A very late 040

[MrFahrenheit]

To be honest though, I think there's a reasonable argument Apple wasn't thinking these through clearly. There's also the admitted benefit of hindsight being 20/20 in these kinds of scenarios, and we don't necessarily know what conditions or information Apple was working on when it was planning things in the '90s.

I've always thought of the IIvi and IIvx as sort of parallel models, meant for different international markets. It's my recollection that the IIvi never actually sold in the US, instead, it was for more cost-sensitive European markets, where the IIvx and Performa 600 did sell in the US.

The IIvi was sold in Canada.  The IIvx came out within a few weeks of it, and sold for the same price.  Seriously, within 4 weeks anyone who bought a IIvi could have had twice the machine for the same price.  Not only that, Apple allowed retailers to discount the IIvi a very small amount, like $100 or something (can't remember specifically) but it was pretty lame.  I sold Macs back when this happened, and I knew the IIvx was coming and I couldn't sell a IIvi to anyone in good conscience.

In reality, the IIvi should never have existed in the specs it had, at the price that it was.  If they wanted to have the IIvi and IIvx co-exist, they should have been like 30% separating the prices.

 

[Cory5412]

I have used Norton Utilities Speed Test, version 2.0, which is not PPC native.  It's fairly accurate.  I have a lot of machines I could test with, and we could compare results.  That would be a fun exercise, actually.

Do you have an account on vtools? PM me with what you want your user name to be and I'll make you an account. We can make a folder for this in the public share, put the software there, and start comparing results.

With MacBench 4 and 5, the results are output as data files that MacBench can read later and you can generate graphis from.

A bunch of the results files are on vtools via AFP, I've put a copy of the software and some files up on my site, it was temporary but excuses to link it keep coming up: http://vtools.68kmla.org/~/coryw/macbench/

The only real reason to bench a 6200 with 68k code is to reveal what we already know: 16k of L1 wasn't enough cache for the emulator, but it would be nice to have numbers.

Seriously, within 4 weeks anyone who bought a IIvi could have had twice the machine for the same price. 

Good to hear that the IIvx had this happen at both ends. The Quadra 650 created this exact same consternation.

More than anything this seems like a poor ability to plan. Looking at EveryMac, the IIvi and IIvx have the same introduction date (but we've already talked about the problems with LEM/EveryMac/Wikipedia intro/disc dates not lining up and often being based on best guesses mroe than anything else) and the IIvx is actually cheaper than the IIvi (again, same deal). EveryMac also  shows the P600 as being a IIvi (not IIvx, though the P600's page correctly links it back to the IIvx, this errror has probably been in place 20+ years) variant even though the P600 has the IIvx's 33MHz CPU, so.

With this in mind, killing the IIvi makes sense unless the 16MHz CPU really costs Apple enough less to make that it's worth chopping like $500 off the price, for a $2500 and $3000 computer, but I bet that wasn't the case.

This is exactly what I mean by Apple having too many models. This issue extends really far beyond 630/6200/6300 proliferation, which was also a severe and also slightly different overall problem.

There's also the late-stage 7000 issue where the 7200/7500 and 7300/7600 were kind of side-by-side products filling two ends of a single product band for "office desktop" with and without video input, which was nominally either very low-end desktop video and multimedia authoring work or for video conferencing. In some markets (Japan in particular) the 7600 got a /200 variant.

And, there's also the entire existence of the 4400, which isn't entirely justifiable other than as a tech demo for the cloners to follow with the 6360 and 6400 kind of straddling it on either side in price and capability. And, the 5620 and 5280, which was basically a 5300 but cost-reduced with a 640x480 display to be cheaper for schools.

I suspect what it comes down to is mostly that Apple wanted to capture as much money as possible and was doing so at the expense of having a product family that was easy to understand. In adition, I suspect that there wasn't very strong/good centralized leadership within Apple at the time and for Apple in particular the product line needs to be managed holistically from the top, or from a director of all Mac products, instead of by individual product teams.

