Most powerful 68k

-takes 128MB of RAM... the only other 68K I know that takes that much is the SE/30, but that's only a 68030 @ 16MHz... the 840AV is an 040 @ 40MHz

[Macintosh Quadra 840AV]
Codename: "Quadra 1000, Cyclone"
Introduced: July 1993
Discontinued: July 1994
Processor: Motorola 68040
Processor Speed: 40 MHz
Cache: 8 k L1
System Bus: 40 MHz
Hard Drive Size: 230 MB - 1 GB
Media: CD-ROM 2x, 1.44 MB Floppy
Weight and Dimensions (US): 25.3 lbs., 14" H x 7.7" W x 15.75" D
Weight and Dimensions (Metric): 11.5 kg., 35.6 cm H x 19.6 cm W x 40 cm D
Original Mac OS: Mac OS 7.1 (System Enabler 088 v1.0)
Maximum Mac OS: Mac OS 8.1
Machine ID: 78
Logicboard RAM: 0 MB
Maximum RAM: 128 MB
Number of Sockets: 4 - 72 pin SIMMs
Minimum RAM Speed: 60 ns
Graphics Card: None
Video Memory: 1 - 4 MB (four sockets)
Built-in Display: None
Display Connection: DB-15
Slots: 3 Nubus
Hard Drive Bus: SCSI
Modem: None
PRAM: 3.6v Lithium
Max Watts: 200 Watts
ADB: 1
Serial: 2
SCSI: DB-25
USB: None
FireWire: None
Ethernet: AAUI-15
Sound In: stereo 16 bit
Sound Out: stereo 16 bit
History: The Quadra 840AV was the first 68040 Mac to break the 33 MHz barrier. Based on the 40 MHz 68040 processor, and housed in a Quadra 800-style case, the 840AV included AV features similar to its younger sibling, the 660AV. However, it's 3210 DSP ran at a faster 66 MHz. It also included one Geoport, and sold for $3,550 U.S., which was inexpensive for what was, at the time, the fastest Mac ever.
Created by Mactracker, Copyright 2001 - 2005 Ian Page
http://www.mactracker.ca

Thanks for that information, I have MacTracker, but sometime having the advice of the hands on users can sometimes reveal more details and also experience can yeild problems and stuff...
Thanx

plus it's roughly the same overall speed as a Q840AV, but them's beside the point.

An emulated most-efficient 68K Mac may not be the fastest emulated 68K Mac. For example (and a completely made up one at that), running a certain application an emulated IIci might be faster than an emulated Q840AV.

Having said that, I really have no idea how emulation works, so I await actual expert testimony. I'm just interested in learning more.

dan k

Which emulator are you running?

Basilisk II recommends against certain ROM files: The Q700 and Q900 being on the no-no list, but that's due to bugs, not performance.

Dankephoto is right: the emulation is only using the ROM file, and has no access to the gains or limitations of the hardware it was originally from. Access to FPU, type of CPU are all software selectable.

If you want speed, try running the JIT version of Basilisk II, but be warned it's less stable - at least under Windows.

Using the 68K version of Norton Utilities System Info, I obtained these results:

Test System:
AMD Athlon 1.6GHz, 256MB RAM, Windows 98.

Norton System Info rating:
Reference:
Quadra 840av - 148
PowerMac 8100 - 330

JIT Basilisk II - 1478
Regular Basilisk II - 487

The Basilisk benchmarks are a bit misleading, and 'real world' use is not 4x faster than an 8100, but it was fast enough to make Escape Velocity more playable...and crashy, unfortunately.

On the one hand I am wanting to run Basilisk II on my iBook G4 so I have still the possibility to run older OS sessions when I am on travel. I need to get the ROM image but I have a choice of machines, SE/30 is my usual home 68k Mac but I also have some II's (ci-si-cx), a LC 475 and a 7300/200 PPC I want to run OS 7.5.5.

