Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: XLR8 CarrierZIF G3/466

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Carmel,IN,USA
    Posts
    1

    Default

    What's the bus multiplier used on the G3's in the 466MHz CarrierZIF card?

    thnx

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cordova, TN
    Posts
    2,428

    Default

    The 466 MHz/1 MB/233 is a 10X.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    wherever I hang my hat
    Posts
    3,575

    Default

    absolutely correct. The 466/183 is 8x.

    this information is noted on the pages concerned.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Reston, VA, USA
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Will the 10X 466/233 XLR8 Mach Carrier be more overclockable than the 10X 500/250 XLR8 Mach Carrier bundle Above 500MHz. I know that the 466MHz can be boosted to 500 MHz and beyond on occassions but most comments on the 500MHz is that it really is not overclockable. How could the 466MHz be cockable with some regularity above 500MHz when only rated at 466MHz and the 500MHz seems rarley clockable over its rating when it should be a more stable due to its 500MHz rating? Were higher quality components used in the 466MHz run that made it more clockable? Or am I wrong in that the 500MHz is stable at its rated speed and the 466MHz is only on rare occassion stable at this speed? I would think that the 500MHz would be able to get to 533MHz on a higher frequency than the 466MHz chips.

    Is the cache used on these boards rated the same? I know they run at 1/2 the processor speed but if you actually looked at the chips themselves would you find the same ns rating on each or perhaps the 466MHz got even faster cache available at the time of production.

    Thank you!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    FJ,

    I have the Gurus XLR8 MACh G3 500MHz Carrier, 1MB L2 @ 250MHz in a PowerTower Pro, currently overclocked to 540/270 with OS7.6.1. I chickened out at that speed and never tried higher. It's stable. Later OS's will undoubtedly require me to lower my overclocking, perhaps to 536/268 or 530/265. Not that far along yet in my PTP upgrades in the Power Computing Step-by-Step forum. YMMV. k

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cordova, TN
    Posts
    2,428

    Default

    Let's try to separate the oranges, apples, and prunes.

    No two computers are exactly alike. No two CPU's are exactly alike.

    The IBM Lonestar copperized 466/233 was, I think, the first 10 X CPU to be released to the public. I think it was also one of the first copper chips(which handles heat better than aluminum). It also had good, fast and expensive backside cache. The 500/250 is similar but faster and more expensive.

    With fast, 10 X CPU's in legacy Mac's (pre-beige G3's), the overclocking limit is usually established by how fast the system bus will operate in a stable fashion.
    Most of these machines don't like to run faster 50 MHz. An exception is the Power Center Pro series, which was designed for 60 Mhz. So the nominal limit for most legacy Mac's is 10 X 50 = 500.

    Other factors besides bus speed include RAM speed, cooling, and many other parameters.

    As an example, I have three of these 466 CPU's. One is in my Power Tower Pro which does not like a bus speed over 48 MHz with interleaved RAM and OS 9.04, so I run the CPU at 10 X 48 = 480. A second 466 is in a Rev B beige DT. It runs stably at 500, but remember, the beige G3 has a 66 MHz bus and PC 66 RAM. The third 466 is in a Rev A beige G3 MT and it runs 533. Go figure? (no two are the same).

    You see lots of stories about the clockability of the 466 and very little about the 500. There are several reasons. First, there are a heck of a lot more 466's out there than 500's. The 500's cost a lot more. Many machines won't run them faster than 10 X 50. Some people are content at 500. They don't want to fry an expensive 500 CPU.

    In fact, Kaye is the first person that I know that has tried it. He is fortunate to have a rare Power Tower Pro that will run a 54+ MHz system bus. He also loves to make his machines the fastest.

    [This message has been edited by Louie (edited 12 October 2000).]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    532

    Default

    i'm running an XLR8 500 G3 card in an S900 (which prefers a 50mz bus) and it is extremely stable. i don't know if overclocking it to squeeze out another 30-50 mz is worth the trouble. in real life situations i doubt you would notice the difference. so other than bragging rights ( sorry K )or scientific inquiry i don't see the point of going to the trouble. there is however an enormous difference between the 500 and the 400 or even 450. the 500's just faster on all counts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Oakland, CA, USA
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Louie,

    **With fast, 10 X CPU's in legacy Mac's (pre-beige G3's), the overclocking limit is usually established by how fast the system bus will operate in a stable fashion.
    Most of these machines don't like to run faster 50 MHz. An exception is the Power Center Pro series, which was designed for 60 Mhz. So the nominal limit for most legacy Mac's is 10 X 50 = 500.**

    Does this mean if I get a 10x G3 zif with carrier, I can put it into a PCP with a 60 Mhz bus and expect to get a 600 Mhz processor? Has anyone accomplished this amazing feat?

