Problem with overclocking PowerBook G4 Hi-Res

JoyBed

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 14, 2019
60
30
Hi! I am new to this forum. I will go straight to my problem. I overclocked my bus acording to this site https://www.overclock.net/forum/251-mac/1445164-ultimate-mac-overclocking.html#/topics/1445164 and when checking the bus clock rate in the system profiler it still shows the 166MHz and not the 194MHz like I set it. What can be the problem? Can you please help me out of my misery? Thanks in advance. (Dont be afraid to speak in technical language on me I am a technician at Sony Televisions, I am just new to the world of the PowerPC)
 

B S Magnet

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2018
334
291
don’t read my status message
Hi! I am new to this forum. I will go straight to my problem. I overclocked my bus acording to this site https://www.overclock.net/forum/251-mac/1445164-ultimate-mac-overclocking.html#/topics/1445164 and when checking the bus clock rate in the system profiler it still shows the 166MHz and not the 194MHz like I set it. What can be the problem? Can you please help me out of my misery? Thanks in advance. (Dont be afraid to speak in technical language on me I am a technician at Sony Televisions, I am just new to the world of the PowerPC)
The first trouble is the source who delivered said directions for overclocking the DLSD PowerBook G4. They are generally disreputable as a credible source for such modifications.

A second trouble is there may be effective paths to a successful overclock for the PPC7447A/B (Apollo 7), but the frequency of that success is probably pretty limited outside the realm of professional alterations, vis-à-vis Daystar.

I now have two DLSD PowerBooks, and this is one PPC system I’m hesitant to attempt to overclock without handing it to an engineer who knows this architecture intimately well. Chances are, I’m leaving both as-is.

Adding one other thought: the route of locating a working PPC7448/Apollo 8 processor and finding someone who is skilled at swapping BGA chips could be a way to eke more from your PowerBook. Some folks here, including @dosdude1, might be able to expand on that.
 
Last edited:

JoyBed

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 14, 2019
60
30
The first trouble is the source who delivered said directions for overclocking the DLSD PowerBook G4. They are generally disreputable as a credible source for such modifications.

A second trouble is there may be effective paths to a successful overclock for the PPC7447A/B (Apollo 7), but the frequency of that success is probably pretty limited outside the realm of professional alterations, vis-à-vis Daystar.

I now have two DLSD PowerBooks, and this is one PPC system I’m hesitant to attempt to overclock without handing it to an engineer who knows this architecture intimately well. Chances are, I’m leaving both as-is.

Adding one other thought: the route of locating a working PPC7448/Apollo 8 processor and finding someone who is skilled at swapping BGA chips could be a way to eke more from your PowerBook. Some folks here, including @dosdude1, might be able to expand on that.
We at work have the BGA machines, we are replacing CPUs and GPUs on daily basis on Sony TV motherboards. I was thinking about replacing the CPU to 7448 and as I was browsing thru the datasheet of the 7448 it says that its direct swap for the 7447/7447A. But I was confused by the fact that it has some extra pins that needs to be conected do ground and Vcc in order to get the 7448 higher than 1GHz, but the 7447A has these pins as NC so IDK there...
 

Raging Dufus

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2018
283
418
Kansas USA
It's possible that your overclock was successful, and Apple's firmware cannot recognize it. 194 MHz is a bus speed that no Apple product ever shipped with. On at least one other model of PowerPC Mac, the firmware was known to prevent reporting of an altered bus speed that fell outside the usual parameters.

You can read the article here, but the condensed version is that a Power Mac G4 system bus was overclocked from 100 to 120 MHz via the use of a DIP switch installed on the logic board. Both Mac OS and Linux refused to report any change to the bus or processor speed. However, the change was able to be observed by the use of comparative benchmarks, which demonstrated that the Power Mac was running faster.