On the other, I thought of investing in a really top notch 68k Mac that is why my question may have seemed confused

A Quadra 950 is actualy faster than 840av, even though it has a sligtly slower processor. The thing is that it has special video circuitry (that's why those m68k *NIX guys have trouble with video output), plus it has an improved SCSI controller that is not only faster, but supports internal and external buses independently, allowing you to hook up to 14 devices (7 internal, 7 external). Add 5 NuBus slots and it's 16 RAM slots (though getting 30-pin SIMMs is rather hard these days) and you've got yourself an ultimate 68k Mac. And it looks cool too!

Do you know this from personal experience? Or are there benchmarks somewhere?

I think the "improved" scsi controller you mention is the fact that it had 2 busses, one was fast-scsi @ 10MB/s and one was narrow-scsi @ 5MB/s... I really don't think the scsi was "faster" than the 840av's scsi, as that probably had the fast-scsi also, being that the 840av was realeased better than a year after the 950...

Also, I don't see how 5 NuBus slots could have anything to do with speed... 5 slots all share the same bus...

Further, getting 30-pin SIMMs aren't so difficult if you know where to look... what is difficult is making sure you are getting the right kind, right size... as sellers are sometimes deliberately ambiguous because they just want to get rid of them.

I think there is probably more than one interpretation of "faster." Certainly, double the RAM is something to take into consideration.... But I'd love to see a real-world Pepsi challenge between the two...

Yeah, I think it's far from clear-cut, too. In addition to the 840AV's CPU speed advantage over the 950, its use of 72-pin SIMMs instead of 30-pin SIMMs has got to make a difference, yes? I can't imagine the memory controller in the 840AV wouldn't be faster and more advanced.

So I'd say an 840AV with maxxed-out RAM and a nice NuBus video card would be faster than a 950.

Also, isn't it only the AWS95 version of the 950 that has the special fast SCSI card with accelerated video?

Matt

the SCSI question is moot when you consider that either machine could be equalized by adding a NuBus SCSI card, thus putting the bottle neck at the bus speed of the NuBus.

There are so many upgrade options, like adding a 601 card to the 950 or the NuBus cards for improved sound/video/SCSI/etc. This question should really be addressed with two parallel assumptions:
1) Both machines (or an machine for that matter) is in stock condition with the singular exception of maxed-out RAM, but no 'cards' or CPU upgrades. Just the sheer strength of the mobos original design.
2) For any two machines that have been pushed to the extent of their design limit by the addition of daughter cards, sound cards, CPU upgrades, and even clock chipping or bus speed tweaking and these mods must exist in the realm of reality (no theoretical hacks like me saying that I *could* put a G3 upgrade card in a 950 *if* I remapped the pin connectors to accept a Crssendo upgrade card).

Tha being said, I think a stock 840AV would be a better machine than a 950, but the addition of a 601 card, a good SCSI card and some A/V cards (such as a PAS16 and VVS) would tip the table in favor of 950 over an 840AV with comparable upgrades (but I would question why add the A/V cards to a machine that already has them).

The whole question of better needs to be boxed in a little as well. Is better faster or is better more robust or what? Maybe the 840 AV is faster (stock), but the 950 is more robust, aka powerful (stock).

If it comes to which 68K Mac is probably the "best overall", I'd actually pick the Quadra 650 or 800. The justification being that they have a high memory ceiling (136MB with four 32MB 72 pin SIMMs + 8MB onboard) and they're *almost* as fast as the 950 or 840ZV, but they lack the hardware gotchyas of either of those two.

(I.E.: They're reasonably small and compact, take easy-to-scrounge RAM, unlike the 950, and they don't have the weird DSP hardware and "funny" video system of the 840AV. Which isn't an issue if you want to use an 840AV for what it was built for, mind you, but its presence makes those machines less useful for alternative OSes.)

Anyway.

--Peace

Which is the one that is a cube shape? (Excuse my ignoranse ) I had memory that it was a Quadra... What is that like?

Aside from the NeXT Cube - which was 68k-based but not a Mac, of course - the only 68k cube-like form factor I can think of is the IIcx/IIci/Quadra 700. But it's not a cube - it's 12" high (or wide, on its side), 5.5" wide (or high, on its side), and about 14" deep.

If you put two of them side by side (or one on top of the other), you'd get something nearly cubic.

