A wolf in sheep's clothing: Cyrix 486DLC

[@canthearu4876]

For comparison, an AMD 486 DX40 (good memory and system tuning) with ET4000 ISA card scores: Sysinfo 8.0 - 86.4 3dbench - 28.5 fps PC Player - 7.2 fps Topbench - 134 Cachechk - 26us, 30us, 55us, write at 27us Doom Min Details - 58.44 fps. So yeah, still a significant gap, which is what I noticed with the DLC chips when I was a kid and these things were current tech. My 486 would be even faster if I equipped it with a VLB based video card too. But I wanted to be reasonably fair to your DLC chip.

[@bitsundbolts]

Thanks for running those tests. The 486 is still quite a bit faster at the same frequency. I guess the DLC chip might be able to match a 486 25SX.

[@canthearu4876]

Intel 486SX-25 with ET4000 ISA for reference, since the 486 motherboard is still out: Sysinfo 8.0 - 54.0 3dbench - 17.8 fps PC Player - 4.2 fps Topbench - 87 Cachechk - 42us, 47us, 89us, write at 44us Doom Min Details - 37.12 fps Doom Max Details - 10.93 fps Intel 486SX-25 with ET4000AX VLB, because lets see what VLB gives us Sysinfo 8.0 - 54.0 3dbench - 20.4 fps PC Player - 4.4 fps Topbench - 110 Cachechk - 42us, 50us, 88us, write at 43us Doom Min Details - 38.11 fps Doom Max Details - 11.56 fps The VLB card puts extra load on the 486 bus, which probably for some reason causes 2-1-1-1 cache reads to be unstable, so I have to use 3-1-1-1 to reach stability. And for completeness, AMD 486DX-40 with ET4000AX VLB: Sysinfo 8.0 - 86.4 3dbench - 32.2 fps PC Player - 7.5 fps Topbench - 164 Cachechk - 26us, 31us, 54us, write at 27us Doom Min Details - 60.19 fps. Doom Max Details - 18.49 fps Finally, I missed the AMD486DX-40 + ISA ET4000AX doom max details benchmark - which is 17.59 fps. So, the 486 SX-25 doesn't quite match your 486DLC-40 chip ... but VLB closes the gap a fair bit.

[@bitsundbolts]

That's a really good comparison and shows where that DLC fits in the lineup of 486 CPUs. Thank you so much for performing those tests. I'll pin this comment.

[@mlthmp]

AM 486DX40. Oh wow that was my first ever system

[@NoNameForNone]

Ah the Cx486DLC, when DLC meant almost the same as today: not quite a complete version but almost there.

[@Clancydaenlightened]

When I had 386 or 486 your dlc was the disc, and you updated by buying a newer disc....

[@johng.1703]

the board is a Jamicon KMC-40A 486DLC/386DX aka Jamicon KMC-A419-8 aka Jamicon 8523 rev 1.3

[@john_ace]

Even better is the TI486SXL that has 8k instead of 1K L2 cache. But better than that are the IBM 486DLC2 or 486BLC3 (most commonly used on upgrade modules). The IBM CPUs are faster than any other 386-class CPUs since they offer a 3X multiplier and have 16K of integrated L2 cache. The "BlueLighning" is based on the 486SX and DLC2 and BLC3 CPUs are very rare and if you came across them they typically are QFP SMD packages soldered to a PCB. There are also the IBM 486SLC2/486SLC3 CPUs with 16K cache and up to 3x multiplier that only have a 16bit data bus and are meant for 386SX upgrades.

[@bitsundbolts]

I have never seen those IBM CPUs. I did see that Texas instruments created CPUs with clock doubling, but I think I've read that there were stability issues. I definitely will keep an eye out. Maybe I'll find them one day!

[@primus711]

​@bitsundbolts you can find these cpus in japan auctions sites selling cpu upgrades for epson etc etc x86 computer pc98 another they are sold by many companies like io data buffalo etc i have blc and slc versions some of these boards also come with more cache and even ram all drop in replacements

[@bitsundbolts]

Wow, that sounds interesting! I'll check if I can find a way to get one of those! Thanks

[@Beerfloat]

@@bitsundbolts Pay close attention to what you're getting. The very same TI486SXL(2) cores are available in both PGA132 and PGA168 shapes, with the former being very rare and highly sought after, and the latter widely available and cheap (because there are many more performant 486 chips around for PGA168)

[@Null_Experis]

I actually own an Alaris Cougar motherboard with the IBM Blue Lightning CPU soldered to the board as a QFP module, and I can confirm it is shockingly fast for what is basically a 386 with some additional 486 instructions. I can clock mine to 75mhz with the provided heatsink, or 100mhz with active cooling, but it is randomly unstable at 100mhz. At 75mhz, it's about as fast as a 33-40mhz 486. It's weak point is that it only works with 387 math co-processors. That said, the board does boast an overdrive-compatible Socket 5 slot, and works decently with a PNY overdrive Am5x86 at 100mhz. The board even has an integrated VLB EIDE controller. It's really a beast.

[@jrherita]

I built a number of systems with 286, 386, and 486 boards back in the day, and for some reason the 386 always feels like the end of an era, and the 486 beginning of a new era. It may be due to 486 getting massive increases in speed, and better busses over time. It’s cool to see hopped up 386 systems like this video. Thank you!

[@bitsundbolts]

I really enjoy the 386 platform. My dad had a 286 back then and I have good memories of that time. What it must have felt like to go from 286 to 386 and then to 486. Last time I found a late 286 board with a 20 MHz CPU and SIMM sockets. I'm looking forward to testing this platform as well - limited to 16 bit!