If you've undertaken a hardware hack as you've described on your DLSD, and it still boots, well...you've done something to it. The modification should be able to be seen by comparative benchmarks; although in your case without a DIP switch to readily change the settings back and forth, you'll either have to undo your hack to test it or rely on benchmarks reported by others. But one way or another, the effect should be observable, if not reportable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dextructor

JoyBed

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 14, 2019
60
30
It's possible that your overclock was successful, and Apple's firmware cannot recognize it. 194 MHz is a bus speed that no Apple product ever shipped with. On at least one other model of PowerPC Mac, the firmware was known to prevent reporting of an altered bus speed that fell outside the usual parameters.

You can read the article here, but the condensed version is that a Power Mac G4 system bus was overclocked from 100 to 120 MHz via the use of a DIP switch installed on the logic board. Both Mac OS and Linux refused to report any change to the bus or processor speed. However, the change was able to be observed by the use of comparative benchmarks, which demonstrated that the Power Mac was running faster.

If you've undertaken a hardware hack as you've described on your DLSD, and it still boots, well...you've done something to it. The modification should be able to be seen by comparative benchmarks; although in your case without a DIP switch to readily change the settings back and forth, you'll either have to undo your hack to test it or rely on benchmarks reported by others. But one way or another, the effect should be observable, if not reportable.
I donthave any benchmark from before so I cant compare and like you said, undoing the mods and redoing it takes a little time and the solder used on the motherboard is realt sh.ty. It doesnt like to melt, it oxidates, doesnt stick well to pads... I replaced most of the solder but U dont want to really mess with it again, maybe I will try to overclock to full 200MHz and do benchmark again. I dont know if it is placebo or not but the PowerBook seems a somewhat faster after the overclock. Does anyone have some results fromx XBench in stock form to compare with my results? And is there any command to display REAL CURRENT clock of the bus?
 

JoyBed

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 14, 2019
60
30
Thanks man! Mine really have more score so the feeling that it is a bit faster wasnt just a placebo.
image.jpg


And it isnt maxed out because one of my ram modules is PC3200. So now basically I need to replace the PC3200 with PC4200 to get more performance. Or can I replace both to PC5200? Does it have some performance improvement over the 4200 in the PowerBook? Here is my ram setup:
image.jpg

I was also considering an SSD, in setup like M2/mSATA drive in M2/mSATA to SATA adapter and that into SATA to PATA adapter. I think it will fill the PATA bus to its maximum transfer rate. And I think the only way to check the real frequency of the bus would be to probe the chip responsible for generating clock signal acording to the resistor setup with oscilloscope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raging Dufus

Raging Dufus

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2018
283
418
Kansas USA
Thanks man! Mine really have more score so the feeling that it is a bit faster wasnt just a placebo.
View attachment 843258

And it isnt maxed out because one of my ram modules is PC3200. So now basically I need to replace the PC3200 with PC4200 to get more performance. Or can I replace both to PC5200? Does it have some performance improvement over the 4200 in the PowerBook? Here is my ram setup:
View attachment 843260
I was also considering an SSD, in setup like M2/mSATA drive in M2/mSATA to SATA adapter and that into SATA to PATA adapter. I think it will fill the PATA bus to its maximum transfer rate. And I think the only way to check the real frequency of the bus would be to probe the chip responsible for generating clock signal acording to the resistor setup with oscilloscope.
Glad to help!

RAM faster than PC2-4200 isn't going to provide any boost, because your PowerBook will just clock it down to PC2-4200 speed. Both of the modules in your current setup are running at PC2-3200 speed, because the lower speed is what your PowerBook will set as the clock for even the higher speed module. So yes, replacing that 3200 stick with a 4200 will provide a boost, and it's the most you'll be able to get out of RAM on that machine.

I have a mSATA SSD in my PowerBook, I didn't include it in my XBench results because I didn't want to skew the total score. It's a very nice upgrade, and will probably provide a more noticeable performance boost than even your overclock, so yes I highly recommend that.
 

mzs.112000

macrumors 6502
Apr 22, 2015
254
119
IIRC Overclocking PowerPC laptops is nigh impossible...
I was under the impression that it was only possible to overclock the GPU(ATICellerator), is this true?