At any rate, the Q700 is the same generation as the Q900/950. It uses 30-pin SIMMs and has a 25MHz '040 CPU. So it's slower than the other Quadras that have been discussed here.

On the other hand, it's got a great form-factor, one of my personal favorites. I have one into which I've transplanted a Q800 mobo, giving me 72-pin SIMM RAM capability and a faster, 33MHz CPU. It's great, virtually the fastest A/UX machine there is. (An AWS95 would have slightly faster SCSI throughput, but that's it - an 840AV isn't supported by A/UX.)

Matt

Funny it must have been a tricked picutre I saw somewhere... But there is an idea for a hardware hack...

Coming back to the emulator side of things, I tested a ROM image last night without success I tried to get the ROM from my SE/30 but when I tried it out in Basilisk it doesn't recognise the ROM. I checked the ROM size and it is 256k is that normal? I thought it should be 512k?!?

This is how I proceeded:

1 booted SE/30 extensions off
2 ran CopyROM and saved ROM on Floppy
3 placed floppy in OSX Mac
4 Chose ROM in Basilisk prefs

BasiliskII requires a ROM from a "32 bit clean" Mac II series machine. Which rules out the SE/30. This limitation is really poorly documented. You can *sort* of deduce it from the "tech" notes:

--Peace

louis wrote:

Matt wrote:

If you put two of them side by side (or one on top of the other), you'd get something nearly cubic.

Funny it must have been a tricked picutre I saw somewhere... But there is an idea for a hardware hack...

You're probably thinking of one of Danamania's vhacks. She has one where she took a Q700 (or perhaps IIci/IIcx) and Photoshopped it into a little cube-shaped beige box. I think she named it the Quadra 400 or something.

louis wrote:

Coming back to the emulator side of things, I tested a ROM image last night without success I tried to get the ROM from my SE/30 but when I tried it out in Basilisk it doesn't recognise the ROM. I checked the ROM size and it is 256k is that normal? I thought it should be 512k?!?

It is relatively easy to obtain ROMs on the internet. And as others have said, get one from a 32-bit clean Mac. Non-AV Quadras are some of the most popular to use in this regard.

Matt

The Quadra 840AV is the fastest stock 68K Mac Apple made. It is followed by the Quadra 800 and then the Quadra 950. The Quadra 800 often edges out the Quadra 950 due to a faster system controller. The Quadra 840AV has a faster processor and uses an even more advanced system controller than what is found on the Quadra 800.

The Quadra 950 is the most expandable 68K Mac with five Nubus slots (the IIfx had six but no onboard video), two onboard SCSI channels, onboard Ethernet, and supported up to 256 MB of RAM. The case is a full sized tower, though there are only two 5.25" bays on the front (one used by the floppy). With some special mounts, it wouldn't surprise me if an additional 6 hard drives could fit into the case.

The Quadra 950 did have an interesting variant called the Work Group Server 95. That machine was a Quadra 950 with a 128 KB L2 cache card (expandable to 512 KB) and a special SCSI controller on a PDS card. This configuration should be faster than a Quadra 800 and possibly a Quadra 840AV in some tasks.

When going beyond stock configurations things can get interesting. I've seen some 100/50 Mhz 68040 upgrade cards advertised for Centris 650's, Quadra 610's, Quadra 700's and Quadra 900. Combine that with a 128 KB cache card, a nice SCSI disk array and a Thunder IVGX graphics card to get the fastest 68K Mac. That is if no overclocking is involved.

OK I got a IIci running for the moment but it is a little slow, I think I will test my all new Quadra 900 ROM image and see how that goes... I must say that I got Basilisk II running better on my PC than on the iBook G4

[quote Kevin_G wrote]The Quadra 950 is the most expandable 68K Mac with five Nubus slots (the IIfx had six but no onboard video), two onboard SCSI channels, onboard Ethernet, and supported up to 256 MB of RAM. The case is a full sized tower, though there are only two 5.25" bays on the front (one used by the floppy). With some special mounts, it wouldn't surprise me if an additional 6 hard drives could fit into the case.