| Click here to select a new forum. |
| G4 Digital Audio 533 Questions... |
Posted by: dbraverman88 on 2007-10-28 18:47:33
I you want to still be able to boot into OS 9, would the best option be to keep the stock NVIDIA GeForce2 MX?
|
Posted by: madmax_2069 on 2007-10-28 18:50:12
Yes there is a 9200 AGP card , if its a flashed PC card or not i would not know. but i would think both the PCI or AGP versions would work the same
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2007-10-29 12:25:39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image#Supported_Graphics_Processors
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600, 9700, or X1600ATI Radeon 9550, 9600, 9650, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, 9700 Pro, 9800 XT, and 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon X600 XT, X600 Pro, X800 XT, X850 XT, X1600, X1900 XT
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, 6600, 6600 LE, 6800 Ultra DDL, and 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, 7600 GT, and 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Intel GMA 950. So unless I'm mistaken, and barring further more detailed research, looks like you get to pick either Core Image or OS 9 support, but not both. On a single card, that is.
|
Posted by: madmax_2069 on 2007-10-29 13:00:40
on my DA i will choose CI over OS 9 compatibility, the Os 9 compatibility will be for my AIO and Yikes G4. My DA is going to be OS X only
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2007-11-11 15:44:40
Does anyone know if I can use an MDD CPU in a DA?
|
Posted by: madmax_2069 on 2007-11-11 19:10:58
you might be able to, it just might need the 12v mod ( a 12v feed to the 4th mounting point on the MDD's CPU in a DA) before it would work and maybe a mod to get the CPU to run at its rated speed ( since the MDD's system bus is 167mhz and the DA's system bus is 133mhz)
|
Posted by: alk on 2007-11-11 20:26:41
The short answer is "no." Never mind for a moment that the MDD CPU is oriented on the socket differently... The MDD has a different set of support chips and bridge chips for the CPU that will make it logically incompatible with a QuickSilver, Digital Audio, Gigabit Ethernet, or Sawtooth G4.
Peace,
Drew
|
Posted by: LSD on 2007-11-14 01:14:29
I finally got off my ass and got mine running today. Modifying the video card went smoother than I was expecting. Most of the troubles I had were down to the donor machine acting cranky (it has a VIA board in it so, uh, yeah...). Was a relief when it worked right off the the bat. I'm still installing and updating OS X so I haven't done much in the way of testing but ASP tells me all the niceties are support plus I get the dashboard ripple and the cube effect on the intitial welcome screens so I'm assuming it all works. I had to cannibalise RAM from the B&W so I'm stuck with 640MB which will be a bit tight but the faster HDD should help offset that until I can buy more RAM.
😀 😀 😀
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2007-11-14 08:11:36
Mine's up and running with the dual 533s 🙂 . More detail in the original conquest thread.
|
Posted by: Quadraman on 2007-11-18 08:17:19
Wait. That was a SINGLE G4 processor upgrade running against a DUAL G5??? Those are some damn respectable scores considering the difference in processing power between the two machines. I don't see how a single 1.5ghz G4 can turn in so much higher Altivec scores than a dual 2.0 G5. Something has to be wrong with the benchmark program there. I think that result should be reversed. There's no way a single 1.5ghz G4 can be 3x faster than a dual 2.0 G5 in anything.
|
Posted by: bigD on 2007-11-18 13:27:49
I ran the test again, and the results remained the same (except for my disk scores - the new HDD I put in after the old one crashed scored a 41.9).
Perhaps the test heavily favors a cache, which the G5 only has 512KB of per processor against my 2MB.
|
Posted by: bigD on 2007-11-18 13:38:25
So unless I'm mistaken, and barring further more detailed research, looks like you get to pick either Core Image or OS 9 support, but not both. On a single card, that is. Sorry for the late response, but I just realized that my HDD crash allowed me to give an answer. I have a flashed GeForce 6200, which *does* support CI, and was able to boot to my OS 9.1 CD just fine at 1280x1024. I didn't actually install OS 9, so I'm not sure if you'd get any acceleration, but you *can* get the full range of resolutions out of the card, apparently.
