i'm starting to think i might have just gotten lucky, either with the machine manufacture date, or just a random set of components, but i've been running nonstop at 1.6ghz, no problem, with teh same hardware reports as SEN.lbodnar said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
eMac 800Mhz -> 1.33GHz conversion
- Thread starter lbodnar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I did it.
Like SEN, didn't have the guts to do a werneru and go to 1.6GHz for fear of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I wanted to ensure that my eMac would stay stable and not produce artefacts in video compression, which is half the point of the overclock.
So, I went straight for the 1.2GHz +---- configuration (I previously had +++-+ for 1GHz). Didn't use an xacto knife - instead used some metal tweezers. Had pretty much the same effect - I was only able to retrieve one of the jumpers. Am going to have to learn to solder if I am to change the settings again though. And didn't press the PMU though my date/time has not reset so that's okay, right?
However, while I did this I also upped my memory from 512MB to 1GB. Yet my XBenches are still around 110 - in fact, slightly lower than before! Any ideas?
Also, anyone know where the 'Third generation' (1GHz) eMac take apart guide is? I can't find my copy. I'm trying to work out how to get to the Hard drive to upgrade it, and Leo's guide is for the second generation eMacs. [EDIT] Found them on Leo's site.
Thanks again for your advice guys, has been very interesting.
Like SEN, didn't have the guts to do a werneru and go to 1.6GHz for fear of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I wanted to ensure that my eMac would stay stable and not produce artefacts in video compression, which is half the point of the overclock.
So, I went straight for the 1.2GHz +---- configuration (I previously had +++-+ for 1GHz). Didn't use an xacto knife - instead used some metal tweezers. Had pretty much the same effect - I was only able to retrieve one of the jumpers. Am going to have to learn to solder if I am to change the settings again though. And didn't press the PMU though my date/time has not reset so that's okay, right?
However, while I did this I also upped my memory from 512MB to 1GB. Yet my XBenches are still around 110 - in fact, slightly lower than before! Any ideas?
Also, anyone know where the 'Third generation' (1GHz) eMac take apart guide is? I can't find my copy. I'm trying to work out how to get to the Hard drive to upgrade it, and Leo's guide is for the second generation eMacs. [EDIT] Found them on Leo's site.
Thanks again for your advice guys, has been very interesting.
Run XBench after a fresh boot.
After my 1.2 clock I am getting about 118-121 (on a good day). I noticed that things such as the Disk Test would let down my overall XBench score (maybe my HD is a little cluttered up at the moment - random read/write do give fluctuating scores I've noticed).
In fact, right now I accidently clicked my mouse during an XBench test and I got 101 (plus I have a few apps open)
What do you get overall for your CPU Test and Memory Test?
Here's my results (post [and prior] overclock):
OziMac, I'm in Australia too - when did you buy your eMac?
After my 1.2 clock I am getting about 118-121 (on a good day). I noticed that things such as the Disk Test would let down my overall XBench score (maybe my HD is a little cluttered up at the moment - random read/write do give fluctuating scores I've noticed).
In fact, right now I accidently clicked my mouse during an XBench test and I got 101 (plus I have a few apps open)
What do you get overall for your CPU Test and Memory Test?
Here's my results (post [and prior] overclock):
Code:
CPU Test 143.04 (compared to 120.45 @ 1 ghz)
GCD Loop 137.55 5.37 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 143.82 520.11 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 146.54 4.26 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 144.70 2.25 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 142.89 5.72 Mops/sec
Memory Test 95.06 (compared to 95.29 @ 1ghz)
System 100.80
Allocate 774.95 505.50 Kalloc/sec
Fill 97.51 776.21 MB/sec
Copy 54.90 274.49 MB/sec
Stream 89.94
Copy 87.86 642.23 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 86.97 641.84 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 89.94 575.62 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 95.47 583.30 MB/sec [altivec]OziMac, I'm in Australia too - when did you buy your eMac?
CPU Test 190.69
GCD Loop 182.12 7.11 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 197.81 715.33 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 196.07 5.70 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 186.54 2.90 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 191.82 7.68 Mops/sec
GCD Loop 182.12 7.11 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 197.81 715.33 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 196.07 5.70 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 186.54 2.90 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 191.82 7.68 Mops/sec
sushi said:
You bet! Local club sold all Tomahawks
however they had like 6000+ airframe hours. That's increadible mileage for the small plane. And most of those are student hours (i.e. x2 ?) They also seemed to land themselves - I just can't do greasers in Cessnas. Maybe I am trying impossible?Has anyone yet cracked a 1.25GHz emac to see if a similar hack is possible?
The only 2004-model emac mod I've yet seen is someone adding a fan controller, and that page was light on pictures of the actual mainboard.
My emac is still under warranty, so I'm not anxious to crack it open just yet.
-vga4life
The only 2004-model emac mod I've yet seen is someone adding a fan controller, and that page was light on pictures of the actual mainboard.
My emac is still under warranty, so I'm not anxious to crack it open just yet.
-vga4life
Yeah, that is a lot of student hours for sure.lbodnar said:You bet! Local club sold all Tomahawks
Flew a Tomahawk once. Not a bad little plane.
