With the original CPUs they were fine (for a 604), but when upgraded with G3s they never seemed to work as well as the 9500. This was based (at the time) on both subjective observation and objective measurement, but I�m afraid I don�t still have the records that I took then. It�s not that they didn�t get faster, just not as much faster as a 9500 did for some obscure (chipset related?) reason. It could be that the timing of the CPU daughtercard interface was subtly changed to �tune� it for the Mach5 CPU, but I don�t have any evidence for that. I do recall that when adjusting the bus speed of the earliest Newer Technology G3 cards in any daughtercard based system you had to (unintuitively) select a slower bus speed than 50MHz (46.7MHz rings a bell) to get the timing aligned for fastest performance � maybe it could have been something like that.
It�s all lost in the mists of time... Nick -- Nick Collingridge - Zapp Computer Consultancy From: Mark Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Mac UK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:36:44 +0000 To: "Mac UK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Upgrading - 7300 memory issues I find that odd. I think the 9600/250 and faster, that used Mach5 CPU boards were really the performance machines. The 350MHz 9600 is reputed to be nearly as fast for many things as a 233MHz G3 Beige. I can't substantiate that myself but I can believe it. -- Mac UK is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... 123Inkjets.com <http://lowendmac.com/ad/123inkjets.html> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Mac UK list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/mac-uk.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/mac-uk%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
