Forums | MacLife

Denibriliny_ · 2003-02-04 10:19 pm

I want to know the speed comparison between the fastest quadra 68040's and the early power mac 601's. Although only running at 33mhz, I heard the 68040 was faster clock for clock than the 601 and was in some cases faster than it at very low mhz(like 50 or 60mhz). Is this true? From what I've heard quadras aren't all that slow which leads me to believe they can at least keep up with early ppcs.

alpaca2500 · 2003-02-04 11:58 pm

actually, someone wrote some software that will play MP3a on 68040 macs. regarding the original question, i have a quadra 630 (33 mhz) and a powermac 6200 (75 mhz) both running 8.1, and the powermac is definitely faster. (hmm... apparently the 6200 is a 603). i bet a quadra 840av and a PPC 6100 would be pretty close though...

Canuk · 2003-02-05 9:36 am

When I bought my 6100/60 in '94 I thought it was blazing fast compared to other Macs I'd seen. It was importing video from TV or VHS, and was even playing MP3s when they arrived on the scene. My brother-in-law had the 6100/66 and his always seemed slower, so I believe that the computers had certain bottlenecks that could make them seem as slow as Quadras. Pentiums at the time were topping out at 133 mhz, and the PPCs were supposed to be able to whip them with half the MHz tongue

dv · 2003-02-05 11:04 am

With older versions of the OS, 7.1.3 - 7.6, and (imo) 8.1, there is too much 68k machine code. Continuously running it through the emulator makes older PPC macs (<=120 MHz) painfully slow, especially the ones with 30-40 MHz system busses. Just booting is a chore, and the buggy 68k emulation modes in 7.5 wrought havoc on a PPC. Remember Type 11 Errors? I knew you did...

The computer, in short, is working way too hard for what it's accomplishing.

Activities like drawing to the screen and launching applications are much faster on a 68k with a fast hard drive than on a stock x100 series powermac, at least with system software versions prior to 8.6. A 7100/80 with 8.6 and lots of ram is about on par with a Quadra 650 running 7.5.5, in my experience. However, when running PPC code, even a 6100/60 can outrun te same 650 by a substantial margin.

And a 68040 is plenty able to decode and play MP3s, but nobody bothered writing a player. There is one, I have a copy, and it's cool. Amigas, which use 68040s and 68060 CPUs, have several, and it's just a port, since porting a PPC MP3 player would have meant translating and optimizing C (most ppc software is written in C, including the OS) into 68k assembley. Yuck.

Tom_N · 2003-02-21 6:23 pm

The early PowerPC-based Macs were running a large part of MacOS (as well as most applications) using Apple's software-based 68K emulator. That would certainly slow them down.

The 68060 appeared in some Amigas, but in no Macintoshes.

LCGuy · 2003-02-22 9:29 pm

1. Yes. A properly configured full '040 can outperform a early PPC under certain conditions. My 630 sure feels faster than a few early PPCs i've used.

2. The 68k Mp3 player is called MpegDec. I'm not sure where you can get it, although a Google search should turn up some clues.

Derek W. · 2003-02-25 6:46 pm

My 33Mhz Performa 575 seems much faster than my lousy 5260/120, which struggles to open windows like an old Wintel machine. However, I think that the 603s after 160Mhz were definitly faster than A high-end 601. I think the matter is subjective, and that the chips architecture is what compares the speed, not the Megahertz.

willywalloo · 2003-03-14 2:02 am

At the same megahertz the 601 was way faster than the 603, 603e; even though the 603 was made later than the 601, they went with the 603 because it was a "cheap" 604.

As for comparing anything with a 603, 603e: anything was pretty much faster than it. If you had/have a 603e: only expect a pile of dog crap on your door step, because this cheaper proc. never cut any cheese.

-walloo.

ninboy · 2003-04-04 10:00 pm

the systems based 603 and the 603e were crap because of the crippledmotherboards(32 bit bus) not some real flaw with the cpu, I recently found a performa 6360 ( based on the revised motherboard and 603ev chip) and Its great for system I picked up for $5(48/4gig/8xcd and 10/100 pci NIC).

smd3 · 2003-04-04 10:45 pm

...great for system I picked up for $5(48/4gig/8xcd and 10/100 pci NIC).

How do people run into deals like this??? I'm jealous.

dv · 2003-04-07 12:52 pm

swap meets and garage sales.

It's a good thing I don't run into deals like this... moving next month, and I've already filled 5 30 gallon tubs and a 50 gallon tub with the computer equipment I don't use. I still have two computers and an iMac carcass out.

jhota · 2003-04-08 1:05 pm

keep in mind the history of the 601; it was pretty much 100% IBM (all were made by IBM, regardless of Apple's Motorola-centric advertising) and still had a lot of RS/6000-specific things built into it. it was planned as a transition chip, the first in a new line, while the '040 was a mature descendant of an existing line.

plus, a "33 mhz" '040 is actually running at 66 mhz internally; while a 60 mhz 601 is just that...

the real key is in the code: look at G3 vs. G4 when an app can use Altivec...

Apelock · 2003-04-18 9:01 am

The early PowerPC-based Macs were running a large part of MacOS (as well as most applications) using Apple's software-based 68K emulator. That would certainly slow them down.

This is true. System 8, 8.6, and 9 all featured greater chunks of the OS written for PPC. I think 8.6 was the first with a PPC finder, which really sped things up.

It was nearly as radical a change going from 68k to ppc as it has been going from 9 to X, you just notice it less when it's the hardware

mypojam · 2003-04-28 6:00 am

hey guys,
just some info from what i know...

the 68k computers can run mac os 8.1.
it really can. but you have to do a $100 upgrade.
the upgrade is called Presto PowerPC.
that way it can run almost any non 68k software.
but the speed is maximum 66 Mhz i think.
if you want to check it yourself (i recommend you do)
just search presto plus in google.
that's all.

Pojam.

dv · 2003-04-29 9:29 am

Ummm... 68k machines can run 8.1 without the PPC upgrade. It's 8.5 that won't work.

Dan · 2003-04-29 9:35 am

it can run 8.1 anyways the ppc upgrade is for 8.6 although there is no point wou can get a way better ppc for 100$

mypojam · 2003-04-30 4:57 am

yah i just noticed that.
sorry for my illiterateness.
by the way, i'm getting a powermac 7100/80.
do you think it's a good mac ?

dv · 2003-04-30 8:53 am

yes

Forums | MacLife

#1 2003-02-04 10:19 pm

68040 vs early PPC's

#2 2003-02-04 11:58 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#3 2003-02-05 9:36 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#4 2003-02-05 11:04 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#5 2003-02-21 6:23 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#6 2003-02-22 9:29 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#7 2003-02-25 6:46 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#8 2003-03-14 2:02 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#9 2003-04-04 10:00 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#10 2003-04-04 10:45 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#11 2003-04-07 12:52 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#12 2003-04-08 1:05 pm

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#13 2003-04-18 9:01 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#14 2003-04-28 6:00 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#15 2003-04-29 9:29 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#16 2003-04-29 9:35 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#17 2003-04-30 4:57 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

#18 2003-04-30 8:53 am

Re: 68040 vs early PPC's

Board footer