 

[NJRoadfan]

At one point I had both a Performa 600CD and a IIvx. Both appeared identical inside. For a while that Performa 600 was my only Mac (this was around 1998ish) and it was still just as slow as my friend's was back in 1993. It worked "good enough" as a bridge machine for reading 800k disks though. Eventually it got replaced with a 6100/66 that I still have.

 

[jeremywork]

If it’s hot, it’s probably not an L88M and it’s a reseller fake with the original markings wiped off the top.

Is there a definitive way to verify markings are original on these? I have a 40MHz chip identical to these pictures but have not split-tested its thermal performance. I didn't see any trace of scuffing or removal of previous etching, and the print looks identical to the pictures: bolder and more painted compared to the older embossed looking style. As far as I can tell, both styles of markings were used legitimately.

Any tips/tricks?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/193586325333

https://www.ebay.com/itm/323076959423

 

[dr.diesel]

I just booted mine into 7.6.1 with extensions off and top case removed. After 25 minutes it is certainly NOT cool to the touch. Using a cheap laser thermometer I measure temps between 46-49C around the top half (chip markings) with temps at the bottom half around 10 degrees cooler...  I never measured the temps with the original CPU. Interesting. 

If the CPU is at idle reading upper 40sC, then it's for-sure not a L88M, mostly likely a 0.8um XC.

 

[Fizzbinn]

If the CPU is at idle reading upper 40sC, then it's for-sure not a L88M, mostly likely a 0.8um XC.

That’s disappointing, anyone see any tell tale sign in the CPU picture I posted. The wear from a removed heat sync seemed like a good sign it was not remarked. 
 

Anyone know of a reference that lists expected temperatures for the various 040 revisions/mask sizes running at the same frequency?

 

[MrFahrenheit]

More than anything this seems like a poor ability to plan. Looking at EveryMac, the IIvi and IIvx have the same introduction date (but we've already talked about the problems with LEM/EveryMac/Wikipedia intro/disc dates not lining up and often being based on best guesses mroe than anything else) and the IIvx is actually cheaper than the IIvi (again, same deal). EveryMac also  shows the P600 as being a IIvi (not IIvx, though the P600's page correctly links it back to the IIvx, this errror has probably been in place 20+ years) variant even though the P600 has the IIvx's 33MHz CPU, so.

With this in mind, killing the IIvi makes sense unless the 16MHz CPU really costs Apple enough less to make that it's worth chopping like $500 off the price, for a $2500 and $3000 computer, but I bet that wasn't the case.

The IIvi was launched Sept 1992 and discontinued February 1993. The IIvx launched Oct 1992 and discontinued Oct 1993. The prices were actually the same. It was silly. You could walk into a store and see them side by side, both newly launched machines, both the same price, one twice as fast. 

 

[Fizzbinn]

At one point I had both a Performa 600CD and a IIvx. Both appeared identical inside.

Trivia: The IIvx has 32KB of cache on the motherboard and came with a FPU chip installed vs. no cache and an empty FPU socket on the Performa 600. They both had a processor upgrade slot that looked like the IIci cache slot but apparently was not for plain cache cards. (The IIvi is a 16Mhz Performa 600)

 

[Cory5412]

That makes sense and also makes it worse.

Backing away from hypotheticals and armchair CEOing for a moment, Ive shared this before and I'll definitely share it again, but I wanted to re-state MacWorld's case for the Performa 600:

On the other hand, just by way of "What it was like to buy a Mac in 1992" - the Performa 600 wasn't the worst possible thing. MacWorld benchmarked and reviewed it in 1992 and the conclusion was basically, half the speed of the IIci, but also half the cost, graphics that don't eat regular RAM, VRAM upgrade to get 16-bit color, CD-ROM drive and a bundled software loadout and keyboard making it a good machine for somebody who was getting started, needed a second computer, or had relatively "basic" needs. (i.e. these things were never meant for laying out a newspaper or doing photo manipulation on and shouldn't be judged that way.) That review is here: https://www.vintageapple.org/macworld/pdf/MacWorld_9211_November_1992.pdf 

I had a Performa 600 as a kid, and used it alongside a Performa 578 and a Quadra 840av, and it was thoroughly fine. I don't remember really doing an awful lot with it. I didn't have networking gear, external mass storage, a modem suitable for it, or anything like that, so it mostly sat next to my iMac or one of my other machines and I thought about how cool it would be to have more infrastructure.