    D


    [This message has been edited by dimsumboy (edited 17 November 2000).]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cordova, TN
    Posts
    2,428

    Default

    Theoretically that is true. However, right now there is no available G3 CPU that will run that fast.

  10. #10
    Guest

    Default

    Louie is correct in that no one has succeeded in running a 500Mhz chip at 600Mhz.

    I have never heard of such a case. In fact Kaye's is the fastest I've heard it pushed.

    One thing I can tell you, DO NOT try to get to 600Mhz. While you most likely will just not boot up (you definitely wont boot), you may fry your CPU and warranty at the same time.

    As mentioned here, overclocking is trial and error and needs to be done carefully.

    ------------------
    Thanks.
    Darin Ames
    XLR8 Senior Support Technician
    dames@xlr8.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    wherever I hang my hat
    Posts
    3,575

    Default

    good point, darin.

    someone should probably point out, too, that if you do fry your CPU overclocking, absolutely tell NO ONE.

    just revert it back to stock settings, and get it exchanged. If you are asked whether you overclocked, act outraged.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Lawrence, KS, US
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Magician, you crack me up man!!!

    Actual still photo's of surprised, and
    then outraged acting overclocker------>


    C8

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    wherever I hang my hat
    Posts
    3,575

    Default

    I'm shocked--SHOCKED--to learn that overclocking is occuring here!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    I'm SHOCKED too, but I'm afraid if I underclock it from its present position, the CPU will fry. It keeps complaining and asking me to go faster. It's a dilemma. k

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cordova, TN
    Posts
    2,428

    Default

    My old Austin Healey 3000 Mk III was like that; just always seemed to want to go faster.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    wherever I hang my hat
    Posts
    3,575

    Default

    what can you do, K?

    it WANTS to go fast.

    sometimes the tides and the stars are favorable, and the wise man submits to the forces of nature and the trends of the universe.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    532

    Default

    and accepts the consequences stoicly.

    M

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    278

    Default

    My G3/466 ran very stable at 550|275Mhz on my B&WG3. I decided to test it out on my ANCIENT S900/250-604e. It ran up to 530|265, but got errors. I only have 2 64MB DIMMs - so it only has 2x64+16=144MB. I backed it down to 500Mhz, although it ran perfectly fine at 520|260. It wouldnt boot at 55Mhz... and I didnt try 54. I think the MB/s went up to 55, maybe 56MB/s on the highest - yet unstable setting. I only 3 HDs and 2 CD roms (no Cheetahs ) so it runs fairly cool with the case closed, but the front panel off. I'll probably put it in my FRANKEN MAC-S900 and see what happens next.

    Really, going from 466 to 499~500 is only about 7% increase in Mhz - not much. Most chips are (should be) underclocked anyway because they will wear out over time - due to heat and resistance. Going from 466 to 550 is only an 18% Mhz gain. I've seen/hear of up to 30% gain on some earlier chips. Some chips are way underclocked. This is normally because a company has made to many fast chips and they dont want to drop the price of the 'top of the line model'. Intel did this to their 350Mhz P2 I think. I have a friend who bought one and then the guy he bought it from showed him how to 'over clock' it. Unforntuanetly MOTO can not make eough 600Mhz+ G3/4s to save their scrawny necks. 500Mhz on a B&W is still pretty sweet. Cant wait for those new SUPERCONDUCTING chips that will be out...

    ------------------
    Have fun storming the castle!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Well, I'm impressed! I got one of those CarrierZIF bundles to run at 520/260/65 MHz in a PowerTower. It wouldn't boot above 530 MHz, but so what? I get better throughput at 8x than at 10x anyway.

    I know from experience that I'll probably have to turn it down another couple of ticks, but the fact that this "466 MHz" chip gets well over 500 is pretty amazing.

    Kudos to XLR8, IBM, and the Gurus!

    -- Chucko

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    wherever I hang my hat
    Posts
    3,575

    Default

    whoo!

    that's excellent bang for the buck!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •