?

    But , most people (at least in Europe) usually plan their summer holidays in August.

    Take that into consideration please.

  3. 59 minutes ago, Antinomy said:

    You replace the input frequency of 14.318MHz that goes to PLL with a custom one. This shifts all the clocks from the PLL. Breaking the timer, USB, floppy. Thus, you need to provide stock 14.318 (system timer), 24MHz (floppy?) and 48MHz (USB) as well to maintain these while other frequencies go up.

     

    You shift only the base clock, the board's PLL does the rest.

     

    Nope, should work with pretty much any PLL.

    True

    The pll device the Japanese firm FANATIC was selling back then as PLL01 , would require soldering to certain points , to take care of the different clocks for floppy and usb

    For example the P3B-F

     

    T_pll.jpg

    • Like 1
  4. Nice job Obi !!!

     

    P.S.

    Looking at those category results (Slot-1 Celeron Convigton core) , what got my attention was @RemiKo results

    All of his submitted results with the same? cpu , report a dB0 stepping and a 652 cpuid ... which belong to either a PII Deschute core or a PII Mobile Celeron (Convigton)

    Regular Celeron Convigton cores are dA0 650 or dA1 651

    @Leeghoofd @Antinomy

    Did we , on purpose left that category unified for both desktop and mobile cpu's ?

  5. 3 hours ago, chispy said:

    Can you guys spot what's wrong with this score ? take a guess ...

    Becides all other already mentioned.

    Scoring of first line "Seq" ... is not centered and there is also missing the MB/s

    • Like 1
  6. 5 hours ago, yosarianilives said:

    Samsung magician is ram cache, and guess what type of software is banned :)

     

    Screenshot_20210514-201425_Chrome.jpg

    You dont get the meaning of my posts.

    Perhaps i dont express myself correctly.

    I know very well what is allowed and what's not.

    Dont focus to score as numbers (score is out of line cause of the Samsung rapid mode).

    Focus on the variation of scoring that i am reporting.

  7. Start running each subtest alone ... and re-run and re-run , and you will see miracles happening

    * and , yes i confirmed that the pc i tested had Samsung magician installed , with rapid mode enabled.

     

     

    as-ssd-bench Samsung SSD 860  9.5.2021 12-15-36 μμ.png

  8. 13 hours ago, yosarianilives said:

    Did you install the Samsung sata  ssd driver? 

     

    10 hours ago, Leeghoofd said:

    And that is without any caching software ? Hard to believe...

    These tests were performed on a office pc , that is used for logistics and internet.

    I have no clue if there is any kind of extra software installed , but i will check next time.

  9. Are we really sure about this benchmark ... ?

    Is it tested enough ?

    Does it produce consistent results or are we playing lottery once more ?

    I get different results each time i run it ... and i'm also getting big difference in scoring when running each subtest alone

     

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...