85xx/86xx/95xx/96xx CPU Cards

[eraser]

Are the CPU cards for all these Macs universally interchangeable? Are there exceptions?

 

[mac2geezer]

AFAIK the 8600/9600 cards are interchangeable but the 604ev cards in the faster models of the 8600/9600 will not work in the 8500/9500. That being said, the Sonnet G3/G4 cards MAY work in any of the four models.

 

[beachycove]

They are certainly not universally interchangeable. The 604ev in the "Kansas" 8600 (250-300MHz model) and in the 9600 (300-350MHz model) is not compatible with earlier logic boards that shipped with either the 604 or the 604e in the series (including, for instance, the 8600/200 and the 9600/200). As far as I know, the 604/ 604e cards from the earlier machines are also not compatible with these "Kansas" logic boards. I'd be astonished if they were.

Broadly speaking, however, any 604/ 604e card can be swapped around between machines earlier than the Kansas models — despite the fact that some 604e cards have "for 9500 only" written on them, it ain't necessarily so.... But I would be reluctant to say that the swapping can be universally done.

The first place where things can get marginal is in bus speed, which is set by the card. The earlier the machine, one suspects, the more likely it will be that the thing will be happiest running at less than 50MHz (the 200MHz 604e card sets the bus at that speed, so a slower card may be better).

The second place is the L2 cache, which can fool things up royally. In particular, DUAL 604e cards, such as the dual 180MHz and 200MHz cards that shipped in the 9500MP and 9600MP, are notorious for being very sensitive to L2 cache speed, and this can be a nuisance. On an 8500 (or a 7500, 7300, and 7600 for that matter), this is not such a big deal, as the L2 cache may not be present or can be easily removed, but it can be a bigger deal in the case of an early 9500 logic board, because there 512k L2 cache is soldered on.

G3 cards are a separate issue, but I take it that you were asking about the original G2 processor cards.

 

[eraser]

Wow, thanks beachycove.

G3 cards are a separate issue, but I take it that you were asking about the original G2 processor cards.

You are correct.

I assume then that the fastest G2 CPU* for an 8500 would be a 200 MHz 604e card from a 8600/200 (being the fastest Nitro-based PowerMac)?

* Without much fuss.

 

[beachycove]

There were some that ran at 233mhz or some such, but they are rare and stability could be an issue. I 'd stick with 200mhz in an 8500.

Woz for a time used an 8500, i once read somewhere, so you will be in good company.

I like the 604e, as you may have gathered....

 

[Bunsen]

If you're lucky, you might find a dual 200MHz or higher 604ev from Newer or Sonnet (IIRC) - but they're essentially useless unless you're a heavy Photoshop user or running PPC*nix.

 

[eraser]

Woz for a time used an 8500, i once read somewhere, so you will be in good company.

http://allpointsnorth.co.uk/2008/08/05/i-interviewed-steve-wozniak-once-seriously-i-did/

Steve Woz considers the 8500 one of his favorite Apple products.

I met Woz some years ago and I asked him about his favorite Mac and he said exactly what he said in this interview. Actually at the time I thought he had said the 8600 which didn't honestly make much sense to me. I had an 8600 (Kansas) that had been upgraded with a G3 card but honestly there were so many random problems with the design it that I couldn't understand why it would be his favorite. I was always tinkering with that machine to get it working. I had a DOS card in it at the time and ironically the Windows and DOS environment was more stable than the Mac environment on that machine. Realizing that it was really the 8500 makes more sense to me.

I like the 604e, as you may have gathered....

Cool. I am just now getting my hands on a WGS 8515 and it will be my first 604e Mac. The 8600 (mentioned above) had been upgrade with a G3 card and the 604 CPU card was long gone. The 604 was the one class of PowerPC missing in my collection. I would like to keep it a 604e and it would even be awesome to find a 604-based upgrade card. (Or as Bunsen mentions maybe even a dual 604 upgrade card.) Everyone seems to run to the G3 but I have more than enough G3s around. Adding another one is pointless.

As for liking a processor, I have to say that I really like the PowerMac 6500 and the 603ev chip. When I bought my 6500 many years ago I had planned on using it as a server system. It performed that role dutifully for quite a while but even after I retired it as a server I used it for odds and ends and came to really like it as a really solid machine. The 603ev always impressed me because not only did it get to some nice clock-speeds but it was a tiny and power-efficient chip. I came to think of it as 'the little Mac that could.'