If your DLSD was really running a 194MHz bus speed, wouldn't this make the CPU operate at 1.94GHz?
Also, isn't the DDR RAM clock speed directly related to the bus frequency as well? As such a 167MHz bus would have the RAM at ~501MHz, but a 194MHz bus would have the RAM at 582MHz? Or am I missing something?

Either way, if the DLSD is really running at 1.94GHz, that's quite impressive(a 16% increase in clock speed would give a nice performance improvement), I wonder what the battery life is!
 

Loki.Mephisto

macrumors 6502a
Quote from overclock.net as linked above:

"I call the High-Res / Late-2005 PowerBooks G5s because they use the Freescale 7448 / 7458. A single Freescale 7458 has the performance of a single IBM 970, which is what Apple named the G5. Apple crippled the Late-2005 PowerBooks. They lowered the 200MHz FSB to 167MHz, shut down the GPU x16 PCIe bus, lowered CPU speed to 1.67GHz even though it was built for 2.0GHz and up, shut down the 2nd core on the die (I'm not sure about the second core, the CPU does have two PLLs, leading me to suspect that it is two CPUs in one package, but I cant prove it), disabled 85% of the cache, and closed half of the 64-Bit FSB.
Why would they do that?
I don't know. I speculate that when Freescale began shipping the 7458s, Apple had already finalized the deal with intell. Apple used the 7458 in the Late-2005 PowerBooks because: A. they wanted DDR2 RAM and/or B. Freescale had stopped fabricating 7447As. Off the top of my head, Dual unlocked 7458s should have GeekBenched somewhere between 3500 and 6500, that would have have destroyed all the intell MacBooks, all MacBook Pros until the 2010 models came out, and still be able to compete with today's MacBook Airs. Apple was not going to let its brand-new MacBook Pros be half the speed of an old PowerBook, so they cut the PowerBook's speed to 1/4 to 1/8 of what it could really do. They also covered up the fact that the High-Res PowerBook had a 7458, opting to call it a "7447B", a magical CPU that never existed in Freescale documentation.
"

I find that very hard to believe. That'd be either crazy or awesome (I'm undecided...) if it were actually true.
 

mzs.112000

macrumors 6502
Apr 22, 2015
254
119
Quote from overclock.net as linked above:

"I call the High-Res / Late-2005 PowerBooks G5s because they use the Freescale 7448 / 7458. A single Freescale 7458 has the performance of a single IBM 970, which is what Apple named the G5. Apple crippled the Late-2005 PowerBooks. They lowered the 200MHz FSB to 167MHz, shut down the GPU x16 PCIe bus, lowered CPU speed to 1.67GHz even though it was built for 2.0GHz and up, shut down the 2nd core on the die (I'm not sure about the second core, the CPU does have two PLLs, leading me to suspect that it is two CPUs in one package, but I cant prove it), disabled 85% of the cache, and closed half of the 64-Bit FSB.
Why would they do that?
I don't know. I speculate that when Freescale began shipping the 7458s, Apple had already finalized the deal with intell. Apple used the 7458 in the Late-2005 PowerBooks because: A. they wanted DDR2 RAM and/or B. Freescale had stopped fabricating 7447As. Off the top of my head, Dual unlocked 7458s should have GeekBenched somewhere between 3500 and 6500, that would have have destroyed all the intell MacBooks, all MacBook Pros until the 2010 models came out, and still be able to compete with today's MacBook Airs. Apple was not going to let its brand-new MacBook Pros be half the speed of an old PowerBook, so they cut the PowerBook's speed to 1/4 to 1/8 of what it could really do. They also covered up the fact that the High-Res PowerBook had a 7458, opting to call it a "7447B", a magical CPU that never existed in Freescale documentation.
"

I find that very hard to believe. That'd be either crazy or awesome (I'm undecided...) if it were actually true.
Remember, according to Apple, the main reason they switched to Intel anyways was so they could get higher performance in a laptop form-factor(and they couldn't get 3GHz G5 chips to use in the PowerMac.).

