Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Southern California

Recent Profile Visitors

236 profile views
  1. Reading that number as "test performance" makes sense. Knowing how much a 68040 benefits from having cache installed is a clear indication that it completely saturates the bandwidth of the memory, there should be no effective difference between the access speeds of the two processors. The main reason I ran the test was to see if the PPC had slowed the bus down in order to time it's 100MHz clock, so I wanted to make sure the number wasn't lower. Do you know what the best way of testing RAM bandwidth is on 68k? Gauge Pro has a 'moving memory' test but only runs on PPC.
  2. I'm not sure exactly how it's calculated (obviously the cleanest test is to transfer data from something faster, like the PPC's 1MB L2 cache or I suppose the 68040's 4KB data cache.) RAMometer seems to write a pattern to memory, then read the whole thing back and test the size of the written file over the time it took to complete the I/O. I have a second 950 that I'd like to test with to confirm there was nothing wonky going on in this test (the 950 with PPC has some oddball issues, such freezing instead of powering down or restarting after finder unloads, but only when booted from the 68040, and even with the PPC and Nubus physically removed.) If you come across any leads for another 9150, I'd definitely be looking to purchase. I'm not happy about spending as much as I did on a recapped 840av board only to have it start up exactly twice, at which point I left my positive feedback. I still have the original board too, but it produces a death tone after the chime no matter what I do... If only the 950 had that nicer bus chip, they're extremely reliable in my experience. If I could find a 9150, I'd let the 840av project go to someone with a higher pain tolerance. Now that I think of it, I never did try a different PSU... maybe that's my issue?
  3. Aha! Found an explanation for the RAM disk problem I was encountering: source: https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/RAM_disk Interestingly, this is not an issue when the PPC is running. I'll be able to pull out a bank and give the 68040 a fair run now. However, I was able to use RAMometer 1.3.4 to calculate the actual access rates on both platforms, as well as the IIfx for reference. Quadra 950 (68040): 6,405 KB/s Quadra 950 (PPC): 15,668 KB/s IIfx (8x4MB): 2,912 KB/s This said, at this point I'm not expecting the 68k test to outpace the previous PPC one, and I'm now confident the "16.7 MHz System Bus" reported by Metronome is erroneous. In the meantime, the AAUI to 10Base has been consistently faster than the Asanté ever since the sw update. When I have my QS02 up and running, I'll be excited to see if AppleShare IP server brings any good news... I wish my 840av would awaken from its tomb... I could test it in the IIfx (not expecting much but at least one slot is used up for ethernet regardless) but I expect this was probably intended for use on a BART21 system, as Gorgonops suggested. I'd love a 9150, but an 8100/100 is probably a more attainable test subject
  4. Round 2: (Connectix is enabled throughout until I specify otherwise) Q950-PPC-8.1 Download http://download.system7today.com/officeupdates.sit (20.8MB; 21,912,064 bytes) Destination: RAM Disk Netscape Communicator 4.8 10Mbps 92 seconds / Avg 238 KBps / 1.91 Mbps 100Mbps 75 seconds / Avg 292 KBps / 2.34 Mbps iCab and Internet Explorer both allow specifying the RAM disk as a download location, but according to the SCSI I/O it appears the browser caches the file to the disk first, then copies it to the RAM disk, making the results laughably slow and not worth mentioning for the purpose of this test. I'll do more testing with the UW drive as the destination later. Now another round of testing with Mac OS 9.2.1 Update.smi, but served by the Pismo this time (the file took less than a minute to get from the 9600's ATA133 drive to the Pismo's RAM disk over 100Mb, so the 9600 really shouldn't have been the limiting factor.) I didn't mention, the 9600 runs 8.6. Pismo is 9.2.2, which has the option to 'Enable File Sharing clients to connect over TCP/IP' which I have enabled. Source: Pismo's RAM Disk; Destination: Quadra's RAM Disk 100Mbps 143 seconds / Avg 601 KBps / 4.81 Mbps As this is just a hair faster than the original test from the 9600 I'll just be testing with the 100Mb connection until I find something that produces a more dramatic change. I then updated the AppleShare Client software on the Quadra from 3.7.4 to 3.8.3 and re-ran the test. (This update also allows 7.6.x and newer to authenticate OS X shares through Tiger, as well as Leopard but in read only.) 100Mbps 147 seconds / Avg 585 KBps / 4.68 Mbps was the best time I could get after several retries. (Most of these tests have been done more than once for sanity checks, the best times have been reported, as long as the rest have been close enough for margin of error.) So that slowed down slightly... Let's try something completely different- from the Pismo's RAM Disk directly to the UW SCSI drive attached to the ATTO Nubus Card. 100Mbps 138 seconds / 623 KBps / 4.99 Mbps Well this certainly lends credibility to the partial Nubus 90 implementation theory, but these numbers are still so small it's hard to say with certainty. These numbers reproduce consistently from the Pismo's RAM drive, but from the 9600's RAM drive it doesn't seem to make a big difference whether the destination is the Quadra's RAM disk or its UW drive. The last thing I'll do tonight is reboot the Pismo from 10.4.11 and mount its IDE-CF drive from the Quadra. For the first test I'll grab the file from the IDE and drop it on the Quadra's RAM drive. 