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Interesting, did you get the 6500 new?

I got a refurb 6360 with the sole intent of Sonnetizing the critter as soon as the funds became available to do so. It was my main workstation until the 466 DA and has seen Plotter Server duty ever since, along with playing movies off the MoBo Video at 640 x 480 and doing spreadsheet work at much higher resolutions on the Radius PrecisionView 2150 running off the full length Radius Thunder(?) card I hacked into it underneath the excised CD-ROM. The TV/Tuner Card in the 6360 running in a window on the 21" CRT was the display for my Laser 128! I could have split an extender cable to reach around the VidCard to re-install the CD, but I was using an external CD/R/RW drive by then, so I never bothered.

It's still my main goofing off computer residing in the Hackin' Hutch, sharing the 17" Sony Trinitron from my kid's HomeWorkStation-A/V setup, with whatever I've got sprawled across the dropfront surface at any given time.

I've got a bunch of different PPC Cards I've collected over the last ten years trying to find one that'd get my PEx MoBo to boot. They've given way to a G-4 card and G-3 cards of all speeds and cache combos from Sonnet and one or two other companies. I'll list the part numbers if you'd like. To me, if it ain't accelerated, it's a Mac that NEEDS TO BE ACCELERATED!!!!! [}] ]'>

 

[ClassicHasClass]

The 603ev always impressed me because not only did it get to some nice clock-speeds but it was a tiny and power-efficient chip.

Then the G3 should impress you more, because it is essentially a refined 603 with improved cache. People forget that the G3 was more evolutionary than revolutionary.

The 604 was a real grunt of a CPU, but it just doesn't show this muscle on many typical Mac workloads, and the 603/G3 ran rings around it on integer performance (but the 603/G3 have a comparatively weak FPU, and are poor choices for multiprocessor systems -- see, for example, all the trouble Be had with the BeBox). On the other hand, in the Apple Network Server it was an excellent choice, as was it in IBM's RS/6000 line.

 

[Bunsen]

Or as Bunsen mentions maybe even a dual 604 upgrade card

Just so you know:

• OS 9 will only see one CPU at the OS level. There are some applications which will take advantage of the second CPU.
  
• OS X can be installed on a G2 machine, using XPostFacto - but XPostFacto doesn't have dual 604 support.
  
• AFAIK, most if not all PPC unix-a-likes will use both CPUs.
  In theory, it should be possible to run two instances of MacOnLinux, but I don't know if anyone has tried this.

[*]BeOS PPC has multi-processor support, I think.

 

[eraser]

Interesting, did you get the 6500 new?

Nope. It was actually a third-hand machine.

Then the G3 should impress you more, because it is essentially a refined 603 with improved cache. People forget that the G3 was more evolutionary than revolutionary.

I completely agree. The G3 is a spectacular processor. The only reason why I don't always run to put G3 upgrades into systems is that I like to roughly match systems with their intended software. For example, if I wanted to run apps or games designed for a G3 I would leave that to a B&W or an iMac G3. If I wanted to run apps that fly on a 601/603 I'll leave that to the 6500. I do like to make sure that the systems have maxxed RAM, maxxed external L2 cache (where applicable) and will bump the MHz but I do tend to like to at least keep the machines in the same processor class. Especially with an old Mac collection I don't like having all my PPC machines running with various G3 cards. ("Here is my 8100 ... with a G3 card, my 6500 ... with a G3 card, my 8600 ... with a G3...") The 601, 603, 604 and G3 and G4 all get due representation and have their showcase of matched software.

Just so you know:
OS 9 will only see one CPU at the OS level. There are some applications which will take advantage of the second CPU.

Yep, and I understand. Just as its progeny, the G4, the 604 wasn't fully utilized except for a handful of applications. The 603/G3 were the choice for everyday work and the 604/G4 were the workhorses that supported SMP, had incredibly fast floating point and vector performance that only a handful of apps truly utilized.

 

[zuiko21]

For the record:

There were some that ran at 233mhz or some such, but they are rare and stability could be an issue. I 'd stick with 200mhz in an 8500

Back in 1998 I purchased a 604e / 233 MHz card for my 7500 -- it's still going strong and has been always rock solid.