Reference greasers, I assume that you are referencing a landing in which you just hear the wheels spin without any noticable contact with the runway.
If so, then to me doing a greaser in a Cessna is much easier than a Piper product. Landing in a strong crosswind is another situation. In this case a Piper product is much better than a Cessna.
The key is to find the air bubble when you are near the ruway and hold onto it as you land. BTW, never learned about this air bubble, or cushion of air as us rotor heads call it, until I learned to fly helicopters.
Another thing that can help, is practicing slow flight where you get it to the edge of the stall, then power through it and continue to fly.
Have fun flying!
Sushi
SEN - I bought mine in April of this year.
Xbenches are not back up to 120-125. I am getting about 143 on the CPU test - if only it were possible to put in a graphics card! But I'm more than happy.
You are damn lucky with yours werneru, and thanks for the inspiration - I wouldn't have been game for it without your report.
And also thanks for the report regarding stability, SEN. Otherwise I may have been overzealous and tried for 1.6Ghz only to find that I would have to learn soldering fast in order to revive my eMac.
Xbenches are not back up to 120-125. I am getting about 143 on the CPU test - if only it were possible to put in a graphics card! But I'm more than happy.
You are damn lucky with yours werneru, and thanks for the inspiration - I wouldn't have been game for it without your report.
And also thanks for the report regarding stability, SEN. Otherwise I may have been overzealous and tried for 1.6Ghz only to find that I would have to learn soldering fast in order to revive my eMac.
Wernerru, those stats are amazing - don't touch a thing That seems to be better than the G5 1.6 we've got at work!
Ahhh, I bought mine around June last year. Yours must have been the last of the line before the 1.25 models ( at least you've claimed back some of those lost mhz )
Yeah, 143 is what I'm getting for the CPU, I guess that's what's important - XBench is great because you can diagnose "specific problem areas in performance" ( or so I'm brainwashed to believe - http://www.xbench.com/ ) - so something else is pulling your total score back quite a bit.
Glad to have given something back to this thread
That seems to be better than the G5 1.6 we've got at work!OziMac said:
Ahhh, I bought mine around June last year. Yours must have been the last of the line before the 1.25 models ( at least you've claimed back some of those lost mhz
)OziMac said:
Yeah, 143 is what I'm getting for the CPU, I guess that's what's important - XBench is great because you can diagnose "specific problem areas in performance" ( or so I'm brainwashed to believe - http://www.xbench.com/
) - so something else is pulling your total score back quite a bit.You're welcome OziMacOziMac said:
Glad to have given something back to this thread Yeah, it's running great, i've been running folding@home non-stop since saturday, and it's hardly any warmer. I'm just glad my reckless overclock managed to inspire some more eMac owners into getting back the real speed these things should have. As for not touching it... i don't plan on it! only one other person i've heard of overclocked it to 1.6, and they took it down to 1.33 because of artifacts after a few days.SEN said:Wernerru, those stats are amazing - don't touch a thing
nice one! btw after having everything done, wan't it such a pain in the ass to get the shell back on it's place so that you got the screws back in?!
I've opened a couple of emacs at work.. opening is easy, but closing it is much harder.
anyway good job with the manual and your little experiment.
I've opened a couple of emacs at work.. opening is easy, but closing it is much harder.
anyway good job with the manual and your little experiment.
another update - tried to take it to 2ghz, it worked for about a minute after full boot, and the artifacts got unbearable. BUT, it booted! it ran long enough for me to get an xbench CPU score of 245.7!!!
imac 1ghz 17' 1.1 usb (2003/04 model)
I have read all this with interest and will attempt next time i get the urge,
however there is one thing that puzzles me.
the emac resistor configuration seems easy to translate in to + - relating to with or without resistors as there's only 5 resistors, the imac has a double bank of resistors (10 in total) and there's not been any (idiots) explanation as to where to place the connections/removals, could someone enlighten me please.
this got close
but I'm still a bit puzzled (do i have to change just the left column, and/or make the right column a mirror image?, or just remove all the resistors in right column and an make the changes to the left column?)
I have read all this with interest and will attempt next time i get the urge,
however there is one thing that puzzles me.
the emac resistor configuration seems easy to translate in to + - relating to with or without resistors as there's only 5 resistors, the imac has a double bank of resistors (10 in total) and there's not been any (idiots) explanation as to where to place the connections/removals, could someone enlighten me please.
this got close
but I'm still a bit puzzled (do i have to change just the left column, and/or make the right column a mirror image?, or just remove all the resistors in right column and an make the changes to the left column?)