100Mbps 188 Seconds / 458 KBps / 3.66 Mbps And now from the Pismo's IDE to to the Quadra's UW drive. 100Mbps 203 Seconds / 424 KBps / 3.39 Mbps And since this is a probable current day use case, I decided to run this test again with the 10Mbps connection (IDE -> UW): 10Mbps 119 Seconds / 723 KBps / 5.78 Mbps ... What?! So much for the last thing I do tonight... AppleShare update must've improved the efficiency of AAUI, perhaps with a new driver. (Using the RAM Disk as a destination on the Quadra is still slower than the UW drive: 137 Seconds) Pismo back to 9.2.2, keeping the file hosted on the RAM Disk, pulling it down to the Quadra's UW: 10Mbps 130 seconds / 662 KBps / 5.29 Mbps [100Mbps] [138 seconds / 623 KBps / 4.99 Mbps] [copied from above for reference] So OS X shares are faster than OS 9 shares (IDE share from OS 9 is slower than RAM disk share, when downloading to the Quadra's UW.) ...and clearly I need a better driver for the 10/100 card. I'll be looking around for that. Now I'll repeat the two tests from Netscape and call it a night; same file as above. 10Mbps -> RAM Disk 74 seconds / 296 KBps / 2.37 Mbps 10Mbps -> UW Drive 75 seconds / 292 KBps / 2.34 Mbps 100Mbps -> RAM Disk 70 seconds / 313 KBps / 2.50 Mbps 100Mbps -> UW Drive 70 seconds / 313 KBps / 2.50 Mbps Both interfaces show improvement since the AppleShare update. The 10/100 card retains a small advantage here, though if no better driver is available I might rather have the free slot based on the AppleTalk results This card may be designed for a machine with full Nubus 90 implementation. Hopefully it's just a driver issue though. Anyone running 7.6.1-8.1 should install the AppleShare Client 3.8.3 update! Future ideas: Install AppleShare IP 6.1.1 on the 9600 if I can obtain an installer? Upgrade the Q950 to 8.6?
  5. Even after seeing this round of results I'm not inclined to remove the card, though if it turns out to make a much bigger difference in a machine with full Nubus 90 support, I probably wouldn't miss it too terribly in the 950. If the year was 1995 and my $7-10k worth of three-year-old computer could have 38% faster networking for a reasonable price, I would've considered it strongly.
  6. I'm going to run a few more tests- I'll try from the Pismo's RAM disk over 100Mb from 9.2.2, and I'll also try using Netscape to download its own install package from system7today (this download yields a peak of 96Mbps on my Mac Pro, for the 12.1 MB file, so the test should be fair.) I also have several questions/observations others may have experience with: The Quadra 950 has a partial implementation of Nubus 90 (enhanced rate is capable between cards on the bus, but not between the bus and the CPU.) I'm curious to know if the PDS slot in the 950 (which shares some of the address space on Nubus #5) is capable of acting as a Nubus 90 device. The only evidence I have to suggest this is the case is that my two SE IV cards are only even detected in the Quadra with it running off the PowerPC. Both updated first to 1.6.5 and then to 2.1b, both work great in the Quadra (up to about 8MB/s on an Ultra320 drive vs about 4MB/s on the built-in) but neither are detected by the IIfx in 7.6.1 or the Quadra running off its 68040. I'd love if my 840av would chime (it does once in a blue moon if you leave it humming long enough) because it has full Nubus 90 implementation (and 40 > 33) so we might see a better result there. The second thing that piques my curiosity is the system clock timing. With the PPC Running, Sonnet Metronome reports a 100MHz 601, 33.3MHz CPU Bus & Cache, and 16.7MHz System Bus. Gauge Pro reports a 100MHz 601, 50MHz Backside Cache, 50MHz System Bus. Obviously both cannot be true, and Metronome reads the 68040 as a 67MHz CPU on a 33MHz bus, so its accuracy is limited on something this old. However, if the CPU is running a multiplier of 2 on an intermediary 50MHz bus, then running the real System Bus at 16.7MHz would make some sense, if not for the lack of performance. Gauge Pro shows 12.5MB/s Memory Performance (moving memory, 64-bit) when running from the PPC. Unfortunately, A ) it's PPC code, so I can't run it on the 68040 and B ) without the faster cache present, I'm not sure how the speed of the memory can be tested reliably. The only dirty test I can think to try (because this machine refuses to have a RAM disk in 68k mode) is to pull the file down to the UW drive in both PPC and 68k mode several times to see if there's a significant throughput difference. If anyone had to guess- what's the most efficient OS to run on the Quadra to continue testing? I'll continue using 8.1 for the sake of consistency here. More tests to come.
  7. I learned a lot from this thread, but it looks like nobody ever posted test results... I have some here for those still curious: Test file: Mac OS 9.2.1 Update.smi (84.4MB / 86,018,641 bytes) Switch: TrendNET TEG-S24g Gigabit Server: Power Macintosh 9600/1000(G4 [2MB Cache on board]) Apple PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet card connected at 100Mbps file hosted on RAM Disk over AppleTalk File Sharing Client: Power Macintosh 950/100 (Quadra 950 with 100MHz Sonnet/Daystar 601 [1MB Cache on board]) AsantéFAST 10/100 Nubus connected at 100Mbps AAUI connected via Apple Ethernet Twisted Pair Transceiver at 10Mbps file downloaded to RAM Disk Here's the cleanest test I could produce for now; I intended to test with the 68040 as well but for some reason the Quadra bombs on Memory extension if a RAM disk is enabled and the PPC card is disabled (or even removed, along with all the nubus. All combos of PRAMs and Reinstalls tried.) I give up on this for now. It's been many hours and countless restarts. None of the results are particularly thrilling, but YES the 10/100 card makes a noticeable difference.
  8. jeremywork