[@dgmt1]

I definitely agree the adoption of 486s felt like the beginning of a new era and the end of the original wild west era of the XT, 286 and 386. I think it's because the 486 were such a big jump in performance combined with PCs really starting to mature and standardise. I got into PC compatibles at the tail-end of the XT era (late 80s) and while I loved that computer more anything I had used before (including the c64) at that time PCs still felt quite raw with all the competing graphic and sound standards, & different GUI's and OS's. Upgrading to a 286 or 386 with VGA & a soundcard was when having a PC truly felt like a legit top-tier system for both work and gaming, but there also wasn't really a clear distinction between 286s and 386s and Commodore and Atari were still putting up strong competition. However when 486s dropped in price and became common around 92-94, PCs really felt like they jumped a generation ahead of everything else. You had SVGA, 32bit sound cards and CD-roms pushing games and media beyond anything seen before, then Pentiums, 3D graphics cards and windows 95 moving the industry further just a few years later. Even so I still have a major soft spot for EGA&VGA turbo XTs, 286s and 386s due to how exciting the era was with all the rapid development going on.

[@jrherita]

@@dgmt1 Good writeup - I was one of those Atari users:) -- thanks for sharing!

[@dycedargselderbrother5353]

486 was one of the wildest platforms. It was the first one where you might have bought into twice, e.g. replacing an original 486 with a DX/2 or DX/4. There were multiple bus changes along with a memory change. At the start of the 486 era you still had a bunch of ISA cards with each one serving its own purpose. By the end you had a unified controller on a VLB card or even on the motherboard with the PCI models.

[@kwanchan6745]

end of the 386 saw the end of isa bus the 486 then started a battle for dominance between vesa local bus and pci...it was also an end to the addon i/o cards, with 486 boards having integrated i/o via the southbridge pci won in the end when it was adopted by pentium motherboards/intel

[@ShamblerDK]

That X-Wing brought back so many good memories. I'm currently assembling parts for a retro PC build. It's a Pentium III 1GHz and it'll have all the good period correct hardware installed 🙂

[@bitsundbolts]

Even though emulators are good, having a period correct system is different. A fast Pentium III is a good system with a lot of flexibility. I'm sure you're going to enjoy it!

[@christianwn]

@@bitsundbolts abit bp6 dual celron, I used that for so many years, fantastic for beos, linux and windows 2000.

[@Beerfloat]

I love old Cyrix stuff (and the licensed versions from TI, IBM and ST). Market realities made them a budget choice back in the days, and undoubtedly there were people that were rightfully disappointed when they brought home a system that was sold as a '486' but was actually more of a supercharged 386. But objectively speaking it was just impressive what they did within the constraints of the platforms they ran on. The Fasmath FPUs, this 486DLC, the clock-doubled 486drx2 and the 5x86 (M1) were all significant improvements on the Intel chips for their respective sockets.

[@the_kombinator]

I was building the world's fastest 386 for the better part of 2 decades with the Ti version of this chip... That is, until I purchased a Blue Lightning PS/1000

[@Beerfloat]

​@@the_kombinatorJealous! I've been looking for a BL3 upgrade board, those things are awesome! I do have an upgrade board that puts an actual Cyrix 486DX2-80 on a 386 socket, FPU and all. Pretty wild stuff 😅

[@AureliusR]

A TI 486DLC with a FasMath coprocessor and maxes out RAM would have been a great machine for number crunching for engineers or researchers, for example. I love reading about people back then using the latest processors and FPU and raving about how much faster it processes their workloads. Then, the Pentium came along and blew number crunchers' minds.

[@raineyjayy]

I remember my MII fondly.. even if that was the end for Cyrix

[@SB-qm5wg]

Those Cyrix cowboys have their own ranches now.

[@damouze]

At 5:15 the IC in frame is actually not a tag RAM IC, but an LS245, which is an octal bus tranceiver with non-inverting outputs. Also, the reason the BIOS recognizes the 486DLC as a 486SX is because despite of what you might infer from its name, it has no FPU on-board. The 486DLC was basically a 486SX core in a 386DX pin-compatible package, alllowing it to be used in 386 motherboards. This made it an excellent budget option, but its performance as a 486 was severely hampered by its external, 386DX compatible bus. This was also the main reason there is 1kB of L1 cache on-board, to remedy the performance impact to some extent. My very first Windows 95 / Linux box was a system with a Cyrix 80486DLC 40Mhz CPU. It worked like a charm. Unfortunately it didn't play nice with my ITT 387 compatible FPU, so I was never able to get the combination to work. So during the period this system was my daily driver, I had to make do with floating point emulation.

[@bitsundbolts]

Thanks for clearing that up. I just saw this IC next to the cache chips and assumed it was the TAG. I tested a Cyrix FasMath and a ULSI FPU. Both worked well with the 486DLC and achieved identical results.

[@tehlaser]

Huh. I’ve never found a CPU cute before, but there’s no better word for the vibes I’m getting from this one. Thanks for the tour and the X-Wing nostalgia.

[@bitsundbolts]

My pleasure!

[@tancar2004]

Cache ram makes all the difference. The big performance jump between the 386 and the 486 was the 8kb built in cache. I remember in the later days of the Intel 386 most of the motherboards would have some amount of built in cache on the motherboard to improve performance. Even a tiny amount would yield big gains. This chip just included it on the die which does technically make it a 486. In 1995 I got a Pentium 90mhz system. The mother board had the option to disable the L1 and L2 cache. I tried it once just to see what would happen. It ran like 386.

[@ASMarrucate]

I have the same cpu it was on my first PC that my parents bought used for me for school work. my model: TX486DLC/E-40GA i dont remember playing DOOM but Heretic was a bit slow

[@envoycdx]

Auto detection was a very rare thing in 386 and early 486 days.

[@bitsundbolts]

I was surprised to not see the option because my Soyo 386 board had that option. And the BIOS looks very similar (but that isn't an indicator - most BIOSes we're just copies).

[@envoycdx]

@@bitsundbolts Aye, I can only recall maybe a handful of boards I ever saw it on, then it appeared on everything at once. More towards the later 486's.

[@Beerfloat]

@@envoycdx And also, an unreliable mess. You're better off not relying on that auto detection and instead using an XTIDE 386 BIOS on an add-in card so you get proper LBA support.

[@dycedargselderbrother5353]

Yeah I remember putting in CHS values until around the Pentium era.

[@frogbertrocks]

Great to see you experimenting with short form content my guy.

[@the_kombinator]

What does this mean?

[@boardernut]

Something that the vast majority misses when talking about the 386DX vs the DLC/SLC is the actual core of the CPU, they tend to say oh! it's just a supercharged 386, or it's just a 386 with some cache on it and so on. The Cyrix DLC has a real 486 core on it, including the tight 5 stage execution pipeline, 486 instruction set, and some L1 cache (386 have none of that) + some versions are clock doublers like de DRx2 (like a legit 486) 😊

[@ironhead2008]

Yeah, it's Cyrix's successful attempt to independently design a chip that gets fairly close to 2486 performance that is still compatible with 386 mobos. It's a genuine hybrid design. It's also why the bios sees it as a 486SX, because thats sort of how it looks to bios cores that are not Cyrix aware. The better optimized bioses would pick it up as a 486DLC.

[@truevulgarian]

That BIOS screen brings back some memories. My first PC was a 486/66. I remember over time upgrading the memory to 8 MB, adding a CD-RW (maybe it was only a ROM at the time), and expanding the HD from 345 MB to a whole GB. It played Wolfenstein 3d Pretty well. I look forward to your future content. Tschuß!

[@HarkoretoDaBone-nf7ff]

Woah.. those ram slots brings me back. Those ISA and VESA slot days were fun

[@James1095]

I had one of these 486DLC-40 CPUs back in the day that I bought with a motherboard from Computer Stop in Bellevue. It was a lot faster than the 386sx I had previously but something caused a problem I never resolved where anything that played .wav sounds through the Sound Blaster would cause a cyclic screeching sound. Later I upgraded to a Pentium 60 and was blown away by the speed increase. I miss the days when you could upgrade after just a few years and see an absolutely massive speed increase, like 3-5 times faster. Now a brand new computer is maybe twice as fast as one that's a whopping 10 years old.

[@DefenderOfBoston-yo2tl]

Nice scrapyard find! Funny how I looked down on CPUs that were not from Intel as a kid, yet now I find them so interesting and am saddened that the manufacturers are gone. I suppose it has to do with the fact that I am now much more interested in bang for buck rather than in peak performance. And with the fact that we would be much better off if we had some variety beyond Intel, AMD and Nvidia today. I wonder how this chip compared performance and price/performance-wise to its contemporaries, it would be great to get a little insight on that in the next video! Also, I can't believe how I never played X-Wing! It looks really nice and fun to play, perfect for rainy days and cozy winter nights. Probably missed it because I wasn't really into Star Wars (still am not, apart from The Mandalorian) and my space fighting itch was perfectly scratched with Wing Commander and XF5700 Mantis. The latter of which I liked a lot for its more realistic physics. I get why practically all others are completely nonsensical in that department for arcade reasons, but I still quite dislike that they all work like you're still flying within an atmosphere.

[@SandsOfArrakis]

Ah great memories. My first PC had a Cyrix 486 DX2 80 MHz CPU installed. I reckon performance wise it would pretty much equal an Intel DX2 66. I've had it for nearly 2 years before replacing it with a Pentium 133 back in 1997. The 486 took me from DOS 6.22/Windows 3.11 to Windows 95. What a difference Win95 made.

[@epockismet76]

My first computer had the Cyrix version of the 486DLC-40. Aside from the 386/286 computers the schools and library had, it was the first PC I ever used. I eventually brought it to college with me, and it became my first Frankenstein system, as it was slowly upgraded piece by piece as my friends upgraded/replaced their computers, and ended up having spare parts :P I am not sure if I ever knew it wasn't really a 486 when I owned it, but it was relatively cheap, and it did what we needed it to do.

[@bitsundbolts]

Great to hear that you have positive memories of that system. As you said, it did what it needed to do.

[@lexluthermiester]

Cool stuff! Great find! Never knew this CPU model existed. Very interesting!

[@bitsundbolts]

I also didn't know until recently that such CPUs were available for 386 boards.

[@argoneum]

CLK2 is the name of clock input pin on the 386 chip (yes, where the crystal connects). The CPU divides it by 2 internally, hence the name I guess. Back in 486 times I used to overclock my ISA bus to 13.33MHz (40MHz /3) 😸

[@bitsundbolts]

Well, glad I figured that out on the fly 😂. Wow, an ISA Bus at almost 14 MHz? Wouldn't that cause all kinds of stability issues? I guess it depends what expansion cards you used.

[@argoneum]

@@bitsundbolts I was a kid and just poked around to make my 486 faster. It did work with generic ISA I/O card (Winbond chips IIRC) and Trident TVGA 8900. Added ALS100 sound card later, and it also worked. Just remember that /2 didn't work and /3 did, so I left that. Going from 80MHz 486DX2 (overclocked from 66MHz) to K6-II at 350MHz was a huge jump 😃

[@Technoid_Mutant]

This was my processor of choice as a then-new user of OS/2 v2.1. It was a heck of a lot cheaper than a 486, performed awesome, and you could take that savings and put it into more ram, which OS/2 really needed. This with 8mb of ran was the sweet-spot.

[@willi4242]

I love your videos - thanx! It's like a time machine to my past ^^ Keep going and keep having fun!

[@bitsundbolts]

Thanks! I have no intention to stop any time soon.

[@Sonyfreak]

I always love Cyrix content. ☺

[@ichemnutcracker]

My grandfather had one of these, and I used to play games on his computer during rainy days while visiting when I was a kid. I remember being amazed that his 'weak' 386 (I was so proud of myself for knowing what that was) could almost keep up with our Cyrix 486DX2-66 at home (later I realized what total garbage that 'DX2' was, but still...). I actually beat Ultima Underworld on that machine. And for those who don't know what Ultima Underworld is: think of Doom as an RPG, but in a *real* 3D environment with true Z-levels and a texture-mapped polygonal environment.

[@danielktdoranie]

Great! I have been wanting to see another one of your videos! My Thursday is good!

[@bitsundbolts]

Haha, nice! Thank you!

[@charonunderground8596]

As usual, great video. I have an Intel 486DX 25Mhz processor. It is historically the first 486DX processor and supposedly doesn't require a heatsink, but.... it heats up considerably during operation, so if your 486DLC has a 40Mhz clock then it definitely needs to have at least a heatsink.

[@bitsundbolts]

I agree. Those CPUs shouldn't be operated without a heatsink. The surface on my 486DLC got uncomfortably hot - I wonder for how long this CPU was tortured in that motherboard before it was thrown out. I guess those chips can withstand higher temperatures than my fingers, but a simple heatsink can do so much! There is no reason not to put one on those CPUs.

[@SledgeFox]

Interesting as always, thank you very much and have a great day!

[@bitsundbolts]

You're welcome. Have a nice day as well!

[@Kaynos]

Oh wow I remember playing that game, can't believe it's been 30 years.

[@bitsundbolts]

X-Wing was the first game I played and finished. I spent countless hours trying to beat those missions and get all the medals. I was overjoyed when the CD-ROM edition was released. They also changed some missions to make them a bit easier.

[@mikes989]

I have a 386 motherboard that I've been restoring, as it was badly damaged by a leaky battery. And for it I have a TI486DLC-40 ready. The other 386 I have is a cute little one, with a soldered SX and room for the 387.

[@bitsundbolts]

Nice! Good luck with the restoration if it isn't done by now. I hope both boards will work well. The 386 is an amazing platform - at least that's how I feel about it.

[@mikes989]

@@bitsundbolts I "completed" it a few months ago (I have a post about it on vogons). After rebuilding the destroyed lines, "replacing" a destroyed resistor-array and measuring everything, it seemed OK. But, when powering it (without CPU or memory) the power supply went off. When measuring again a short had appeared in on -12 V, which I suppose is a capacitor. I disconnected the -12V, which after all is only used for some communication interfaces (cards) and some sound ones and maybe some other specialized ones, and I was able to continue testing. But the clock signals on the bus and the socket confused me when I measured them with an oscilloscope. So I have it on hold for a few months, to spend more time on it latter. I am waiting for a POST debug card, and I already have my own oscilloscope (before I had to take it to a friend's house to measure it with his). The little one with the 386sx soldered works OK. PhilsComputerLab made a video with that one a couple of years ago, "Building a 386 SX DOS Retro Gaming PC" I'm just doing too many things at once and I barely complete any of them, lol

[@andrewhofmann5453]

A small part of me misses the 90's, when we were able to squeeze an extra mhz out of a CPU and we actually thought we could see the difference. Things were so much simple then.

[@bitsundbolts]

It was the time PCs entered households and consumers started using PCs for all kinds of things. The people who grew up during that time will have good memories of that simpler time. You could buy a new system every 18 months with double the compute power - or upgrade with a drop in replacement. Another option would have been overclocking which could unlock some extra performance and increase the usefulness of a CPU for a couple of extra months. I like the 'simpler' time because I learn about electronics while I'm trying to restore those old electronics.

[@kpanic23]

There's no need to disable the charging circuit: The ALI M5818 RTC has a dedicated battery input, like the Dallas DS1285! All you need to do is fold up pin 20 and hook up a CR2023 (pin 20 = positive, negative to common ground, e.g.pin 1 of the chip)

[@sandmanxo]

The only place I ever remember seeing these are in laptops, and I think an old laptop I have ever has one in it. Pretty nice performance bump on a 386 board, it makes me wonder why these weren't more popular. My first dos computer was a 386dx40 in 1993, and that was the common low end option at that time, with all 486s up to the dx2/66 being quite a bit more.

[@bitsundbolts]

I think the price of these CPUs was very high. I read that it might have been cheaper to get a low-end board and a 486 instead of one of those. If they would have been priced better, maybe they would have been more popular. But I agree, looking at the performance today, those chips were nice upgrades for 386 systems.

[@nodaitsu]

Nice work and comparison. Both the DLC and DX were more than playable from the footage, but the DLC was noticeably smoother. For whatever reason, when I had the 486 DLC back in the day, protected mode extender games had this weird habit of causing the keyboard controller to randomly malfunction. Never did track that one down, and I never really see it mentioned by anyone else, so it could have been a fluke of my specific system. The joystick ports would keep going fine when this would happen, so I had that going for me.

[@bitsundbolts]

I was surprised how well the 486DLC performed. I didn't notice any weird behavior of the CPU, but I also didn't test it for a long time. I want to experiment a bit more with that CPU, the BIOS cache setting, and the Cyrix tools. Maybe I'll come across the issue you faced.

[@nodaitsu]

@@bitsundbolts It has been a long time since I had that computer, but I remember the symptoms well. I'd be cruising along and then the computer would freeze for a moment, with the usual last-few-milliseconds of audio effect. When I'd come out the other side, no keyboard until a reboot. I suspect now that I may have been offloaded a 386 board that wasn't quite compatible by the dealer, since I wouldn't have known better back then. I've also read that early 486DLCs get very hot, and I don't think I had a heatsink or fan at that point. The idea was pretty foreign at the time! With everything working, though, it would be a good and cheaper match for its real competition, 486 SX 25 and 33 computers. Kind of like the DX 40, it was a really nice and popular alternative to hold out until things got more affordable. Keep up the good work.

