Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70

Thread: GigaBump an MDD

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Just an update. I reinstalled Rise of Nations and it's rock solid now. (wife has been playing it for four hours and no crashes).

    So it looks like my Gigabump wasn't the problem.

    I'm really glad I took the plunge on this. (knock wood).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Damn Great. If you have the time perhaps an entry in the xlr8yourmac DB? How long you have been running it, apps and games you run, installation documentation accuracy, etc... and if you purchased it from MacGurus, please say so. Naturally we are pushing Giga regardless of where you got it.

    I will make a report to Giga Tech including the docs info. Thanks, k

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Good idea. I'll post a report over there in a few days.

    I had a temporary set back. (crashes/freezes) but it looks like there's asimple fix (voltage issue -- see my other post).

    Had to back it down to 1.2 temporary until support can walk me through it.

    I did figure out what the one reviewer was griping about as far as the dip switch chart.

    If you're not paying attention it can steer you wrong.

    The numbers on the dip switch run right to left (5,4,3,2,1) while the numbers on the table/chart run left to right (1,2,3,4,5). Sounds like a simple thing but the numbers on the switch are so small that (if you're like me and need reading glasses to read something smaller than 7 point type) you might assume the numbers are in the same order as the chart.

    After setting my CPU to 1.2 it wouldn't boot. After panicing and rechecking the dips a half dozen times I realized my mistake. I had the dips set in the complete opposite configuration.

    Sounds like the reviewer did the same exact thing.

    It didn't effect me orginally because the dip settings for a 133 bus at 1.4 speed are symetrical. X000X. Had to mess that one up.

    So the dip chart is correct -- but it can lead to confusion if you make assumptions. Which is true of a lot of things I suppose.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    The numbers on the dip switch run right to left (5,4,3,2,1) while the numbers on the table/chart run left to right (1,2,3,4,5). Sounds like a simple thing but the numbers on the switch are so small that (if you're like me and need reading glasses to read something smaller than 7 point type) you might assume the numbers are in the same order as the chart.

    After setting my CPU to 1.2 it wouldn't boot. After panicing and rechecking the dips a half dozen times I realized my mistake. I had the dips set in the complete opposite configuration.
    OK, I see what you are getting at. In my case, since I cannot see the small print on the dip switch housing and the docs pictorial of the dip switch housing and hate to use my glasses, I routinely use a magnifying glass. Also my GigaBump came set for 133MHz bus so I had to change the dip switches significantly for 167MHz bus.

    So many ways to go wrong. There is a note on my docs next to the housing pict that the orientation of the housing may be different than the pict. If so, that could lead folks who have such a Giga to be confused by reordering the dip switch charts to 5,4,3,2,1. Anyway, I never noticed the confusion because I did this part of setting the switches very slowly and more than triple checked everything before deciding I had it right.

    Sorry you are having this problem with having to downclock. I will point Giga Tech to this thread and the docs confusion and your suggestion. Thanks. k

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    234

    Default

    I had to downclock my brand NEW Giga MDD 1.4GHz/167 all the way down to 1.0GHz to get it to run, but after removing a certain stick of RAM, (that apparently ran fine with the original CPUs @ 1.083/167), and doing a Fresh install, as well as using DW on all the other HDs, it's rock solid back at 1.42GHz for 2 days now!

    It even Boots and runs OS9 @ 1.5GHz, but wont get past the Login in OSX.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    BDAqua,

    We don't recommend nor endorse overclocking these MDD duals. They are already overclocked and carefully matched CPUs to do so. Further overclocking, I think, is an exercise in futility unless very lucky. If you really want to try that, wait a few weeks for the burn in to complete.

    Interesting about the RAM stick. Another RAM test, albeit a $600 one. k

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Oh yeah, I know about the unlikelyhood of OCing it more... but I had to try!

    It's back @ 1.42GHz now, after only being able to crunch dnetc @ 31.4MKeys/S for 4 hours before it KPed.

    I'm actually impressed that it did it at all... cudos to Giga.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Clean install of Tiger on my GigaMDD. Speedy to the desktop. New stuff to play with. Tried Xbench, results 215.03 with GF4ti. Previous 206.10 in Panther. Will have to get the results on the Xbench website. k

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    More Tiger investigation. TZ sent me a link to an ars technica Tiger article which finally induced me to remove the GF4ti and install the Radeon 9800 Pro ME. All of the latest ATI software installed as well as installing the Developers Xcode Tools from the Tiger DVD. Pages 13-16 of the article have some interesting info.