    PM 8600 reports wrong size RAM?

    Unfortunately they were secondhand on eBay... Had OWC not discontinued them I'd feel confident buying new from them.
  9. jeremywork

    PM 8600 reports wrong size RAM?

    Update: 2 of the 3 OWC 128MB modules were the correct buffer for my system, and I can confirm they read properly as 128MB modules, not 64MB (so the board was not at fault in this case it seems)
  10. jeremywork

    PM 8600 reports wrong size RAM?

    As I was re-reading the eBay listing, I noticed it specifies a firmware that allows a boot screen on older PCI powermacs. If I recall correctly ATI cards can only be flashed in a PC, but I could try to dump the ROM. Not sure how it would play if the card happened to have any differences in the hardware though... The composite port on mine is actually soldered to a larger S-video header on the board (I used to have an S-Video version in a Quicksilver G4 I sold.) I imagine with a steady soldering iron it would work perfectly with an S-Video output.
  11. jeremywork

    PM 8600 reports wrong size RAM?

    I just came across this unrelated but similar quote here regarding memory in the beige G3: http://lowendmac.com/1997/beige-power-mac-g3-1997/ "The Beige G3 supports 256 MB DIMMs, but they must be built using 128 Mb chips. DIMMs built with 256 Mb chips will work, but the memory controller will only see the first 128 Mb of each chip. Compatible 256 MB DIMMs will have 16 memory chips, 8 on each side." The Radeon 7000 I purchased is still for sale on eBay here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/263487427195 It only has official drivers for OS 8+ but can actually be run accelerated in 7.6.1 thanks to some prior knowledge here: http://main.system7today.com/articles/videocards.html (Click through to the help center where you can download the System 7 driver package) It even properly runs the Aluminum DVI 23" Cinema at full 1920x1200 resolution in both 7.6.1 and 8.6! I was quite surprised as this display is known to be particularly hard to satisfy even by newer machines like G4 towers. EDIT: even without drivers, the 7000 should display UNaccelerated video in both 7.6.1 and 8.6... does your card work in other Macs? Perhaps it's a PC BIOS or it wants to be in a different PCI slot?
  12. jeremywork

    PM 8600 reports wrong size RAM?

    Forgot to mention changing CPUs didn't change for me either. 604e/200, 604ev/350, MaxPowr G4/450 all reported 64MB. Definitely a motherboard (or ROM?) problem. The only thing I didn't think to try (didn't know at the time before I returned the memory) is that these motherboards start at the highest numbered slot pairs and count down (A4/B4, A3/B3, etc.) I don't think this should make a difference but I was counting up from A1/B1 and never got a chance to test it properly. Echo your comment on System 7 I love it but find it much more stable on more moderate systems like my 5500 or PowerBook 3400c. G4 upgrade aside, I think I have too much PCI glory going on in the 9600 for System 7 to play with! (Apple 10/100 | Sonnet Tempo Trio | Grappler 3940UW | OrangePC 660 | Radeon 7000 | Voodoo5 5500)
  13. jeremywork

    PM 8600 reports wrong size RAM?

    I had this exact same problem in my 9600/350 as well as my 8600/200. I have a MaxPowr G4 upgrade which only plays nicely with 162244 type buffers, making finding memory a pain. I found my 16MB and 32MBs report properly, but the 128MBs I purchased all showed as 64MB no matter what configuration I installed them in (OS 7.6.1 and OS 8.6). The manufacturer suggested the motherboard doesn't support double sided modules, but their site specifically advertised them for NewerTech MaxPowr CPU upgrades. I feel like I'm missing something, but haven't got a clue. I ordered three used 128MB 5v FPM modules that had OWC stickers, so when those arrive I'll see if any of them are 162244 buffer compliant and if they read properly in the 9600. Wish I had the answer but it's nice to know I'm not alone!