Jump to content
IIfx

A very late 040

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Crutch said:

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.

Edited by jessenator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Fizzbinn said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

jessenator tells me 9 isn't great on the 7200/75

I'd be interested to see the this test's results on it! But yes, on a full, non-clean install of 9.x , the 7200/75 was a bit of a dog, with and without L2 cache, but I didn't run the numbers formally. Frankly I got sick of how friggin long it took to boot, so I wiped it and put 7.6.1 on it.

 

I think I'll test my 603ev StarMax that can underclock to 120 (125) and see how it does as well.  So that's Norton Utilities Speed Test v2.0 that we're using? IDR, is that plopped onto vTools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, there's a folder for it on vtools. It's in a disk image and just on a folder. I copied the folder to the desktop of my 6200 to run it, my own additions to the bench pool are outside the folder but I think they should probably be inside it. You'll see like "coryw-6200" and "6200-SD8".

 

There's a notes field too, so it might be possible to standardize on a shorter format and then put meta/context information in there.

 

The Starmax at 120 should do okay, I expect to come out around the middle of the pack, the main question basically being how much faster it is than the NuBus machines and the 6300. I'd expect it to maybe beat out a 7200/120 + cache  by a bit and be probably a bit slower than a 604 though, depending on the exact test/sub-test.

 

 

I'm collecting some benches here: https://doku.stenoweb.net/doku.php?id=macdex:nortonsysteminfobenches

 

I need to come up with a good way to document the configurations.

 

If you'd like to have something added, the text format is generally:

 

^ System    ^ System Rating  ^ CPU    ^ FPU    ^ Video  ^ Disk  ^
| Q700      | 100            | 100    | 100    | 100    | 100   |

 

The exact number of spaces doesn't matter. Just sub in the Q700 for your results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

I'm collecting some benches here

Other specs in the system description shown for disclosure purposes. Feel free to include or omit...

| StarMax 5000 (603ev@125 MHz + no L2 + CF + Rage128) | 184 | 200 | 19.1 | 142 | 305
| StarMax 5000 (603ev@125 MHz + 256k L2 + CF + Rage128) | 245 | 267 | 19.9 | 203 | 424
| StarMax 5000 (603ev@125 MHz + 512k L2 + CF + Rage128) | 253 | 277 | 19.9 | 207 | 439

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quadra 950 with 68040/50+ cache

Video is a Nubus cards so the bench sucks.

HD is a native 50 pin SCSI drive.

 

CPU: 186

FPU: 203

Video: 65.6

Disk: 177

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What version of Norton System Information are you running? I have version 3.5.3 here, and by default the PowerMac 6100/60 is the reference system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NJRoadfan said:

I think 3.5 is PPC native (I have it on my 6100 too), so benchmarks aren't going to be directly comparable.

3.5 is PPC and m68k, so m68k compared with m68k will be, well, comparable ;)

 

I just figured out that System Info version 3.2.1 shows the Quadra 700 as the baseline and will open benchmark results made with 3.5. My Amiga 1200 when the m68060 was running at 57 MHz:

 

System rating: 247

CPU: 255

Video: 210

Disk: 243

FPU: 429

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I thought I wrote it down, but, I must not have!

 

*boots 6200*

 

I'm running Symantec System Info 3.1, which MrFahrenheit uploaded to vtools. Please PM me if you'd like a vtools account, there's folders for norton system info bench collection and MacBench 4 bench collection.

 

System Info I'm using exclusively to collect information on relative 68k emulation performance. MacBench 4 is where we already have more results and does a much better job comprehensively measuring and comparing system performance with 1994-1998-era FAT software.

 

To be honest, it wouldn't bother me not to get the disk performance, I don't really know if it means anything, but the test runs it by default and it's not really that much of a bother so, no big deal.

