Which Nubus slot do you use for the Hammer?
It's in the slot next to the PDS-adjacent one (can't remember the order offhand- either #2 or #5)
I haven't tested whether there's a performance difference, just didn't want the 68-pin cable blocking more ventilation than necessary, and the 8•24 GC has SIMMs sticking out of it, so it's on the end.
But a Turbo 601 in an IIci should?
While the faster CPU will increase throughput capability, there are some differences in the Nubus itself through the model years:
• The Mac II series uses the original Nubus, which runs at 10MHz allowing an average of 10-20MB/s with bursts up to 40MB/s.
• The early Quadra series uses a partial implementation of Nubus 90, which runs at 20MHz for increased transfer speeds of around 30MB/s with bursts up to 70MB/s. The partial implementation here allows various cards on the bus to communicate between each other at Nubus 90 speeds, but they can only communicate with the CPU at original Nubus speeds.
• The AV Quadras and x100 PowerMacs completed the implementation of Nubus 90, so the CPU can also communicate with devices at Nubus 90 speed.
•
However, the original release of the x100 PowerMacs used a BART4 Nubus controller, which unintentionally disables Nubus block transfers on all cards if any one card cannot support the feature. The revised BART21 controller fixes this problem, and is present in all 8100/100, 8100/110, and 9150/120 models (rumored to be in some late model 7100/80 and 9150/80s, but not confirmed.)
*Nubus speed figures are from Wikipedia
In my experience with the ATTO SEIV, the complete Nubus 90 implementation makes a huge difference- compare 18MB/s - 16MB/s for the 840av - 8100/100 to 8MB/s in my 950 with a 601 @ 115MHz.
This is ATTO Performance Utility again- I need to try out the benchmark in FWB toolkit to see how the results differ.
@joethezombie has a faster read result than I would expect to see in a IIfx, but all of my drives are spinning rust, so it's hard to compare.