Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:25:03 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
From: |
|
Comments: |
RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
ignored.
RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
ignored.
RFC822 error: <E> Mail origin cannot be determined.
RFC822 error: <E> Original tag data was -> root |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
With the increased size of the cache, you would also need to change the
size of the Tag Ram. In your case the single chip with the -15 on it is
probably to small for the larger cache size. Check the other machine, to
see if there is a chip that can replace it. Or.. I have seen many boards
that can have 2-of these chips instead of the singe TAG Ram chip. If you
have no Documentation, you may have to experiment a little. But.. with
my experience on these older 486 machines, You will see very little
improvement with the increased cache size.
Steve Wolfe
Winston Pike wrote:
>
> I'm trying to increase the cache in my 486DX2-66 from 128K to 256K (which is
> coming from
> another 486 machine). The current chips are four CY7C199-20PC and one
> IS61C64AH-15N.
> The chips I'm replacing with are eight IS61C256AH-20N and one IS61C64AH-15N.
> I've got jumpers on the MOBO with 64K, 128K and 256K. With the 256K chips in
> place and
> the jumpers set, the computer starts OK with the memory test and then the
> usuall "wait..."
> message and then locks up. The 256K works in the older, slower 486 machine
> but not the
> newer, faster machine.
> The MOBO has a CONTAQ/5 chipset with AMI BIOS. Is there something I'm missing or
> am I reading my cache chips wrong?
>
> tia....
>
> Winston
--
Wolfe Systems http://www.inconnect.com/~wolfe
Sent From a Linux Based System .. Completely MS Free, for a GNU
Generation
|
|
|