A New Challenger Enters:  

Thank you brother! I had to go for the VLB stuff, as PCI was just too easy of an answer, and I'm here for overcomplicating the hell out of things haha! But no, seriously, thank you my friend. This was an amazing time, and I enjoyed every single second!

Hey, thank you so much for the support and kind words! I'm so glad that you enjoyed the video, and you know what? I agree! That 486 is something weird, and it runs pretty well too! It's kinda cool how it's an ordinary DX4, but one of the last of it's kind! I don't bust it out often, but it does like 120MHz just fine!

Thanks for watching and for all your constant support, my friend! Now that sounds like some fun! I did get Win95 on the 486, so I'll give it a go over the weekend and see. I'd be interested if it'll run! If it does, that oughta be fun (or funny!)!

@@RetroTechBytes Re: GTA1, the DOS version is MUCH faster on older machines.

Agreed! Too bad on the 3X multiplier, in a sense, but DX4s are still awesome too!

@@RetroTechBytes For sure. Cheers.

Thank you so much for the kind words and support! I definitely plan on it, barring grad school interfering here/there haha! 14fps is totally playable back then, that’s for sure. Quake seems to be totally fine to me, and I played through most of the first episode on that system after, just because! Ah, the 166MMX-now that’s a classic right there! I love those CPUs and systems. Quake definitely would’ve run great on there, even without 3D, that’s for sure. Quake II in software mode was another story though. It just ran poorly overall, and really needed OpenGL or Glide acceleration to be playable. But hey, thanks for sharing the memories! I’m really glad to hear that you enjoyed!

Thanks for watching! I’d love to see it if you are able to snag one! Would you be using the TMC board or another 5V-only VLB board? I’d love to see a comparison for sure! PCI is fast on 486s, but I think a mature VLB implementation might be somewhat faster, especially since it’s on the CPU bus. As for the frames-per-clock, that’s something that’s honestly been messing with my understanding of ALUs and FPUs relative to one another at the moment. I say that because an X5-160 should be much faster. And yet, well, it’s not quite that much faster here, and per clock it’s slower, when it shouldn’t be. I’m also troubled because the OPTi chipsets are fast, but slower than the UMC and SiS chipsets others like yourself were using. I’m really wondering what gave me that boost and got me to 14.1. I’m thinking the ARK1000VL played a role, but even then, an X5-133 and Tseng ET4000/W32P should be faster, but some seemingly weren’t. Such a weird result, but I’ll take that win haha

Thanks for watching! Glad you enjoyed! And hey, yeah, that’s the plan! Always here to keep the challenge up and keep on pushing those 486s!

Hey, thanks for watching! You know, I could believe that! Tridents had good VESA compatibility and performance, so I could see that doable. Any idea what CPU it was? Duke3D at 640x480 is definitely tough to run, but probably okay on a DX4 or higher with the right setup. Anyway, thanks for watching, and I'm glad you enjoyed! Oh, and as for VLB and non-486s...keep an eye out haha

Hey thanks for watching! I have no doubt we will, and we’d all love to have you as a part of the next one! I am curious to know just how fast someone can take a Pentium! I guess the Tillamook is the factory fastest CPU, but an OC-ing experiment like this would be quite cool!

Hey, thanks for watching! I agree absolutely, and Map32 would be an excellent test. If you haven't seen it, check out CPUGalaxy's 486--it's definitely the fastest I think there's ever been haha: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LI1_RlVLhu8.html

Thanks again for watching and for the support! Honestly, I’m not sure as to what Bruno/SUCRA was referring to, but it might have been that. I haven’t used a Trio64 in DOS myself much. I generally just use my Matrox Mystique or a Voodoo Rush or VLB cards. It’s possible that it was VBE 2.0, though. I’d suggest getting in touch with him, if you want to find out! His Twitter is twitter.com/bruno__sa ! Or check him out on RU-vid at ru-vid.com!

Thanks for watching! My apologies for not making it more clear. Basically, this DX4 has the Intel logo from the Core2 era! The date code is L7, which seems to suggest 1997, but Intel did indeed produce 486 CPUs through 2007 and recycled date codes. Here’s an article with a picture of a similar DX2-66 from 2007: www.cpushack.com/2013/01/26/cpu-of-the-day-new-logo-old-processor-intel-486-dx2-66/. And, if you’re interested as to how I’m sure this is circa 2007, this document from Intel demonstrates a change in the labeling/logo to be used on Intel products, including the 486: qdms.intel.com/dm/d.aspx/D08F5D46-8B2E-4ACA-82E8-924EB0BCAE9E/PCN107060-01.pdf. I hope that helps!

@@RetroTechBytes Thank you; that clears it up nicely. This fascinates me.. I would have never imagined that Intel kept producing DX4's for so long.

@@kotto7877 Absolutely, no worries! Glad to hear that it clears things up. I think a big part of it was the embedded/government market. These DX4s aren't the most common, but they're pretty much no different from any other, other than labelling. I freaked out and thought it was fake when I first bought it, before learning this haha

Are these late chips more likely to reach 120MHz than the 90’s ones? Btw, it’s weird how 2007 sounds so recent but by now they stopped making these chips longer than they produced them…

Thank you for watching and for the support! Yep, you are right on this one. I slipped and said ‘97, and honestly wouldn’t have caught it if you didn’t! Thanks for catching that one, and thanks for watching! Quake was absolutely 1996, and Quake II was 1997!

Apologies for not responding sooner! It depends on which 5x86! If it's a Cyrix, probably not, as the M1SC is just as much a cut down 6x86. If it's the Am5x86? Absolutely! The competition is limited to the fastest pure 486 you can put together!

@@RetroTechBytes Exactly what I was thinking myself ... AMD it is!

Currently upgrading my Dell 486... Finally dug out the new interposer I have!

Hopefully the 50ns cache chips can keep up

@@waytostoned Oh, that's gonna be great! Please keep me posted! 50ns cache seems a bit slow, but I could see it probably being fine? Worst comes to worst, you can always disable the L2 and see how it goes. SUCRA barely lost any performance on his M919 without cache, if he even lost any at all!