sorted it myself
resistors are in this order on the logic-board
R374,R375 ---> 2
R376,R377 ---> 3
R378,R380 ---> 4
R379,R381 ---> 5
R382,R383 ---> 1
and read in reverse ie 5,4,3,2,1 of the numbers in the Motorola PDF file
Explanation
If my method is correct, read the left column of resistors from top to bottom (R374,R376,R378,R379,R382)
x5.5 = 1 0 0 1 0
x6 = 1 0 1 1 0
x6.5 = 1 0 1 0 0
x7 = 0 1 0 0 0
x7.5 = 1 0 0 0 0
x8 = 0 0 1 1 0
x8.5 = 0 1 1 0 0
x9 = 1 1 1 0 1
x9.5 = 1 1 1 0 0
x10 = 0 1 0 1 1
x10.5= 0 0 0 1 1
x11 = 1 0 0 1 1
x11.5= 0 0 0 0 0
x12 = 1 1 0 1 1
resistors are in this order on the logic-board
R374,R375 ---> 2
R376,R377 ---> 3
R378,R380 ---> 4
R379,R381 ---> 5
R382,R383 ---> 1
and read in reverse ie 5,4,3,2,1 of the numbers in the Motorola PDF file
Explanation
If my method is correct, read the left column of resistors from top to bottom (R374,R376,R378,R379,R382)
x5.5 = 1 0 0 1 0
x6 = 1 0 1 1 0
x6.5 = 1 0 1 0 0
x7 = 0 1 0 0 0
x7.5 = 1 0 0 0 0
x8 = 0 0 1 1 0
x8.5 = 0 1 1 0 0
x9 = 1 1 1 0 1
x9.5 = 1 1 1 0 0
x10 = 0 1 0 1 1
x10.5= 0 0 0 1 1
x11 = 1 0 0 1 1
x11.5= 0 0 0 0 0
x12 = 1 1 0 1 1
You know, I'm sitting here plotting on the new iMac, what I can do to get some more horsepower out of it, even have a link to an uncompressed tiff image of the logic board, but wouldn't you know it? The clock chip appears to be covered by the aluminum 'G5'?
Ugh! You're killing me here people! You mean I have to actually buy the thing and crack it open before I can know whether or not this is an underclocked chip in these new iMac's? (Although in my heart of hearts I know it is....)
Ugh! You're killing me here people! You mean I have to actually buy the thing and crack it open before I can know whether or not this is an underclocked chip in these new iMac's? (Although in my heart of hearts I know it is....)
Numbski said:
I'll let them know it's in the wrong place
By the way Apple says Proudly display the iMac G5 in any room of your house its lightweight enough to move from your kitchen to the den or bedroom. A light Li-Ion battery that keeps it up for 10-15 minutes would be nice for moving it around or as a simple UPS to save it from power drops.
Attachments
Of course I don't have the original tif file handy, but Leo...you have a habit of doing things to make me scream here. I can't tell from your image if all of the jumper points for the cpu clock are at that location, or if it's a pointer to elsewhere.
Would help if we could see the actual chip. See what multipliers and FSB speeds are available for starters.
I can't tell from your image if all of the jumper points for the cpu clock are at that location, or if it's a pointer to elsewhere.Would help if we could see the actual chip. See what multipliers and FSB speeds are available for starters.
Thanks man. Unfortunately, until someone opens one up, and pulls off that cover, we can't see what the clock chip is to see what those points control. Perhaps I can google around a bit...see if anyone has an image of the current G5 cpus/clock chips. If we have a very similar number of banks for the cpu/fsb, then it's likely to be the same.
On a side note, the 20" iMac weighs about 25lb!
Display it in any room. Just don't hurt your back. Adding a batter would likely put that number over 30lb.
Not TOO heavy I guess.
On a side note, the 20" iMac weighs about 25lb!
Display it in any room. Just don't hurt your back.
Adding a batter would likely put that number over 30lb.Not TOO heavy I guess.
Okay, here's the rest of the info that I've managed to dig up today:
There are two FSB speeds that are being sold right now, 533 and 600 (man that's a step up!!!!), and two CPU speeds being sold: 1.6 and 1.8 Ghz.
The 1.6 is a 3x multiplier with 533 FSB.
The two 1.8's are 3x multiplier with 600 FSB.
The Powermac cousins have clock speeds of 1.8, 2, and 2.5.
The 1.8 is a 2x multiplier with 900 FSB (!!!)
The 2 is a 2x multiplier with 1000 FSB (!!!!)
The 2.5 is a 2x multiplier with 1250 FSB(!!!!!)
Given that you though there were 4 positions for each of these, I wonder what the those options are? So far we've only seen 2 multipliers, but 5 FSB options. A kick from 600 to 900 would be a 50% speed boost all by itself.
This just ain't right.
There are two FSB speeds that are being sold right now, 533 and 600 (man that's a step up!!!!), and two CPU speeds being sold: 1.6 and 1.8 Ghz.
The 1.6 is a 3x multiplier with 533 FSB.
The two 1.8's are 3x multiplier with 600 FSB.
The Powermac cousins have clock speeds of 1.8, 2, and 2.5.
The 1.8 is a 2x multiplier with 900 FSB (!!!)
The 2 is a 2x multiplier with 1000 FSB (!!!!)
The 2.5 is a 2x multiplier with 1250 FSB(!!!!!)
Given that you though there were 4 positions for each of these, I wonder what the those options are? So far we've only seen 2 multipliers, but 5 FSB options. A kick from 600 to 900 would be a 50% speed boost all by itself.
This just ain't right.