[@bitsundbolts]

I noticed the temperature of my 486DLC as well! It runs way too hot without a heatsink in my opinion. A cooler might have done the trick to solve that issue you had back then. During my research, I found many saying those CPUs weren't good - maybe they were badly priced for what they offered. But I agree, those CPUs could compete with entry model 486 CPUs, especially the SX versions without a floating point unit

[@Vile-Flesh]

I managed to get an entire 486DLC desktop computer a few months ago. The CPU is soldered directly to the board on mine. It booted right up and the latest file date on the hard drive is 1998. It appears to have been used for a machine. I have not loaded any games on it yet but I look forward to comparing it to my own 386 computers and my lower clocked 486 computers. The battery had just started to leak but no corrosion on the board was noticed after I removed the battery.

[@bitsundbolts]

You got lucky that the battery didn't cause damage! Boards without damage aren't that common. I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun with this system.

[@MatroxMillennium]

Interesting. I have a computer with a 486SLC in it, but I didn't know about the 486DLC

[@volppe01]

Remember building and selling lots of computers with the 386slc and later on 486slc and 486dlc . Price wise the dlc chips where cheaper then even the 486sx cpus , because they were not original intel .

[@Stefan_Payne]

the real interesting things are the (probably rare) SLC2 or DLC2 with internal clock doubling Who wouldn't want a 386 system with a 66MHz Processor? :D THough the 386SX compatible chips also exist and go to 50MHz

[@bitsundbolts]

I only found out after I was done with the video that there were even higher clocked chips. I hope to find one of those chips in the future. I wouldn't mind such a CPU! 😉

[@mikes989]

My "microscope" is a cell phone, mounted on a truss I made. I use an app that gives me access and control to the camera from the PC and I view it on a screen attached to the wall in front of where I sit at the workbench. It's 2x optical zoom, but can take the digital zoom to 10x, and since it supports 4K the magnification quality is good. Better yet, I made an application that receives the video stream and applies some extra processing, such as brightness, contrast, color (intensity, tones, pseudo color), denoise, glare reduction, I even apply super resolution so I can get a better 10x zoom, or reach a "virtual" 20x zoom.

[@jasejj]

I was going to buy one of these back in the day (around 1994-5ish) but it was actually cheaper to buy a Cyrix 486DX2/66 with basic PC Chips motherboard (especially when you factored in the sale of the old board) ... Yes those motherboards were terrible but I was a student and it still represented a huge improvement over my 386DX40!

[@bitsundbolts]

That is what I've read. It wasn't worth buying those hybrid chips for the price they were advertised for.

[@jasejj]

@@bitsundbolts Yeah... I guess they were cost effective if you had a machine with a proprietary motherboard and so couldn't cheaply replace it. Interestingly though I do recall some budget PC builders in the UK selling complete 486DLC40 machines for prices between the 386 and 486/25. So if you bought these chips in higher quantities they must have been quite cheap. The same sellers were also selling UMC 486 based machines which also seem to have been massively underrated. And interestingly, from your findings here the 486DLC40 was a better budget option than a 486SX25 for sure... These had a reputation for being a bit slow and rubbish at the time but to be honest it looks like that wasn't deserved!

[@MrQuist125]

As always super video sir :)

[@bitsundbolts]

Thanks 🙏

[@GigAHerZ64]

On every board in bios, I recommend enabling all caching, all memory shadowing to be enabled to get easily decent performance configuration. You did most, but forgot shadow ram. Slow refresh with the highest period time is also a bit of boost. Uh-uh! I'm famous! 24:35. I think I got it working eventually with some cyrix specific software. I still have that setup and I can try some stuff out, if needed.

[@bitsundbolts]

Hehe, yes, I did use your post on vogons in this video 👍. I'll check those options you mentioned in a follow-up video. The goal will be to get as much performance as possible from this platform. I mostly want to see if the BIOS or the Cyrix software does a better job in enabling the level 1 cache of the CPU.

[@GigAHerZ64]

@@bitsundbolts you may also search for MR BIOS for this board. They usually are more optimized and with more features. (for example on my M-321 board they were able to enable wtiteback for on board cache without dirty bit chip!)

[@Baoran]

If I remember correctly 2.88MB format was most popular in Japan and in some other parts of Asia so usually they only put that option in bios for motherboards that are sold also in that market.

[@jolesco]

I had this CPU in my first PC, looking back I would have chosen a 486DX if I had known what it was.

[@metalworksmachineshop]

Good video. Someday, I will need to put together a 486 system.

[@bitsundbolts]

The 486 or socket 2/3 platform is very nice. I might be biased because my first PC was a 486. But I also enjoy the 386 platform. Soon, there will be a 286 as well 😊

[@jj74qformerlyjailbreak3]

I don't know about anyone else but I wish my scrap yard would take stuff like this so I can treasure hunt.

[@ironhead2008]

The bios sees it as a 486SX because that's sort of what it looks like to a BIOS unaware of the DLC family. It seems like the board maker didn't bother properly setting up the BIOS for the DLC, I bet they just enabled whatever flag they needed to enable to make the bios 486 aware. I'd try the bioses from those boards on the Retroweb that look similar and use the same chipset. One of them might be optimized better for the DLC. Also, there might be a MR-BIOS for that chipset so it might be worth looking in the archive posted on VOGONS.

[@bitsundbolts]

Great idea! I should try that. I've read that the BIOS doesn't properly activate the DLC and there might be more performance that can be unlocked using the Cyrix utility. I'll have a look and see if I can get somewhere with different BIOSes.

[@DimasFajar-ns4vb]

peace be upon you sir from me

[@wskinnyodden]

On the cache, back means Write Back cache instead of write through as with a buffer. Write Back should be faster though some boards have a bad bios implementation of this and can cause problems, if it works it will be noticable performance wise though.

[@thedungeondelver]

Slightly more fluid X-Wing play on the '486 upgrade chip for sure.

[@mal2ksc]

It's still a little surprising how playable it was on the 386.

