One thing kind of outside of the scope of this video but worth a mention: COAST modules could be a bit of a minefield wrt compatibility, with different revisions and different manufacturer-specific implementations, so if you're in the market for one for an older system like this please do consult the motherboard manual. I've heard that in extreme cases using the wrong one can damage your motherboard, although in practice I've never come across this.
@greggv8Күн бұрын
Remember the boards with fake onboard cache chips and a COAST slot?
@michac3796Күн бұрын
Did you try a coast module alone, w/o the onboard enabled cache?
@RetroTinkerer13 сағат бұрын
Yep the socket 3 ECS M919 have a proprietary slot that only accept an special module, I have heard there are several versions of the motherboard and modules each incompatible with one another 😂
@zantuforevers9140 минут бұрын
I actually did have a motherboard become damaged due to an incompatible COAST module I installed in it, several years back. Sadly I don't recall any specifics as it was all hardware I was playing around with at the office.
@austinhemmelgarn19562 күн бұрын
The lack of a significant difference in the actual benchmarks (as compared to the tests with Doom and Quake) when comparing 256k and 512k of cache actually makes a lot of sense, and kind of highlights why benchmarks need to be tuned properly for what they’re trying to simulate. It’s very likely that 100% of the code and most of the data being operated on fit comfortably in less than 256k of memory, in which case 100% of it would fit in the 256k of cache. And if that’s the case, then you would logically expect to not see any practical improvement with 512k of cache, because the extra resources would never get used by those benchmarks. Of course, that’s not a level of detail most prospective PC users in the mid 90's would know or care about, but it is an effect that’s still visible today in some cases (usually when testing high-performance code on CPUs with significantly different L1 cache geometry) and can really surprise programmers who somehow don’t have a good low-level understanding of how a computer works.
@porovaaraКүн бұрын
the other thing to take into consideration are the tests and games are non-multi-tasking loads. as you stated above most everything is likely sitting inside the cache. however under loads with a great deal of context switches the more cache the better in quite noticeable ways.
@sebastian19745Күн бұрын
I guess that for the 16M RAM that he have installed, 128k, 256k or 512k cache would give the same-ish results. The amount of cache needed is related to the amount of RAM installed, but I did not find a reliable relation between the two. Also the tag memory is involved in the equation.
@AeduoКүн бұрын
512KB might've also been a target for more professional workstation/research/"big" data kinda stuff for the time too, where most applications for consumers/end users would've likely been optimizing for considerably smaller caches, so yeah you probably do see the meaningful difference in workloads and which tiers different things would've been intended for. But yeah if you were a heavy multitasker or you were working in a DAW or larger photos or even video at the time, the extra cache could've probably helped.
@buitreadorКүн бұрын
the COASTs were ment to be alone, not mixed with the cache in the motherboard. Also its very noticeable the lack of cache in faster pentiums. I vivid remember a client who had a Pentium 200 in an Pcchips M519 (Opti Viper Chipset) with no cache in 2002. it was DOG slow, once i added the 256k was like twice as fast for everything. It was maybe the best case-scenario for this as i never seen such a difference again
@ctrlaltreesКүн бұрын
Indeed, I always thought the same but there don't seem to be any options here for specifically disabling the motherboard cache, either in the BIOS or as a jumper. Disabling the external cache in the BIOS also disables the COAST module when installed. So either this board is a suboptimal design (which might explain the results) or it's handling this automatically somehow in the background.
@Vanders456Күн бұрын
@@ctrlaltrees There is a third option, which is your COAST module is a big 'ol fake.
@greggv812 сағат бұрын
@@ctrlaltrees try putting the maximum amount of RAM in then re-run the tests that showed the most improvement with cache enabled VS disabled. Is there a 512K COAST?
@PixelPipesКүн бұрын
I'm not entirely surprised by the result with 512KB, but I am surprised that not having any L2 at all makes such a small impact, even though according to the cachechk shot you included it has over 60% more bandwidth, and system RAM has almost 70% higher latency. Very interesting.
@datassetteuser356Күн бұрын
Nice. I very vaguely remember how people used to swear on Cache when I had my 386 - but my cheapo machine of course had none 😅. When I upgraded from there to a Cyrix P200+ in around 98, I don't remember that much talk about Cache anymore. It was all about 3D cards. I try to think of a really slow machine, a 386 with a slow Connor or (even worse at that time at least) Tandon HDD, maybe even a pretty bad mainboard and cheapest RAM and wonder what difference it would have made on that. But I'll probably never go back to revisit my 386 days hardwarewise anyways 😅. Too confident with my Pentium 133 for all my DOS gaming needs. Cheers!
@andrewlittleboy8532Күн бұрын
I think there’s a decimal point on the 3DBench mark. 102.3 rather than 1023 and 105.6 instead of 1056.
