beachycove
Well-known member
I have a 200MHz dual 604e in front of me now, on which it is written, pn 630-2125-A" and then "8500/9500 ONLY".
Why 8500/9500 only?
Why 8500/9500 only?
-
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.
Dual 604e
- Thread starter beachycove
- Start date
Franklinstein
Well-known member
Are you sure it says 85/9500 and not 86/9600? The 200 MP card was only shipped in a 9600; the fastest DP card for the 9500 was 180MHz.
Anyway, the main difference between the x500 and x600 models is that the x600 models didn't have a L2 cache soldered to the logic board. The x500's L2 cache was slower than the CPU required, and apparently the machine couldn't (or wouldn't) disable or work around it. This kept the high-performance (200MP/250/300/350MHz) cards, which had their caches mounted directly on the CPU card, from running in those machines. Plus, some of those cards required more power than the standard power supply shipped in an x500 series could provide.
Anyway, the main difference between the x500 and x600 models is that the x600 models didn't have a L2 cache soldered to the logic board. The x500's L2 cache was slower than the CPU required, and apparently the machine couldn't (or wouldn't) disable or work around it. This kept the high-performance (200MP/250/300/350MHz) cards, which had their caches mounted directly on the CPU card, from running in those machines. Plus, some of those cards required more power than the standard power supply shipped in an x500 series could provide.
beachycove
Well-known member
Yes, quite sure it reads that way. That is indeed one of the peculiarities. My initial thought about it, however, had been the more general, "Why not in the 8600, 7500, etc?"
I had in fact been running it in an 8600/200, with a high-end 1MB cache chip installed, but have found the machine to be slightly unstable with the 200 MHz dual 604e processor, with random system hangs being a pest. So I replaced the paste between heatsink and processors, and tried again all day yesterday — no better. But recently I came into possession of a 9500/180MP, and this morning I thought I would swap the processor from the 9500 into it to see what happened. It now seems that I can't make it crash. The whole machine, including system and cache/memory bus, has slowed to 45MHz with the dual 180 MHz processor, and most likely this is the explanation.
I will, when I get a moment, try the card in an 8500 and 9500 to see what happens. However, if the 200MHz card did not ship in the 9500, I wonder if in fact it must not have shipped in the 9600, the same machine that was ramped up to a 233MHz single 604e. Maybe the dual 200 MHz 604e processor would work more stably in a 9600 (not the Kansas, I know about that).
I had in fact been running it in an 8600/200, with a high-end 1MB cache chip installed, but have found the machine to be slightly unstable with the 200 MHz dual 604e processor, with random system hangs being a pest. So I replaced the paste between heatsink and processors, and tried again all day yesterday — no better. But recently I came into possession of a 9500/180MP, and this morning I thought I would swap the processor from the 9500 into it to see what happened. It now seems that I can't make it crash. The whole machine, including system and cache/memory bus, has slowed to 45MHz with the dual 180 MHz processor, and most likely this is the explanation.
I will, when I get a moment, try the card in an 8500 and 9500 to see what happens. However, if the 200MHz card did not ship in the 9500, I wonder if in fact it must not have shipped in the 9600, the same machine that was ramped up to a 233MHz single 604e. Maybe the dual 200 MHz 604e processor would work more stably in a 9600 (not the Kansas, I know about that).
No, no, no and again no.
The multiplier is always on the CPU card.
There were two versions of the 8600 and two versions of the 9600 and only the later versions lacked the logic board cache (because it was on the CPU card). So it is not correct to say that the 8600 and 9600 didn't have logic board L2 cache. The PM8600 Enhanced did not. The PM9600 Enhanced did not. The original PM8600 and PM9600 did.
The card probably doesn't specify the 8600 or 9600 because those machines didn't exist when the card was made.
The architecture of a PM8500 logic board is identical to the 7500 except for a couple extra chips on the 8500 to enable video out (or was that capture?). The only reason such a DP card would say not to use it in a 7500 is that someone thought the power supply might not be able to handle it.
Bus speed support was exactly the same in all 7500/8500/9500/7600/8600/9600/7300 machines. They all used exactly the same chipset. Perhaps there was some individual variation in logic boards such that some are better at higher speeds than others, but they should all manage 50 MHz. The ones (especially clones) that lack an L2 cache can often go as high as 60 MHz, however, the CPU card needs to be bus speed aware and set the Clock ID pins to tell the Hammerhead memory controller to change timing to support the higher speed.
I've seen 62 MHz in PowerTower Pros and Umax S900s with a PowerLogix PowerBoost Pro 604e/225 card which uses a little microcontroller to set the Clock ID pins as the bus speed is set higher.
Most of the time when someone can't get better than 45 MHz bus speed, it's because the CPU card(s) they're using don't set the Clock ID pins properly, not because the logic board won't go faster.
The multiplier is always on the CPU card.
There were two versions of the 8600 and two versions of the 9600 and only the later versions lacked the logic board cache (because it was on the CPU card). So it is not correct to say that the 8600 and 9600 didn't have logic board L2 cache. The PM8600 Enhanced did not. The PM9600 Enhanced did not. The original PM8600 and PM9600 did.
The card probably doesn't specify the 8600 or 9600 because those machines didn't exist when the card was made.
The architecture of a PM8500 logic board is identical to the 7500 except for a couple extra chips on the 8500 to enable video out (or was that capture?). The only reason such a DP card would say not to use it in a 7500 is that someone thought the power supply might not be able to handle it.
Bus speed support was exactly the same in all 7500/8500/9500/7600/8600/9600/7300 machines. They all used exactly the same chipset. Perhaps there was some individual variation in logic boards such that some are better at higher speeds than others, but they should all manage 50 MHz. The ones (especially clones) that lack an L2 cache can often go as high as 60 MHz, however, the CPU card needs to be bus speed aware and set the Clock ID pins to tell the Hammerhead memory controller to change timing to support the higher speed.
I've seen 62 MHz in PowerTower Pros and Umax S900s with a PowerLogix PowerBoost Pro 604e/225 card which uses a little microcontroller to set the Clock ID pins as the bus speed is set higher.
Most of the time when someone can't get better than 45 MHz bus speed, it's because the CPU card(s) they're using don't set the Clock ID pins properly, not because the logic board won't go faster.
Bolle
Well-known member
I had my 9500 running at 62MHz Bus speed with interleaved RAM.
that did only work with one specific processor. I tried multiple ZIF modules in my Carrier card and only changed the multiplier to not overclock the CPUs but it did only boot with one Motorola 750. With IBM 750s I did not even get close to 60MHz on the Bus - all that without overclocking the CPUs itself in the first place.
that did only work with one specific processor. I tried multiple ZIF modules in my Carrier card and only changed the multiplier to not overclock the CPUs but it did only boot with one Motorola 750. With IBM 750s I did not even get close to 60MHz on the Bus - all that without overclocking the CPUs itself in the first place.
beachycove
Well-known member
I have not tried the dual 200MHz 604e card in one of my 9500s, which like the 9600s have the 512k cache onboard. Would the expectation be that the onboard cache would be fast enough to cope with the duallie?
