François
Well-known member
I have the same board, but mine is water and bad recap job damaged beyond repair, so I removed the heat sink to have a look at the processor:
-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
bench test of Performa 6214CD internal IDE hard disk
- Thread starter bigmessowires
- Start date
bigmessowires
Well-known member
It does seem hard to believe. But according to multiple sources the 6300 motherboard has a 40 MHz bus and a 2.5x multiplier to get 100 MHz. You couldn't get a final CPU speed of ~94 MHz with a 6300 motherboard.
Phipli
Well-known member
Given you have a 94MHz machine with a 603e, if the person was able to replace the CPU, they'd have replaced the clock to put it to 40MHz bus.
It is very unlikely that someone replaced the CPU. It wouldn't have been worth the cost and the risk with 1990s prices. Versus just buying a 6290 or 6300 board and shoving it in.
I suspect that either the bus is being misreported (given your FPU score matches a 100MHz 5200 based machine) or all of the "40MHz" busses are actually 37.5MHz.
Note Wikipedia and Everymac will be both quoting the Apple website... Which has been known to be wrong.
Does anyone else have a 6260, 6290 or 6300/100 to check system profiler? It a 5260, 5290 or 5300?
Last edited:
bigmessowires
Well-known member
According to the part number, I that's a 100 MHz CPU. Some differences between IBM and Motorola numbering systems though.
Phipli
Well-known member
Yes, but the speed is set by the board, not the part number. It could still be running at 94MHz.
Phipli
Well-known member
I don't understand why their 5260/100 scores worse than your 6200/75. That doesn't make much sense. I'm lost.
bigmessowires
Well-known member
I think the 5260/100 doesn't have an L2 cache (LEM says it's "optional") but the 6200/75 does have L2 cache, resulting in a big performance difference
Regarding my strange 6214 with 94 MHz 603e - I completely agree it would have been far more likely for somebody in 1999 to do a 6300 motherboard swap than to do a processor replacement of a soldered-down 603. But the evidence so far doesn't seem to fit that theory. If all 63xx/100 systems were actually 93.75 MHz systems rounded up to 100 MHz for marketing, and with a 37.5 MHz bus, then the evidence would fit. But I have a hard time believing that all the references citing a 40 MHz bus for 6300 are wrong, and that Apple "rounded up" from 94 to 100. The existence of all the 117 MHz 603e Macs proves that their marketing team wasn't afraid to sell machines with strange-seeming MHz numbers.
I think the only definitive way to resolve the mystery would be finding somebody with a 63xx/100 system and having them run Norton 6 benchmarks, or FWB HDT 4.5.2, and compare to the numbers that my computer shows.
Regarding my strange 6214 with 94 MHz 603e - I completely agree it would have been far more likely for somebody in 1999 to do a 6300 motherboard swap than to do a processor replacement of a soldered-down 603. But the evidence so far doesn't seem to fit that theory. If all 63xx/100 systems were actually 93.75 MHz systems rounded up to 100 MHz for marketing, and with a 37.5 MHz bus, then the evidence would fit. But I have a hard time believing that all the references citing a 40 MHz bus for 6300 are wrong, and that Apple "rounded up" from 94 to 100. The existence of all the 117 MHz 603e Macs proves that their marketing team wasn't afraid to sell machines with strange-seeming MHz numbers.
I think the only definitive way to resolve the mystery would be finding somebody with a 63xx/100 system and having them run Norton 6 benchmarks, or FWB HDT 4.5.2, and compare to the numbers that my computer shows.
bigmessowires
Well-known member
shows a CPU benchmark result for a Performa 6320, although I'm not sure which benchmark program was used (EDIT: it clearly says MacBench 4.0). But it shows 6100/60 with a score of 100 and 6200/75 with a score of 93, matching very closely with the numbers we've seen from @JustG in Norton 6 and built-in to Norton 6's DB.
If a 6320/100 were truly a 100 MHz system, then you should expect it to perform about 100/94 = 6.4% better on CPU tests than my 94 MHz 603e. My computer scored 127, so that would predict a 6320/100 score of 135. The actual number shown in the Reddit post is 134. Close enough.
That's enough to convince me that my mystery computer here is not a 6300-mobo swap, but a CPU-upgraded 6200 mobo.
If a 6320/100 were truly a 100 MHz system, then you should expect it to perform about 100/94 = 6.4% better on CPU tests than my 94 MHz 603e. My computer scored 127, so that would predict a 6320/100 score of 135. The actual number shown in the Reddit post is 134. Close enough.
That's enough to convince me that my mystery computer here is not a 6300-mobo swap, but a CPU-upgraded 6200 mobo.
Phipli
Well-known member
Please please please believe me, the PCB date code is too new to be a 75MHz 6200. I don't understand why you won't believe me.
6 37 - that's more than half way through 1996. Compare it to the sticker on the back of your 6200 - the date on the case serial number won't match because the board is not original to the machine!
It doesn't really make much difference and I don't know why your bus is reported as 37.5MHz, but I promise that nobody has switched the CPU.
bigmessowires
Well-known member
Well, maybe. Whichever theory you wish to support, some evidence does not fit. I find it easier to believe that LEM's reported date for discontinuation of the 6200 is wrong by 11 weeks, rather than that all 63xx/100 systems ever made were actually 94 MHz systems. The benchmark numbers also fit pretty-much exactly with my system being 94 MHz and a true 6300-series system being 100 MHz, and don't fit the theory that my system is a 100MHz 6300 with some kind of reporting bug for bus speed.
bigmessowires
Well-known member
I didn't realize you had a 6300?! Yes that would be awesome, if you have the time and interest. I would be curious to see FWB HDT 4.5.2's report for the bus and CPU speed, as well as Norton 6's benchmarks.
LaPorta
Well-known member
Well, let me try and get both of those programs. It has been probably years since I fired it up, so there's no guarantee it will work....but at least it has an ethernet card, so I can transfer over programs fairly easily.
EDIT: I see that 4.5.2 requires 8 or better, and I may have 7.5.x on there. I'll see.
We're in luck...it has 8.1
EDIT: I see that 4.5.2 requires 8 or better, and I may have 7.5.x on there. I'll see.
We're in luck...it has 8.1
Last edited:
Phipli
Well-known member
Tattletech would do I guess
François
Well-known member
The part number on a 6200/75 motherboard is different, you can see it on this page:
www.pvsm.ru
You have a 820-0685-B mobo, the 6200/75 is 820-0616-A
Power Macintosh 6200-75 — компьютер 1995 года (текст и видео — на выбор)
Рассказ про этот компьютер, его железо, чуточку про операционку, софт и игрушки. Это
You have a 820-0685-B mobo, the 6200/75 is 820-0616-A
Last edited:
Snial
Well-known member
That's because until recently I didn't have a spare PB 1400/117 CPU module to try it out with. I do now, but the bloke who sent it to me packaged it in a non-anti-static bag along with an 8MB RAM card & some screws where they would have rattled around static-damaging themselves in transit - how could anyone be that careless?
bigmessowires
Well-known member
Here is an eBay auction for a Performa 6214CD, which is what I have. The photos show 820-0685-B on the motherboard, same as mine. I don't know what the -A and -B suffixes mean, but -B doesn't mean it's not a PPC603/75 with a 37.5 MHz bus. https://www.ebay.com/itm/325724382070
I’m wondering if your Performa 6214 was involved in the Apple recall of certain Performa 62xx machines. Apple wrote a program to detect a defective cache on these machines, and OS8 would NOT install on these machines without the fix. See https://www.macspecialist.org/perfo...214cd-6216cd-6218cd-6220cd/system-tester.html