@ctrlaltreesКүн бұрын
Oops. You're correct! Looks like I misread that. 🙂
@andrewlittleboy853222 сағат бұрын
@@ctrlaltreesnot surprising, it’s very had to see. 😊
@thetwistedsock3253Күн бұрын
Lovely looking illustrations/animations with good timing on sounds 👍
@envoycdxКүн бұрын
Curious as to whether the coast sram is as quick as the onboard sram.. and by mixing the two is why the gains were why it was significantly underwealming in terms of returns on investment. interesting video all the same.
@ctrlaltreesКүн бұрын
That's a very good question, so I went back to the CACHECHK results to check. Seems both the onboard 256K and the COAST module clock in at a reported 97.4MB/s. Of course this could be a limitation of how the cache is structured on this system vs. how CACHECHK measures it, I suppose.
@envoycdxКүн бұрын
@ctrlaltrees wonder if there is a means of disabling the onboard 256kb to compare the results of the 256kb coast, a jumper perhaps
@humidbeing42 минут бұрын
This matches my own benchmarking. Back when I was a kid I lamented not having maxed out L2 cache. Now I'm glad my family didn't waste money on it. It's really not a noticeable difference except in very specific cases.
@KomradeMikhailКүн бұрын
Should have mentioned that CoaST was simply a new formfactor for L2 cache to replace the DIP chips that i486 mobos used previously.
@kasimirdenhertog351611 сағат бұрын
COAST has got to be one of the greatest acronyms of all time
@turbinegraphics167 сағат бұрын
I do remember seeing this slot back in the day and asking a computer expert about it with them saying it improves performance but is incredibly hard to find.
@cromulence18 сағат бұрын
‘I boost my speed with cache on a stick’ - Bart Simpson, probably
@paulladdie102622 сағат бұрын
But why was, your Tiny computer, so large?
@therushden20 сағат бұрын
Nicely explained 👍
@damouze12 сағат бұрын
I'm pretty sure you're aware of this, but the main reason Quake ran so abysmally slow on non-Pentium CPUs was not that the other CPUs were really that much slower (the later 486s from Intel, and the 486DX4/100 in particular had Pentium-like features integrated already), but the fact that Quake was heavily optimized for Pentiums. I remember Quake running just as badly on (somewhat) later CPU offerings from Intel's competitors, even though these CPUs were definitely faster than the original Pentiums in most ways. It was a nice way for Intel to consolidate its grip on the x86 CPU market, but it was pretty much based on a lie.
@humidbeing39 минут бұрын
This is very wrong. Quake did target the Pentium FPU, because it had to. The Pentium FPU was that much better than any 486 FPU. 486 FPUs were really that much slower. The P5 stomped any 486 in terms of raw FPU. Before the Pentium/K5 FPUs were a bit of an afterthought.
@NorthWay_no19 сағат бұрын
Conventional wisdom is that you have to increase speed by 50% or more to notice a speed difference between systems.
@FrancisFjordCupolaКүн бұрын
Love the Acorn Electron on the shelf. From the onset of the video I'm wondering if with modern chips and the sponsor PBCWay we'll get hand-made modern cache modules that are a lot, lot bigger. But 512Kb is probably the max.
@alexandermirdzveli3200Күн бұрын
It would be very interesting to compare compiling speed for the three cases.
@RyanMercerКүн бұрын
This is my boomstick?
@DeFrisselle11 сағат бұрын
So, the original Readyboost
@briangoldberg443915 сағат бұрын
I think the reason the COAST didn't help is because you were looking at things that were more CPU or GPU dependent rather than memory dependent. Something like CAD software or other heavily memory bottlenecked programs could show a much bigger improvement, assuming the rest of your system isn't presenting a bottleneck. In Quake, it's clearly the rest of the system that's the bottleneck
@RetroTinkerer12 сағат бұрын
So, for the general public that purchase these machines to run games, office applications and delve into internet on the first Pentiums, that extra cache was indeed a waste of money better expend elsewhere, like more RAM, faster GUI accelerator, a bigger HDD, a faster CD-ROM, better sound card, hell even a MIDI module. Maybe you would need to get into very expensive CAD/CAM, database stuff to realize any gains with a bigger cache, I have read that for a time Pentium Pros with 1MB weren't replaced with PII 300 as these had only 512Kb that runs at slower speed.
@briangoldberg443910 сағат бұрын
@@RetroTinkerer more or less. however Quake indicated that it was heavily CPU limited in the test system. GL Quake would probably have run faster than software rendering with a Voodoo GPU installed. Once those things were addressed, the COAST module might have made a bigger difference, maybe
@RetroTinkerer7 сағат бұрын
@@briangoldberg4439 maybe but I wonder if people installed Voodoo 1 on sub 166MHz Pentiums or MMX, I think I had a Cyrix 6x86 PR150, but I upgraded so frequently my CPU back then on that platform that I'm not sure how much time It passed until I got my Pentium Pro 200 (All with the same Verite V1000 + VooDoo1) most gaming builds were using Pentiums MMX. It would be an interesting experiment nonetheless.