Other than that (and the stock 601 @ 100 MHz) I've used 604/120, 604/132 and recently a tiny G3/450 card

 

[trag]

Are the CPU cards for all these Macs universally interchangeable? Are there exceptions?

There were two models of PowerMac 8600 and two models of PowerMac 9600. The later model of each were officially called the PowerMac 8600 Enhanced and the PowerMac 9600 Enhanced. Folks often refer to these models as the "Kansas" 8600/9600 or the "Mach V" 8600/9600.

The "Enhanced" models will not work with the earlier Apple CPU cards. Some third party G3/G4 upgrades work with both the "Enhanced" models and earlier models. Some of those upgrades require configuring a switch and others don't. Most (all?) third party upgrades based on the PPC604e and earlier will not work in the "Enhanced" models, but that's little loss, because all such upgrades were slower than the CPU shipped with the "Enhanced" models anyway.

You can distinguish the "Enhanced" model from the earlier model by looking at the ROM version in Apple System Profiler. On the "Enhanced" model it will be $77D.34F5. On the earlier models it will be $77D.34F2.

If you are looking at the logic board itself, the "Enhanced" model will have four ROM chips (~ 1.1" X .5") marked 341S0380 through 341S0383. The earlier models will have ROM chips marked 341S0280 through 341S0283.

The following machines can freely swap processor cards, with the caveats Beachycove mentioned about bus speed: 7500, 8500, 9500, 7600, 8600 (original), 9600 (original), 7300, and the following clones: Daystar Genesis, Power Computing PowerWave, PowerTower Pro, Umax S900, J700.

Apple PPC604e cards at 250 MHz and above are Mach V PPC604EV cards and will not work in the above machines. They only work in the "Enhanced" machines.

Power Computing also created a number of clones which have CPU cards which will work in the Apple machines. However, the Apple (and Umax and Daystar) CPU cards will not work in these clones. These clones are: PowerCurve, PowerCenter, PowerTower (no "Pro"), PowerCenter Pro. These machines use the PowerMac 7200 "Catalyst" chipset, instead of the PowerMac 7500/8500/9500 chipset and require a couple of extra signals on the CPU card, which the Apple CPU cards do not bring out from the CPU chip. The Power Computing CPU cards do bring those signals out. Except, that some of the early Power Computing CPU cards made specifically for the PowerWave and the PowerTower Pro do not work in the Catalyst based machines either.

Some of the CPU cards made for the later model PowerCenter Pro machines used a 60 MHz bus speed, and may not work in other machines, although there were common reports of them working in other models of Catalyst-based machines. These cards were 180 MHz, 210 MHz and 240 MHz PPC604e cards. However, Power Computing made other 180 MHz PPC604e cards which did not use a 60 MHz bus (45 MHz bus), so distinguishing them can be difficult. AFAIK, all the 210 MHz and 240 MHz PPC604e cards use a 60 MHz bus speed.

Some third party upgrades (most/all of the later ones) were made to work with these Catalyst-based clones, as well as Apple machines.

The Power Computing PowerBase also uses a CPU card. I don't remember the compatibility issues for it, but it's different still.

The Catalyst based machines can't use multiprocessor cards.

The X500/X600 based machines are built to support bus speeds from 40 MHz (or lower) up to 60 MHz. Apple never went higher than 50 MHz, but there are provisions for higher speeds. The CPU cards contain three dumb signal pins (grounded or not grounded) which tell the logic board chipset in what range of bus speeds the CPU card operates. These three pins are called ClockID.

Many (most?) of the third party upgrades didn't know about or make use of these ClockID pins, and so even if the CPU was capable of running above 40 - 45 MHz, the CPU card was fixed, telling the logic board that it was operating in that range. This probably accounts for the huge number of reports (see the database at xlr8yourmac) of CPU cards which would not operate above 45 MHz bus speed.

Cards which did adjust the ClockID pins along with the bus speed (see, for example, the PowerLogix PowerBoost Pro) could take the bus speed much higher. I've had my PowerBoost Pro up to 62 MHz on PowerMac 9500/9600 boards and on my Umax S900 boards.

 

[bear]

BeOS PPC has multi-processor support, I think.

It does. Up to four.

 

[Charlieman]

The quality of contributions on this thread is brilliant. I doubt whether there is a perfect answer to the question "does this CPU card work" but there are a lot of intelligent answers.