 

Basically, the thing I wanted to see is, exactly how bad did the 16k L1 on the 6200 hamper 68k emulation performance and how much can it be saved by speed doubler. The answer is "a fair bit" and "quite a lot" respectively. I'd be interested in seeing a 6300's results, and, perhaps this weekend I'll have the energy to pull out my 7200 and compare that as well.

 

The other results I'd be seeing are some slower NuBus PPC Macs in various configs, an x100 at 60, 66, and 80, perhaps. Ideally with some different cache configs if possible, and with/without Speed Doubler 8.1.2. I have a 1400c/166, I'll run it on there as well.

 

MacBench also allows you more granularity with what it does and how and does things like repeating benchmarks and has fairly good built-in comparison tools. I find the disk benchmarks comparable with modern disk benches in terms of comparing different file sizes and with random/sequential writing, although it doesn't create the pretty speed graph that some of the vintage disk bench tools do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just added LibMoto back to my 6200/s 7.6.1 system folder and only got one or two points of difference, with LibMoto being slightly better.

 

Also, if found out that if you go to the Benchmarks, then click on Show Detailed Ratings, then choose "Absolute' In the menu you can get a tabular output, which will make transcribing results way easier.

 

I might re-arrange this but for now, the benchmark results are going into a common folder on vtools:

 

Public (share) -> NortonSysInfo-Benches -> Norton System Info -> Benchmark Results

 

Sync the Benchmark Results folder with your own and when you open System Info (in the Norton System Info folder) you'll be able to see what people have put up so far. You can select a specific system to see configuration details, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2020 at 6:21 PM, Cory5412 said:

Basically, the thing I wanted to see is, exactly how bad did the 16k L1 on the 6200 hamper 68k emulation performance and how much can it be saved by speed doubler. The answer is "a fair bit" and "quite a lot" respectively.

The original 603 from the first 75MHz 52/62xx machines used 8k+8k split caches (the later 603e was 16k+16k) which was too small for the Apple 68k emulator to fit into, meaning it had to be run from slower off-chip memory instead, hence the poor performance with 68k code. If the chip had used a combined cache like the 601 did they may not have had that problem. However Connectix may have been able to either squeeze their emulator into 8k or split it effectively across the two stores, or it may just have been that much more efficient (they were excellent when it came to fixing Apple's shortcomings).

There were three different logic boards for the 5x/6xxx series machines: the original 37.5/75MHz 603, the faster 40/100MHz (and possibly also 120MHz) 603e-based versions, both always with a 256k L2 cache built into the ROM SIMM, and a final 40/100 or 120MHz variant with soldered ROMs and optional L2 cache. The latter's L2 cache slot is physically identical to the x100 series Power Macs but their cache SIMMs don't work in these for some reason (either no boot or just unrecognized), nor do the earlier ROM+L2 cache cards work. I would be interested in finding an authentic late-model 5x/6xxx L2 cache or figuring out what to change to utilize an x100 model's cache here (I assume some pins need to be modified).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

If the chip had used a combined cache like the 601 did they may not have had that problem.

Yeah, it's interesting, because the 6100 isn't actually much faster at 68k emulation than the 6200 is.

 

There's some results in here of a 6100/66 that got 53 at CPU and 9.5 at FPU and my 6200 (before SD8 and libmoto) got 45 and 8.7. I don't know what cache that system had, though. I think this is one of @MrFahrenheit's systems.

 

When you say "final" 120MHz board, is that a PCI version like the 5400/120? I had thought the 6300/120 had the 256k of L2 cache as well. A 6300/100 or 6300/120 should, overall, be way more performant than the 6200, although, any 100-120MHz 601 is also way more performant than a 60-66MHz one as well, so some of it's architecture improvements (cache, bus) and some of it's just better CPU.

 

There are known dedicated cache modules for the PCI architecture 5000/6000 machines, some of which have PowerPC G3 processors on them, so that's a knowable and buildable format, it's just a matter of finding one of those cards, since I bet they weren't very common on their own, and by the time you feel like it's important to buy an L2 cache to augment your cacheless 5400 or 6400, you're most of the way to being able to justify a new imac, anyway, unless it's still 1997 and you bought a cacheless model for availability reasons.

 

12 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

The original 603 from the first 75MHz 52/62xx machines used 8k+8k split caches (the later 603e was 16k+16k) which was too small for the Apple 68k emulator to fit into, meaning it had to be run from slower off-chip memory instead,

Yes, this is a good, accurate, detailed long-hand of "not enough L1 cache". My apologies for the confusion.

 

 

In general with architecture on these machines before The Mythical Road Apple | Taylor Design (taylordesign.net) (old version of SSL certificate warning on some browsers, chredge let me click through when I clicked on advanced) (I think this person joined us on here but I forgot the username) which has some more information about this as well. There's a couple different posts about this overall.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 6:25 PM, Cory5412 said:

When you say "final" 120MHz board, is that a PCI version like the 5400/120?

No, there was a late run of the 5x/6xxx that used 120MHz processors. Supposedly the Performa 5320 was one of them but there was a thread I created a while back that had the box (and the CPU itself) clearly listed as 100MHz instead. Some spec pages on the internet also list them at 100MHz yet there are resources elsewhere that claim 120Mhz, so who knows what the deal is with those things. It was a confusing time at Apple.

 

Anyway, these weird 100 and 120MHz soldered-ROM boards are Apple p/n 820-0751-A so you can do an image search or possibly buy one for yourself and you'll notice the cache slot is empty. I bought a mess of them on eBay once because they had a mishmosh of chips over the various boards (same chip, different suppliers) and I wanted one with the Chips and Technologies-produced Valkyrie video controller (most are AT&T or Sierra Semi). They seemed to have used color-coded heatsinks: aluminum for 100MHz, anodized blue for 120MHz (though this may not be a rule, just something I noticed with the lot I bought, so don't get mad if you buy one and find a blue heatsink on a 100MHz chip). They also typically used a Fujitsu-made Capella, a Samsung-made Primetime, and occasionally used IBM's apparently uncommon blue epoxy encapsulated 603e, which I always thought looked really pretty. It's just too bad about the weird L2 cache slot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 6:25 PM, Cory5412 said:

In general with architecture on these machines before The Mythical Road Apple | Taylor Design (taylordesign.net) (old version of SSL certificate warning on some browsers, chredge let me click through when I clicked on advanced) (I think this person joined us on here but I forgot the username) which has some more information about this as well. There's a couple different posts about this overall.

 

Yes I'm pretty sure I'm in many of them. In a nutshell: I think the original 75MHz 5200/6200 was a bit of a misstep, or at least feels that way when compared to the outgoing 61xx (according to Everymac, the first 6200 versions were priced only about $100 less than a 61xx at introduction and the 6200 performed no better or was even slightly slower in some cases; you may have got a better deal buying a discontinued/refurbished/used 61xx bundle), but the followup models were really not terrible; I rather like my Performa 5270. Also the LEM guy who wrote the original error-filled screed against them had virtually no idea what he was talking about whereas between us that Taylor guy and I have at least a minor understanding of how these things were built and operate. However the general lack of accurate technical information available on the internet at large leaves a few gaps and makes it difficult to cite sources for anything outside of the 603 UM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W/re the 6200 as a misstep:

 

I disagree. In the US at least, all the evidence i have been able to find indicates that the 6200 cost a lot less than the 6100 did. Especially considering that most 6200s were sold as Performa bundles. At introduction of the 6200, in the USA, pricing for a 6100 was roughly $1800 for a bare system (BYODK) and $1200-1400 for a Performa 6200 with software, keyboard, monitor, and often a printer or a modem.) In addition, a 6200/75 is, in daily operation, about the same speed as a 6100/60 is. They have very similar graphical capabilities, with the benefit slightly going to the 6200 for having had separate VRAM and a couple acceleration tricks.

 

(Price: MacWorld June 1995 says the 5200 runs a bit under $2000 and a 6100 will run around $2600 so that price difference is there, even if I"m misremembering the specific numbers.)

 

The L1 cache was absolutely a misstep, but in general, they were "fine" computers and their only crime was having been cheap.

 

(MacWorld also says that once you add a cache to a 6100 it becomes faster, and, I believe that, but I don't have one handy to bench, and even so, implicitly Apple was "fine" with that level of performance, and, to be honest, it works well enough for "basic computing" kind of stuff. The graphs in this article form 1995 show a 6100/60 with cache slightly beating the 5200/75.)

 

It would absolutely have been better if Apple designed a new platform for the 6200, even if it were still not a PCI platform, but a lot of what goes into making a product, or at least what did in that moment, was compromising what you can do for pretty cheap to meet a need and what will be performant, and so you end up (in Macs as well as PCs) with solutions that aren't the most elegant. This is comparable to the Yikes/PCI Graphics PowerMac G4, except that the blue-and-white PowerMac G3 was a better platform up front than the 630 was, since it was the high end machine.

 

The other thing is, Apple was really bad at naming products and I think that it's a misnomer to suggest that the 6200 replaced or succeeds the 6100. I think that in reality, the 7200 succeeds the 6100, the 7500 succeeds the 7100 and the 8500 of course succeeds the 8100. (the 8200 is a vertical 7200 and so it sits in the same slot below the 8500, beside the 7200, in markets where it existed). What the 6200 replaced was the 630, a machine that was still a 68k based computer and introduced after the 6100, to serve as a low end and nominally to wrap up the lives of several 68k models that had continued existing because Apple couldn't manage its product line to save its life from 1987 to 1997.

 

That there were Performa 6100s and not Performa 7200s is mostly a side-effect of, just, again, Apple being bad at this whole game. Either the 6200 was late, causing the Performa 6110 series or they had some demand for a performance machine and decided the 6100 was good enough, even though it technically lacked some things the 630 and 6200 had, like the TV/FM system.

 

An interesting speculative question might be whether or not it would be reasonable/worthwhile for apple to have just tried to reduce cost on the 6100, but, the 6100 really was originally intended as a "professional" computer. A low end one, but a professional one nevertheless, and the 630 and 6200 get their origins in being a cheap consumer-oriented design, and basically until 1998, Apple (and most of the computer industry, some still does) believed that it was okay to provide older and explicit cost-saving designs to consumers. This even carries through in the 6400 (versus the contemporary 7300/7600/8600/9600) where the 6400 uses IDE and doesn't have onboard ethernet and has a lower-end graphics system that supports a couple fewer legacy formats/options.

 

That, or, as with '030s in the early '90s (and, as with the other '040s out until 1996) is there an argument to be potentially made here that Apple should have not built the 5200/6200 and continued selling the 640 as-is for another year.

 

I think that's a toss-up, and, while Apple is incompatible with discontinuing products in a reasonable time, they're were attracted to introducing new products like moths to a flame, so, I feel like the 6200 was a little bit inevitable, in that sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

Also the LEM guy who wrote the original error-filled screed against them had virtually no idea what he was talking about whereas between us that Taylor guy and I have at least a minor understanding of how these things were built and operate.

 

Yeah. Low End Mac, a number of different contributors, absolutely poisoned the well on this machine. It's a fine, if cheap computer, that does poorly at a specific thing that might have been commonly needed in the mid '90s and people spent several years not wanting to touch them because of their status as "the worst Mac" which only barely made sense in the original of Low End Mac, which was as a used Mac buying guide in the late '90s when some of these things would still have been with their first owners. (Hell, DK only got started writing LEM a year after the last of the 68k Macs had finally stopped being built.)

 

At some point, I've been told I should just go rewrite the wikipedia page on the 6200/5200, and, I should, but that's a big undertaking. I've been meaning to do my own page about 6200 performance on my own wiki, to at least have something to send people, but i haven't had time to author it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×