The conclusion is basically "it's fine, it's got some neat tricks, CD-ROM is the future, it's not a great performer but it's expandable and relatively inexpensive." 

For completeness, here are MacWorld's benchmark/test results:



They're not great, but if you're shopping around, neither is the IIci relative to a Quadra, which is a huge point people miss when discussing the IIvx and the Performa 600. This point often gets missed when discussing low end Macs in general. The next point of comparison upward was, itself, disappointing compared to whatever was at the top of the line. And, that's fine. These systems, are all priced different ways (and in 1992 the Performas were literally sold a different way, to a different market, sitting next to comparable machines on the PC side of the fence) and perform differently for different markets.

I get that this is a bummer for people who end up with them used and might want to do different things with them, or a common theme here, people whose parents buy a machine for themselves and then share it with the kids who then gain additional interests over what the parents do. I lived all of that too (although I lived in a suburb of Seattle as a kid and early MLA poster, so my Quadra 840av was like $40 in 2000 or 2001 when I got it so, for whatever that's worth.)

 

[Crutch]

I know this has been said many times, but in my mind the dumbest thing about the IIvx/IIvi is that they reversed the nomenclature vis-a-vis power hierarchy of the IIcx/IIci for no reason whatsoever.  Why would they reuse the same suffixes but in the opposite order?  It made literally zero sense.  To this day I still get confused about which was the better one.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

I just want to say, I'm living for everybody basically saying "Cory was right" (in so many words).

To the point of what @Trash80toHP_Mini said:

You straightened me out on that with a link to a great article. I almost mentioned you back into this thread to post that link in my post above, so I'll quote you back into the thread now to do so! [}]

The 128k was the first intentionally hobbled RoadApple and the CC was another very badly hobbled one  .  .  .  but favored despite that.

 

[jessenator]

reversed the nomenclature

That bugs me as well. It also makes less sense because both the vi and vx have integrated video... They should've just created a new schema anyway. "II," as in expandable "Macintosh" (not a compact compact) had run its course really. There were plenty of Mac models that weren't compacts by then. "c" compact II series, moot due to the II series not really meaning anything, so replace it with v? For video???. "x" meaning 030 equipped was also out the door, really. They didn't call the 020 LC successor the LCx.

Tying into the II series was so the slim margin  could be touted as being better than the Performa?  Whatever, call it the Quadra Jr or something... Or Centris X... Or just suck it up and stick it with the rest of the Performa line... 600, 620, 625...

Boggles the mind.

 

[dr.diesel]

That’s disappointing, anyone see any tell tale sign in the CPU picture I posted. The wear from a removed heat sync seemed like a good sign it was not remarked. 
 

Anyone know of a reference that lists expected temperatures for the various 040 revisions/mask sizes running at the same frequency?

Are you running yours at 25Mhz?  An L88M running at 40Mhz might run that hot at idle.

But I agree, it sure looks genuine.

 

[ttb]

I bought an "L88M" on eBay and it sits at around 60° C at idle at 40MHz, measured with a thermal camera. I run it at 48MHz with a low profile heatsink and again it sits at around 60 °C and is stable. The labeling on the chip is suspiciously crisp, but it is a full 040 so it seems crazy someone would go to the trouble of faking an L88M and not use a cheaper LC040.

I agree it would be nice to see some measurements of a confirmed real L88M and/or K63H vs older masks at different clock speeds and with/without heatsinks.

 

[Cory5412]

Surprising update! Everything's coming up for Cory!

LEM has just published an article indicating that maybe the 6200 isn't actually all that bad after all: https://lowendmac.com/2020/the-golden-road-apple-how-i-discovered-that-the-worst-mac-ever-wasnt/ 

 

[johnklos]

This thread made me wonder about my Performa 631 / Quadra 630 system. The case says Quadra 630, but the motherboard is different because I have the model with 4 megabytes on the motherboard and two SIMM sockets for a total of 196 megabytes of memory.