This fact is part of the reason why it didn't dawn on me that the card would cause issues booting into 10.4.
|
Posted by: Quadraman on 2007-11-18 17:48:48
I had heard there were some problems with flashed cards because the ROM on a PC card is half the size of the one on a Mac card, so you have to use a truncated ROM image when you flash a PC card which cause bootup issues under the classic Mac OS. I can't recall atm whether there were OS X related issues.
|
Posted by: Quadraman on 2007-11-18 19:36:32
I ran the test again, and the results remained the same (except for my disk scores - the new HDD I put in after the old one crashed scored a 41.9).
Perhaps the test heavily favors a cache, which the G5 only has 512KB of per processor against my 2MB. The way the G5 operates, though, it does not need level 3 cache. The PC3200 RAM is fast enough to cover for the lack of level 3, which was why Apple did not include any. It should still run faster than the G4.
|
Posted by: madmax_2069 on 2007-11-18 19:44:04
most of the issues with the flashed PC to Mac cards was due to having different hardware ID's then the hardware on the original Mac rom ones (due to a different GPU, or different hardware being used) most of the times it as easy as editing the driver files to the proper ID of the card to get it working right in OS 9, and then some will never work due to the hardware on them are nothing close to something that is supported for OS 9.
the same thing can go for OS X but not as bad as OS 9 can be. you want to try to stick as close to the reference design as possible to get the most compatibility from it.
i know that Leopard was having boot issues on a G4 with a Geforce 6x00 and higher due to the temp sensors on the card, they removed the sensor data from the rom which fixed the boot freeze (could last from 2 minute - 6 minute hang) but would eventually boot. they removed the data from the rom and these cards no longer have the issue with Leopard on a G4.
but at what cost, will the GPU fan keep running, will it be set fast enough to keep the card cool. i think you have to manually set the fan speed in the rom ( and it stay's at a constant speed), If set two low and you could cook the card
|
Posted by: bigD on 2007-11-18 21:12:18
The way the G5 operates, though, it does not need level 3 cache. The PC3200 RAM is fast enough to cover for the lack of level 3, which was why Apple did not include any. It should still run faster than the G4. Hmmm...well I have no idea then. If you look at the stock MDD benchmarks, they're all pretty similar to mine, so it's not something specific with the processor upgrade. Also interesting is that xbench erroneously lists the speed of the L3 cache.
|
Posted by: MacJunky on 2007-11-19 02:36:47
I had heard there were some problems with flashed cards because the ROM on a PC card is half the size of the one on a Mac card, so you have to use a truncated ROM image when you flash a PC card which cause bootup issues under the classic Mac OS. I can't recall atm whether there were OS X related issues. Or replace the 64KB chip with a 128KB one. |
Posted by: alk on 2007-11-19 08:20:29
Hmmm...well I have no idea then. If you look at the stock MDD benchmarks, they're all pretty similar to mine, so it's not something specific with the processor upgrade. Also interesting is that xbench erroneously lists the speed of the L3 cache. Which version of XBench are you using? The baseline scores were re-assessed recently, so comparing scores from different versions gives misleading results.
Peace,
Drew
|
Posted by: LSD on 2007-11-19 09:42:44
I had heard there were some problems with flashed cards because the ROM on a PC card is half the size of the one on a Mac card, so you have to use a truncated ROM image when you flash a PC card which cause bootup issues under the classic Mac OS. I can't recall atm whether there were OS X related issues. I have a flashed PC Radeon 9800 Pro in my Digital Audio. I had to use the 64k reduced ROM but after taping over pins 3 and 11 on the AGP connector it booted straight up (OS X 10.4.10 was on the hard drive that was in it at the time but 10.4.6 installed on the new HDD without a hitch). At first I thought there was something wrong because the display was overbright and kind of washed out so I dug up a DVI->VGA converter and tried that. Same thing. Turned out OS X was using some funky calibration for the monitor. Changing the montior cleared it right up, even on VGA. I have Quartz Extreme, Core Image, all the niceties:
http://www.hexellent.com/files/26/GeeFour/9800Pro.jpg
Only real problem is that, with a 733Mhz Quicksilver CPU, it's hopelessly CPU limited. In a very simple test I started a game of WarCraft 3 and ran the /fps command. I got half the FPS on the 9800 Pro in the DA at 1024x768 that I get on my MacBook with a GMA950 at 1280x800 :/
Or replace the 64KB chip with a 128KB one. Easier said than done really :/
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2007-11-19 11:40:03
I have a flashed PC Radeon 9800 Pro in my Digital Audio Would you be willing to attempt OS 9 on that card and tell us what results you get?
|
| < 3 > |