@idahofur16 сағат бұрын
Oh, I hated those. Between compatibility issues to bad slot. Well not really a bad slot. But, I remember more than one machine it would lock up or bsod. Tapped around the board. Boom, cache on the stick. Luckily after a short period of time it was soldered to the motherboard. I remember reading about that was one of the reasons why they did that.
@user-qf6yt3id3wКүн бұрын
COAST modules always seemed a bit disappointing compared to motherboards with DIP SRAM chips. You'd think if they were going to introduce a new form factor and the modules were going to be rather expensive they'd have worked harded to optimise the speed.When the PII came out they managed to get the off die cache to run at half the speed of the CPU at the cost of having to package the whole lot in a slot rather than a socket. Interestingly the Pentium Pro had separate CPU and cache dies packaged an oversized socket and the cache run at the CPU clockspeed. I guess the PII's PCB was cheaper than the slightly exotic multi chip module the PPro came in.
@drunkenn00bКүн бұрын
would be interesting to see 32,64,128 modules, to see if there is any scaling
@bruceheadley719117 сағат бұрын
I remember it well
@alain99v6Күн бұрын
back in the days as far as I could remember it was a better deal to get a newer and more powerfull Pentium CPU and selling your old ones used on a local BBS than buying a cache module
@RetroRecollectionsКүн бұрын
Interesting! I think I have a similar slot on the Apricot VS340. I suspect it may be for this purpose. Looking at the lack of performance boost you got I don't think I'll bother hunting down a compatible cache stick 😄
@theALFEST22 сағат бұрын
It is possible that 512k cache allows to cache more ram, than 256k(f.e. 64mb instead of 32). Try to install 64 or 128 mb ram and run cachechk.
@sebastian19745Күн бұрын
I have the ASUS P/I-P55TP4XE motherboard wirh 256K soldered cache. I also found an COAST module for it but the price seems a bit expensive (180€ NOS). I use 64M of 60ns EDO RAM. Would I benefit from using 512k of cache vs 256k for 64M RAM? How about if I install only 32M RAM? What are the relation between the amount of installed RAM and the cache amount needed for optimal performance? I searched but got conflicting informations. Edit: the small difference between 256k and 512k of cache is mostly due the small amount of RAM you have. For those 16M of RAM, maybe 128k of cache would have similar results like those you got with 256k. Try to max out the amount of RAM and then see the difference (redo the 512k cache tests). Not sure about your motherboard, but some maxed out to 64M, altough most socket 7 motherboards I know supported up to 128M EDO RAM.
@Phil-D833 сағат бұрын
Needs a k6-2 400...
@AgentMan666Күн бұрын
I'd be interested to see the results on removing the 256k
@xenon2MerchantКүн бұрын
Nice reminder how bad Quake was on 486 (486 "Dx2" 100 in my case, 2x50MHz as I was experimenting with low-budget overclocking in my poor times - AFAIR it was ~10-11 FPS in my case).
@ctrlaltreesКүн бұрын
This is how I actually played it back in 1996! Well, briefly, until I begged my parents for a new PC... 😅
@ghostdog662Күн бұрын
DX2 would have been 50 or 66mhz, not 100. 100 would be dx4.
@xenon2MerchantКүн бұрын
@@ghostdog662 dx2 name was "dx2" as a joke, in fact it was Am486Dx4VT8 (3x33) but I was able to run it 2x50MHz.
@sun-sea-solarКүн бұрын
I used to build these in 96 😂😂
@timballam3675Күн бұрын
Sorry to say COASTs were shit, the number of failures caused by them either getting lose, the contacts becoming tarnished etc was unreal.
@ctrlaltreesКүн бұрын
Indeed, I've certainly seen all sorts of instability attributed to dodgy modules in the past - not to mention the fact that using the wrong one could fry the motherboard 😅
@juanmacias5922Күн бұрын
TIL external cache existed lol
@JenniferinIllinoisКүн бұрын
How does a computer operate? It's simple really. Just a bunch of 0s and 1s. Hehehe.... I'll show myself out now. 😉
@thingi18 сағат бұрын
That motherboard was bad, but at least it wasn't using fake cache which was common. No way to discern it apart from bench-marking, fooled at lot of people. No ability to disable the onboard cache and run with just the coast module at it's fastest settings in BIOS is bad though. Also Quake really is just an FPU demo which really doesn't benefit much from a large cache. Prime95 with small FFT's really is the bench to go to.
@SassyPaddyКүн бұрын
I've noticed that your video has multiple audio tracks for different languages. Did you add them yourself or is it some AI doohickey KZbin has forced in?
@ctrlaltreesКүн бұрын
Yeah, that's a new KZbin feature. Not sure how I feel about it to be honest but I've left it enabled for now as I've heard that the audio tracks are pretty accurate, at least.