The newest chips on the board were made in the 40th week of 1995, which is the end of September / beginning of October. I'm rather surprised!

This is one of the few machines I own which didn't need a recap, but which I recapped anyway since there are only ten electrolytic caps.

 

[Byrd]

I've not recapped my Q630 - yet - I feel the PSU will fail very soon so glad of recent efforts in implementing an ATX solution.

 

[Cory5412]

We discussed 6200 performance up-thread, and @MrFahrenheit had dropped a copy of Norton System Info on vtools.

I finally had a chance to turn on my 6200/75 and run it.

My systme has a relatively stock 7.6.1 installation and 32 megs of RAM - virtual memory was off in both of my tests. The machine has its stock 1GB disk as well, and appletalk is on and Norton says I have the wrong disk cache setting, so I'm not under exactly "optimal" conditions.

Out of the box, in CPU tests, it does about "45" which, relative to the base score of "100" for a 25MHz Quadra 700. So, not very impressive. Roughly the speed of a Mac IIci. A couple points behind someone's 6100/66 at ~53. (I couldn't figure out what cache was involved on that machine.)

I installed and updated Speed Doubler 8 and then re-ran the test. The CPU benchmark now comes back at roughly 225, well above every 68k result, above a 7200/75 at 190 and a bit shy of an 8600/300, at 746.

I'm going to putter around for a little bit but this is very very good, as far as a numerical benchmark result goes. Well beyond what I was expecting. Of course, if you put speed doubler 8 on a newer/better PowerPC system, whether that's a 6300/120 or an 8600/300 or even a G3, it should do that much better, but, with numbers like this, this should be thoroughly usable as a system 7 machine.

@IIfx put some ~1990-1992 software on the public share, one of which was mathematica, and it looks like there's some demo stuff included, so I'm going to install that and see what happens.

I have a 6100/66 of my own, I'd like to replicate this test on there. I can also do this on a 1400c/166, which shares the fixed-up version of this platform the 6300 uses. (more L1 cache)

In MacBench 4 though, the 1400c/166 is absolutely thrashed by machines like the 7600/120, so there's still some overall platform limitations compared to higher end machines with newer platforms.

 

[MrFahrenheit]

I will try and assemble my PPC machines together and test with SpeedDoubler and see what kind of differences there are. What OS version will integrate the emulator changes, Mac OS 9? (Where having SpeedDoubler installed makes little difference). 
 

I want to get my 5300 working first. 

 

[Cory5412]

I think by 9, SD8 doesn't make a huge difference, but, for what it's worth, 9 is not real good on 6100s and 6200s. It's probably not even good on 6300s, it's not amazing on the 1400c/166 either, so I think the balance on these kinds of machines is maintaining speed while getting functionality and so if I were to need HFS+ on my 6200 or 6100, for example, I'd put 8.1 on it.

(W/re 9 and the 6300, actually, jessenator tells me 9 isn't great on the 7200/75, but I'd be interested in seeing a cross-comparison between a Power120 or a 9150/120, 7200/120, 6300/120, and a 7600/120, just for funsies, even though I think it's fair to say we know the 7600 would blow all those other systems away, and the 7200 would probably be the next closest behind it.) (IIRC someone had a 5400/120 which would be fun to add in, just as another comparison point.)

That's, like, obviously a lot of Macs and it's not really reasonable, at least for me, to have that many.

The other thing here is that Speed Doubler 8 might be causing a fairly hefty delay in the actual launching of finder on my 6200, I need to poke around and find out. It's not that big of a deal, just a minor annoyance, but it's not something you'd want to deal with on, like, anything where you can or ahve stuffed a G3 in or something Fast On Its Own like a 604ev powermac.

I'll see if I can pull out my 7200/75 today and look at it. I have a Power120 but it doesn't boot at the moment, and the next slowest PPC I have on hand is my 8600/300, which is fast enough that 7.6.1 will still utterly cream any 68k at 68k performance.

I have a Beige G3 266 at hand as well, which is, you know, faster than the 8600 but easier to get to so I might see about putting 8.1 and SD8 on it and seeing what kind fo difference it makes there.