• Hello Guest! We're hosting a challenge to welcome vintage Intel macs to the MLA during the month of July! See this thread for more information.
  • We've made some quality of life improvements to the Trading Post. More info here.

Turbo 601 Upgrades: 1MB cache and 120MHZ!

Oh interesting, I didn't know they had two ROM revisions. What are the checksums on those?

Has anyone modded the multiplier on the 040 PDS cards? The board layouts are so similar I assume it's the same?

Attached are soft dumps. Of the 040 PDS cards, only the 100mhz daystar cards would have the ability to change it as the 66mhz cards don't use the ICS chip with adjustable multipliers nor do they have the empty footprint as the turbo 601 does. Haven't checked for differences but I would be particularly interested in the early initialization code (post-reset) and to a lesser degree the common video primaryinit and then driver load for RBV.

2.5f1 7C810464
2.5f2 7C4F0317

The big difference between the 030 and 040 cards (I feel) is that the 030 cards have their own clock source while the 040 cards multiply the host bus speed.

Also keep in mind there are Apple and Daystar versions of the 040 cards with a different board layout. Only the DayStar has the jumpers broken out to let you set the multiplier to X3 or X4. The Apple cards seem to only be available in 66MHz and don't have the jumper.

Moreover the 66mhz cards don't have the ICS PLL at all so they're stuck with 2x and cannot be upgraded to 100mhz. I would be interested if a 100mhz board modified to a 4x jumper has the same apparent race condition at initialization the T601 seems to have (currently). Some boots it comes up fine, others are no-chime, but a full power cycle is required to retry. An Interesting finding on the initialization issue: it also affects 030 boots, suggesting it's something with the card's initial power up sequence, maybe that mystery ARM core?

Oh, right, that's why if you clockchip a wombat the 601 card runs faster. Forgot about that too.

Wouldn't it be better to run it separate from the system bus, though, so that one clock doesn't hold back the other?

No; if you decouple the buses you have to synchronize in both directions always (= added delay) on *any* bus transaction and require bidirectional registered transceivers (= expense) on your data bus. With both 601 and 040 buses being synchronous it makes sense to run them in lockstep. Only if there's a major difference in clock speed or bus architecture does it make sense to run differently clocked busses, as is seen in the case of 040 accelerators in 030 systems.
 

Attachments

Attached are soft dumps. Of the 040 PDS cards, only the 100mhz daystar cards would have the ability to change it as the 66mhz cards don't use the ICS chip with adjustable multipliers nor do they have the empty footprint as the turbo 601 does. Haven't checked for differences but I would be particularly interested in the early initialization code (post-reset) and to a lesser degree the common video primaryinit and then driver load for RBV.

2.5f1 7C810464
2.5f2 7C4F0317



Moreover the 66mhz cards don't have the ICS PLL at all so they're stuck with 2x and cannot be upgraded to 100mhz. I would be interested if a 100mhz board modified to a 4x jumper has the same apparent race condition at initialization the T601 seems to have (currently). Some boots it comes up fine, others are no-chime, but a full power cycle is required to retry. An Interesting finding on the initialization issue: it also affects 030 boots, suggesting it's something with the card's initial power up sequence, maybe that mystery ARM core?



No; if you decouple the buses you have to synchronize in both directions always (= added delay) on *any* bus transaction and require bidirectional registered transceivers (= expense) on your data bus. With both 601 and 040 buses being synchronous it makes sense to run them in lockstep. Only if there's a major difference in clock speed or bus architecture does it make sense to run differently clocked busses, as is seen in the case of 040 accelerators in 030 systems.
Ah interesting, I didn’t realize the Turbo 601s had an empty footprint. That explains it!

Supposedly these cards have an upgradable patch ROM (though I wonder if those are actually patches applied by the control panel). 7C4F0317 was previously noted as corresponding to a “v1.1” patch, with 7B34B470 noted as a mystery “v1.2d4”. IIRC this came from DayStar documentation. I would guess that puts 7C810464 as using patch v1.0.

The 040 cards shipped with the significantly older 2.1f2, at least the Apple versions.

Edit: Oh, you already mentioned the patch ROMs.

To avoid derailing this thread, I'll just mention a couple observations:
- The 66MHz 040 has a large resource titled "PatchROM place holder"...that I think that contains a previously unknown easter egg image??? I'll start a thread.
- The Turbo 601 card does not, though it does have two curious "DRVX" resources, a "SuperMac BlackBird" and ".Display_Video_Apple_Control".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top