    Those installations allowed me to play with Core Video as well as Quartz Extreme and Quartz 2D Extreme. The 9800 was necessary for most of that.

    Ran Xbench as well. Now at 228.43 in Tiger. It has been a long time since I had the 9800 installed. The latest software really makes a difference. ATI has done their homework. Very pleased. The 9800 does put out more heat but this GigaMDD with the thermal mods yesterday even at 77F room temp kept the Radio Shack temp probe up by the uppermost PCI slot at just under 36C, albeit with slightly higher system fan speeds. k

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    TZ asked me to play one of those HD movies. GigaMDD, 9800 Pro ME, 10.4, TigerDM10-16MB running fast off of an Acard 6885M, plays H.264 Codec beautifully. QT Pro 7. I chose the most demanding of the three QT movies I had tried on the G5, BBC Motion Gallery. Largest file, best sharpness, most color, most everything. Fast HD helps and you must let QT load the whole movie even with faster than T-1 DSL I have. So pause it and rewind back to the beginning and wait. Afterwards I saved the movie to the desktop so I could replay it. Both runs at 1920x1200 at Millions on 23"Apple Cinema HD but the QT window at 1280x720 so that I could see and capture the Movie Info window below. Note the Playing FPS: 25 at the moment of capture.

    Only DSL and a FW400 drive running at the time.
    Run1: Almost all 24 FPS and some 25, a few 23, one 16, one 19, one 20.

    Run2: Full screen so I can't see the Movie Info window but play was as good as the G5. I ran the movie several times at full screen and could not detect even one difference. Beautiful results. k

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Under the Midnight Sun
    Posts
    656

    Default Kaye, a thought

    You may want to try the 1080p BBC movie (which is a Zip download at ~110MB I believe from memory). Thats the highest def. that is available on the Apple site.

    Would be curious how it performs! If I throttle my G5 DP 2.0 Rev.A CPU to lowest, it stutters on that movie...

    Nice thread, would love to buy a MDD upgrade . And Kaye thanks for all you have done here!
    Last edited by rguising; 05-22-2005 at 01:41 PM.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    I did try that on my G5, no problem, Highest Performance tho, but did not on the GigaMDD, I guess only because TZ asked for the basic HD. I picked the best one for that H.264 Codec. Could have at least tried 1080p. Just surprised how well the G4 did do. Good suggestion rguising so next time I'm back on the G4 I'll try it. And thanks for the compliment. k

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    OK, 1080p BBC movie. All the same GigaMDD specs.

    Run1: Full screen so no Movie Info data other than I counted 3 glitches.

    Run2: Actual screen size 1920x1080, Millions, 2 glitches. FPS 11 to 13, mostly 12. But certainly playable and again sharp and great color.

    Notice Format is higher, as are Data Size, Data Rate, and Normal Size. Just barely fits and I moved it down just a tad so that I could bring the Movie Info window which I put at the very top of the screen just below the Menu Bar so that after starting to play I could click the window, see the FPS, and take a screenshot with movie playing in the background. k
    Last edited by kaye; 05-23-2005 at 10:05 AM. Reason: number of glitches corrected both runs

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    I corrected the number of glitches for both runs on my previous post. There are 4 very short screens that led me to believe that the G4 was trying to catch up. I reran both BBC movies on my G5 this morning and realized that they are just very short scenes, not a lag and catch up by the G4. In fact on the G5 I ran both BBC movies at half screen for each simultaneously, or as nearly so as I could, to verify those very short scenes that I had counted as glitches.

    The remaining real glitches are a very thin horizontal noise line that I observed on the screen in the middle and of extremely short duration. k

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    I was looking at HD video at http://www.hdforindies.com/ and ran across this info which would apply to the G4 as well:
    ----------
    Why 1080p trailers don't play back on some dual 2GHz G5'sę
    Explanation of QT 7 behavior & performance under 10.3.9 and 10.4.

    Under 10.3.9, CPU (the G5's) handled certain tasks, and 1080p trailers worked. Under 10.4, the GPU (graphics card) handles those tasks. If you have a below spec card, the same clips that worked under 10.3.9 don't work under 10.4.