[@bitsundbolts]

I was surprised as well. You could play that game on a 386. I should try the trench of the death star with graphics set to high. That reminds me, I used to "cheat" by reducing the graphical details in death star missions because you ended up with less obstacles and less laser turrets 😂

[@succuvamp_anna]

I think it was CPUGalaxy who made a video about the cyrix command line switches if that helps.

[@bitsundbolts]

I'll check if I can find his video. Thanks

[@djpirtu2]

These are fast when overclocked. I had UMC48x board with swappable oscillator. Got my 486DLC up to 50MHz and it did run everything. UMC48x 386-boards are anyway really fast.

[@bitsundbolts]

Nice! That would also mean that ISA and memory is probably overclocked (ISA probably at 10MHz). That should give a nice boost overall. I would need a 100 MHz crystal though.

[@djpirtu2]

And if you can run L2 cache at tightest settings anytime, the better. I think my memory needed one wait state on reading... @45MHz everything was set to tightest. Some ISA display cards can take up to 20MHz but some only around 12MHz. But if the card is slow (Trident 8900C) then the clock doesn't help much. BTW, Trident 8900D is a fast one and often overlooked.

[@86smoke]

ISA CLK speed settings are related to crystal oscillator speed, but not the one you showed in a video. Board should have independent oscillator at 14.31818 MHz and it is a value that you base calculations on. So, 2/3 of it gives ~9,54 MHz, 2/5 gives ~5,72 MHz and so on.

[@idahofur]

Unlike other bad experiences with non intel cpu's from that time. Sold tons of those chips. I had a good talk I think with TI. Not sure about. I think the normal voltage of being 3.3 or 5v. Not the core voltage. Had a lot of 30 computers and noticed some of them having issues. Set it to 5v's and no issues. This was before the internet. Just ordered trays of them oem. They said no problem. The chip was designed to work in that range. So if they ran better at 5v. Set them to 5. Now with the internet it is easy to go back and look at the specs to see what model supported what. If I remember correctly the manual or bottom of the chip said 3.3 and a few other things. But you are talking over 20 years ago now. One of the things I find funny is all the stamping AMD, Cyrix, etc did with the chips showing windows, dos compatible and such. Also the heat sync required.

[@oliverer3]

Through the power of -buying- finding two of them...

[@sergheiadrian]

I believe this CPU has some additional features that can be enabled via some utility that give it an extra "boost".

[@bitsundbolts]

I will try this in a follow-up video. There are different ways to enable and configure the level 1 cache. I'm not sure if there are additional features apart from the level 1 cache though. The 5x86 for socket 3 has features like branch prediction that could be enabled via utilities.

[@ajdothack]

I have the exact same TI cyrix 486 in my collection it feel like how a intel 386 overdrive would have been

[@the_kombinator]

I used these for a long time to try to build the fastest 386 - the TI versions had 2Kb of cache, and were measurably faster.

[@Nukle0n]

QED is an odd thing to have on the bottom, it's usually the abbreviation for quod erat demonstrandum, a latin phrase meaning "end of discussion".

[@ImportRace]

Nice, my 1st build was a Intel 200mhz MMX with a Voodoo 2 card

[@ImportRace]

I still own my original voodoo2 card in mint condition.

[@bitsundbolts]

That's nice to hear that you were able to hold on to your Voodoo 2! It always saddens me when I see one of those cards at the scrapyard.

[@ImportRace]

@@bitsundbolts i found it like a month ago put away in one of my gaming magazines bin. I thought I sold it. When I did the new build with the voodoo 3

[@jeffyp2483]

in the next video would you play an xwing mission that includes capitol ships (star destroyers, corvettes, etc)

[@bitsundbolts]

I should - there are some amazing missions. I remember taking out some star destroyers with an X-Wing. Took some time, but with enough grinding, you can manage to take them out. I'll revisit this CPU and see how to get the last bit of performance from it.

[@Ale.K7]

Amazing! :D

[@awilliams1701]

I had tie fighter (disk) and I loved it. So I wanted x-wing. So when I eventually got it, I didn't care for it. There was something missing that made tie fighter a lot more enjoyable. It's something about the in flight UI. I don't recall what it was. If I recall x-wing came first. Tie fighter came later.

[@bitsundbolts]

Yes, X-Wing came first. I started with X-Wing and only much later got TIE Fighter. And I didn't care for TIE Fighter 😂. I guess I was a lot older and didn't care for the graphical improvements. Back then, when the game was new, I'm sure it was amazing. I tried TIE Fighter, but I always failed in one mission - I couldn't beat it - and that was the end of it.

[@awilliams1701]

@@bitsundbolts graphically I remember them being the same. It was something about the UI that I liked in tie fighter that was missing in x-wing. I thought it was the radar, but you had that. Maybe target lock was a thing? It's been so long.

[@MadMac5]

TIE Fighter had a lot of quality of life improvements, including an objective list, the ability to see what a targeted craft's current orders/target were, and a notification when you FAILED THE DAMNED MISSION so that you didn't waste 25 minutes fighting an unwinnable battle and need to start over.

[@awilliams1701]

@@MadMac5 I feel like something in the combat system was better. In tie fighter I'm like dammit I can use feature _____. And it made me hate combat, so I just didn't bother.

[@the_kombinator]

5:!7 - that's a gate chip ;P

[@jclafi]

I had one back in 1992!

[@tiemanowo]

What microscope / camera on microscope are you using? Your video quality from those close up shots are phenomenal.

[@bitsundbolts]

It is a basic trinocular microscope, but I am using a 4k camera mounted to the microscope. Due to space limitations on my SSD, I have to down-sample to 1080p though. I should make a video one day to show all the equipment I use.

[@mikes989]

@@bitsundbolts My "microscope" is a cell phone, mounted on a truss I made. I use an app that gives me access and control to the camera from the PC and I view it on a screen attached to the wall in front of where I sit at the workbench. It's 2x optical zoom, but can take the digital zoom to 10x, and since it supports 4K the magnification quality is good. Better yet, I made an application that receives the video stream and applies some extra processing, such as brightness, contrast, color (intensity, tones, pseudo color), denoise, glare reduction, I even apply super resolution so I can get a better 10x zoom, or reach a "virtual" 20x zoom.

[@l337pwnage]

I miss Cyrix. You could build dirt cheap systems with them or do dirt cheap upgrades with them. Sure, they weren't fast, but for non-gaming software they were more than adequate.

[@Clancydaenlightened]

1:06 "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" Or do you see "Quantum ElectroDynamics"...

[@NozomuYume]

Why run the cache in writethrough instead of writeback? Writethrough == read only cache, writeback == read/write cache. Generally you should only disable writeback to prevent bugs from self-modifying code (on CPUs with separate instruction and data caches) or to support broken drivers that don't know how to flag noncacheable I/O buffers.

[@bitsundbolts]

I'm not sure those CPUs support write back cache. I haven't done my homework on this topic yet, but since there were two versions of 486 with those two different cache strategies, I have a feeling that write back isn't available on that platform. But I'm not sure - I'll check.

[@TheRepeatloader]

the ALI chip controls the ISA bus (boards with both pci and isa alot of times has two of those chips. (pcships board i have does have 2)

[@ewetzlma]

This was my first computer! 😂❤

[@bitsundbolts]

Would be funny if this board and CPU was actually yours.

[@ewetzlma]

@@bitsundbolts I can’t remember …. It was 30 years ago 🫣🫣🫣🫣

[@sebastian19745]

Have you tried to change JP 9.10.11? Maybe Speedsys is freezing because something is not set right, as you said, something related with internal cache or CPU related. Also, how does compare the TI CPU with or without APM? Does the /E version have some low power states?

[@b33j4y]

Yeah the manual said closed/closed/closed but in the video they were open/open/open.. might be some more speed to be had too (L1 not enabled perhaps?)

[@bitsundbolts]

I briefly tested both jumper settings. I didn't notice any difference, but I need to revisit that topic.

[@b33j4y]

@@bitsundbolts definitely needed pointing out for us obsessive nerds who are thinking "the jumpers! the jumpers!" 😂

[@alvaroacwellan9051]

I have two questions at this point. One, should Cachechk show that one kiB of internal cache? Maybe it should but it was the very same when I tried it on a 'DLC (and a similar small 386 board with ALI chipset and apparent BIOS support for Cyrix CPUs), the only change in memory speed came at 128k. Shouldn't the very first, "1k" data point be different? The second one is a bit of philosophy. I mulled over it quite a bit when I wrote my article about this very 386-486 transitional era. The question is: what is a 486? What makes a CPU a 486 instead of a 386? If it's L1 cache, then the DLC has it. If it's better pipelining, I don't know. If it's using the 486 bus, well, the 'DLC's very purpose was to fit in a 386 environment (let alone the SLC which has a 16-bit data bus at that). If it's Intel's very own 486 design, then the DLC is something else. But I suppose it's not an Intel 386 design either, so it's a wash. And what about Cyrix's 486SX or DX/2/4? Performance? Then it falls between the i386 and the i486. So I'm still not sure.

[@bitsundbolts]

Yes, there should be a drop at 1kb. I expected that and wanted SpeedSys to confirm it, but that application doesn't seem to work. I will revisit this CPU and try to find out more regarding its cache system. If you look at the CPU by itself, then you could argue it to be more of a 486 than a 386. However, if you consider the entire platform, it gets harder to make a case for it. I definitely can see how it is difficult to put this CPU in a specific class of CPUs. It's somewhere in between 🤔

[@7828191]

My guess just seeing the CPU's in the beginning of the video, is that the left one is from 1993 and the other one from 1994 with the /E meaning some extension/extensions??

[@bitsundbolts]

The /E has enhanced Power Management features. I don't know yet how this affects the CPU (maybe lower temperatures?), but I'll try to find more information about it.

[@johnrickard8512]

That Cyrix does appear to run the game better...

[@bitsundbolts]

I agree.

[@rubberduck4966]

You should get your hands on a Cx486DRx2 which is nearly the same but with Clock Doubling. This should be even faster.

[@bitsundbolts]

I hope I'll find one of those! I only found out after I was done with the video that those CPUs existed.

[@HTMLEXP]

This video doesn't appear in your main list of videos which is odd and may explain the low number of videos.

[@bitsundbolts]

This video is not yet public. I will release it next week.

[@andreabc1469]

i have seen another 286 CPU in the FPU Socket istead of a FPU Unit

[@bitsundbolts]

I'm not sure, but that might have been the 486 platform. Intel released ODP/ODPR CPUs that could be installed in the FPU socket.

[@devil5051000]

My FX-3000 486 mainboard shows the same reduced amount of memory during post. Must be an AMI thing... :)

[@bitsundbolts]

Yes, I think so. They just don't show the memory between 640 and 1024kb. I guess it makes sense since you can't use that part of the memory, but it's still odd if you expect 8192kb when it counts up.

[@Ojref1]

all those tantalum capacitors, littered around like a minefield.

[@bitsundbolts]

Yes, true. I have yet to encounter one that explodes - and I hope it'll be on camera. But I agree, they are dangerous!

[@Pickle136]

i havnt heard sound effects like from xwing (ive only had the cdrom version) is that specific to the floppy version or where you using a different sound setup?

[@bitsundbolts]

The floppy edition had no voice overs in mission briefings. The CD-ROM edition should have had voiceovers. Maybe you had speech off or on low volume. I tested this with a Soundblaster sound card. I have a video coming up fixing a Soundblaster and I configure X-Wing with Soundblaster. The intro had already voiceovers, but the mission briefings didn't (in the floppy edition).

[@Pickle136]

@@bitsundbolts no im meant the sound effects. Watching some other videos looks to me like there are more FM sound effects that are replaced with digital PCM ones from the later speech pack.

[@bitsundbolts]

Hm, I have to test the CD-ROM edition again. I only used the floppy edition in this test without any modifications. As far as I remember, this is what the floppy edition (and the CD-ROM edition) sounded like. The only difference is the voiceovers during mission briefings. Well, the CD-ROM edition has better graphics, more missions, and other improvements, but I think the sound effects should be the same. I'm talking about the CD-ROM edition from 1994 - NOT the version released in 1998.

[@VladoT]

Check if you can find updated BIOS for that motherboard and burn it on a new EPROM or erase the old one first.

[@bitsundbolts]

You're right. I didn't check for an updated BIOS yet. Sometimes you can flash similar BIOS images from other boards. I'll revisit this board in the future for sure.

[@VladoT]

@@bitsundbolts Yes, you can use BIOS image from boards that use the same chipset and often there is more/less options and sometimes it doesn't work at all.

[@matthewday7565]

Fast gate A20 wasn't enabled

[@glenncaughey5044]

Did you get the L1 working using the Cyrix tool?

[@bitsundbolts]

Yes, I did. However, the motherboard also activates the L1 cache. What I found online is, the motherboard may not activate the cache correctly. The better option is to leave the BIOS option disabled and use the software only to enable the internal cache. I'll test this in a future video.

[@Vermilicious]

Where can I download this DLC?

[@cricketol]

can you over clock it to make it as close to a 486?

[@bitsundbolts]

I would need a different crystal if I want to overclock this CPU. And it already gets quite hot without a heatsink. If I can find a suitable crystal, I can try to get a bit more performance out of this CPU.

[@AndreDeLimburger]

What do you mean to hard disk auto detect. It's under HARD DISK UTILITY

[@bitsundbolts]

Yes, there are hard disk utilities available, but no auto detection of connected hard drives. Those utilities only work if you have already configured a hard drive.

[@richieb74]

This type of stuff is why I have trust issues. Why are they aloud to market it as a 4th gen chip if it’s just a pumped up 3rd gen

[@bitsundbolts]

I understand what you mean. It clearly says 486, but do not expect 486 performance clock for clock.

[@cferrarini]

386s and 486s were amazing, we used to do everything in them, because software was too light. You could run even 3d Studio for DOS, deluxe paint, autodesk animator, and thousands of windows 3.1 apps.

[@awilliams1701]

I understand having multiple 5v lines (even if they are the same) because it permits more current, but why the hell is there a 5v line that's separated from all the others? That's just wierd.

[@bitsundbolts]

Good question. I don't know the answer. Maybe it was a design choice that allowed easier routing on the motherboard PCB for some reason.

[@awilliams1701]

@@bitsundbolts is the split 5v shorted to the other 5v? Maybe it's a separate line. The C64 has 2 separate 5v lines. One is the main system 5v line from the PSU. The other one is taken from the PSU's 9v line and then converted into 12v, 9v, and 5v. This 5v line is used to ensure the VIC 2 chip gets clean power and reduces interference from the rest of the computer.

[@bitsundbolts]

The 5v lines are all connected together on the board. So, I doubt there are different 5v lines coming from the power supply.

[@awilliams1701]

@@bitsundbolts that's what I thought too, but I figured that the isloated one MIGHT be different.

[@voltare2amstereo]

had many 486 slc in school, this is why its slow i guess

[@colonthree]

Time to also download more RAM I guess... úwù)

[@bitsundbolts]

Your comment triggered me to research MS-DOS memory management. I think it's worth a full video.

[@ChrisFaulkner]

Cyrix's always lacked the FPU.. Cyrix ran good without it but any programs needing that FPU took very good advantage of it.. Try it with the FPU and see hjow it performs

[@bitsundbolts]

I played X-wing with an FPU (for both, the 386 and the 486DLC). But you're absolutely right. In the benchmark charts I added that there was no FPU installed for the 486DLC. Benchmarks like PC Player benefit from an FPU. The same is probably true for other 3D applications like Doom. Quake would benefit massively, but this system will be too slow for that game.

[@toseltreps1101]

Cyrix 486s are trash. The FasCache 486DX40 has a faulty FPU that makes every game crash when using with sound

[@Bomon4ik]

QED - quod erat demonstrandum

[@matthewacbroad]

Doesn't CLK2/10 = 0.72Mhz from 7.18Mhz Default?

[@bitsundbolts]

CLK2 is apparently a pin on the chipset that connects to the 80 MHz crystal. Therefore, it's 80/10 = 8MHz.

[@VandalIO]

Running this with an FPU would be better performing them a standalone 486

[@MarcoGPUtuber]

You mean it's NOT downloadable content!? :P

[@bitsundbolts]

Like in downloading extra cache for this CPU 😅? I think the first time I came across DLC was in Mass Effect - and I was very disappointed because I saw a trend to get an unfinished game and you need to pay extra to get the full story. Anyway, I also had this association when I read the model number of this CPU.

[@the_kombinator]

7808 means there's shadow RAM - you've honestly never seen this count before? :P

[@bitsundbolts]

I know about the memory area from 640 to 1024. However, I've never seen a BIOS not accounting for it during the memory test.

[@the_kombinator]

@@bitsundbolts It's the 384k Shadow Ram area (reserved)- I've seen more 386 machines showing 3712 Kb than 4096 Kb on a 4 Mb system, 7808 and 8192 on 8 Mb setups. By the time 486s came out, it was 8192 for the most part - I don't recall many 7808 RAM counts on true 486 systems, and I know of only one that did not count the 384k area that passed through my hands in the last 10 years. They were rare, What does CheckIt show on a full RAM test?

[@bitsundbolts]

I haven't run CheckIt yet, but I definitely should look at it. I'm sure it shows the full amount that is installed.