    This isn't Apple trying to screw people, it's migration to a new architecture that over time will push capabilities higher. The only thing they SHOULD be doing is checking for presence of such-and-such GPUs, and deciding whether to use GPU or CPU instead of straight GPU. Maybe in 10.4.5.
    -mike
    ----------
    That is a good summary for the technology challenged like me. mike links to a more complete explanation http://www.macintouch.com/quicktime7pt2.html#may12

    So I would think that the video card's core clock speed, Memory clock speed, and amount of video VRAM would have big effect in Tiger playing those 1080p trailers. And the video card's capability to do Core Image. Can we say Radeon 9800 Pro ME with its warts of heat and separate 4-pin Molex connnector for power? k

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Mobius Strip
    Posts
    13,045

    Lightbulb

    Can we say Radeon 9800 Pro ME with its warts of heat and separate 4-pin Molex connnector for power?

    Now that they are gone from the channel, and even the OEM 9600s were pulled and gone, will be interested to see how the 9600 Pro w/ 256MB works, and if it supports over-clocking as much. Some 9600 models (lite or SE or something) were/are "locked down" and prevent OCing at all. the 9600 was easy to get memory and clock up 20%.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I just got a used MDD 867 (freebee to replace G4 733DA) and am interested in upgrading the processor. What is the deal on the gigabump? I would love to get more speed out of the MDD.

    Thanks
    Cheers
    Robert C. Fisher
    QTVR Photography
    www.rcfisher.com

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Giga is not currently providing upgrades for the MDD. Does not mean they won't in the future but not now. k

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    It has been many months since I cranked up my GigaMDD so I fully expected startup problems. Nope, right on into 10.3.9 and the drive also has 9.2.2 (300GB DMax10-16MB PATA). Backup boot drive 10.3.8/9.2.2 (120GB 180GXP-8MB PATA). Another boot drive at 10.4.0 (300GB DMax10-16MB PATA).

    The 10.3.9/9.2.2 drive, I did an Archive and Install of 10.4.0 and everything came out beautifully. Then Software Update to 10.4.5. Running very well. Have not touched the backup boot drive yet. The remaining boot drive Software Update to 10.4.5. And there is a scratch drive (180GB 180GXP-8MB PATA).

    Current PCI/AGP cards:
    Slot-1 ATI 9800ME 128MB (AGP)
    Slot-2 Acard 6885M, 2 drives connected
    Slot-3 empty, going to put a SeriTek/1S2 here
    Slot-4 M-Audio Revolution 7.1
    Slot-5 empty

    Some benchmarks in 10.4.5 shortly. k

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    First, GigaMDD power observed via Kill A Watt and my APC UPS (Back-UPS RS 1500) with everything running the same as my G5 and just an external LCD FW400 hot swap case.
    379 max instant watts with internals and FW400 case running during startup.
    363 idle watts on desktop.
    With OEM 400W power supply and fans and OEM 120mm fan.
    38 watts after shutdown. This is about 6 watts greater than my G5. So the GigaMDD itself sucks more AC watts just sitting there.

    ************************************************** **
    Altivec Fractal Carbon v1.2
    1.2s, 11110.4MF (10.3.7 previous test and 10.4.5), no change, CPU
    intensive
    ************************************************** **
    CB 9.5 cannot be compared with CB 2003 or any other previous version.
    I cannot find any other similar G4 CB 9.5 results to know whether I am
    in the ballpark. Anyone have a link?
    CINEBENCH 9.5
    ************************************************** **
    Tester : kyum
    Processor : GigaMDD G4-1.42GHz
    MHz : 1420
    Number of CPUs : 2
    Operating System : 10.4.5

    Graphics Card : Radeon 9800ME 128MB
    Resolution : 1920x1200
    Color Depth : Millions
    ************************************************** **
    Rendering (Single CPU): 159 CB-CPU
    Rendering (Multiple CPU): 255 CB-CPU

    Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.60

    Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 162 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 390 CB-GFX
    Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 797 CB-GFX

    OpenGL Speedup: 4.92
    ************************************************** **
    I have another test to run and then load Xplane onto one of the boot drives and see how that does. k

Posting Permissions

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