If Apple could have realized stable 200MHz bus speeds, 16x PCIe GPU, 2.0GHz CPU, have 2 cores, 85% higher cache, and a 64-bit data bus, then they would have never switched to Intel.
It should also be known, that even *if*, they did have a second core on the same die, they would have had good reason to disable it. The existing single 1.67GHz PPC G4 runs really hot under load, imagine 2 of them, running at 2GHz, can anyone comprehend the cooling that would need to be involved?

Does anyone really think that Apple would do something so stupid, like spending millions in R&D to switch to a new architecture(which would merit a full, ground-up redesign of the entire internals of the new laptops), if they could just double the performance of the existing computers without issue?

I doubt it....
 

Raging Dufus

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2018
283
418
Kansas USA
Quote from overclock.net as linked above:

"I call the High-Res / Late-2005 PowerBooks G5s because they use the Freescale 7448 / 7458. A single Freescale 7458 has the performance of a single IBM 970, which is what Apple named the G5. Apple crippled the Late-2005 PowerBooks. They lowered the 200MHz FSB to 167MHz, shut down the GPU x16 PCIe bus, lowered CPU speed to 1.67GHz even though it was built for 2.0GHz and up, shut down the 2nd core on the die (I'm not sure about the second core, the CPU does have two PLLs, leading me to suspect that it is two CPUs in one package, but I cant prove it), disabled 85% of the cache, and closed half of the 64-Bit FSB.
Why would they do that?
I don't know. I speculate that when Freescale began shipping the 7458s, Apple had already finalized the deal with intell. Apple used the 7458 in the Late-2005 PowerBooks because: A. they wanted DDR2 RAM and/or B. Freescale had stopped fabricating 7447As. Off the top of my head, Dual unlocked 7458s should have GeekBenched somewhere between 3500 and 6500, that would have have destroyed all the intell MacBooks, all MacBook Pros until the 2010 models came out, and still be able to compete with today's MacBook Airs. Apple was not going to let its brand-new MacBook Pros be half the speed of an old PowerBook, so they cut the PowerBook's speed to 1/4 to 1/8 of what it could really do. They also covered up the fact that the High-Res PowerBook had a 7458, opting to call it a "7447B", a magical CPU that never existed in Freescale documentation.
"

I find that very hard to believe. That'd be either crazy or awesome (I'm undecided...) if it were actually true.
Sounds like a load of crap to me. Some kind of fanboy conspiracy garbage.

If it was true that the 7447B was really just a re-branded 7458; and if it was true that the 7458 could function as a drop-in dual-core replacement for G4's; the aftermarket upgrade manufacturers like OWC and Sonnet would have been all over that. I'd be running a quad-core MDD right now. I'll call BS on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B S Magnet

JoyBed

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 14, 2019
60
30
You guys dont like sleeping?

Glad to help!

RAM faster than PC2-4200 isn't going to provide any boost, because your PowerBook will just clock it down to PC2-4200 speed. Both of the modules in your current setup are running at PC2-3200 speed, because the lower speed is what your PowerBook will set as the clock for even the higher speed module. So yes, replacing that 3200 stick with a 4200 will provide a boost, and it's the most you'll be able to get out of RAM on that machine.

I have a mSATA SSD in my PowerBook, I didn't include it in my XBench results because I didn't want to skew the total score. It's a very nice upgrade, and will probably provide a more noticeable performance boost than even your overclock, so yes I highly recommend that.
Yeah, but I need to get another PC4200 and here where I live it seems pretty hard... And for that SSD upgrade it seems very funny that i cant get mSATA drives with a big capacity in such a low price as m2 drives here in my country... This place is odd... I will report with everything new I have, like the clock checked with oscilloscope or the ram change.

IIRC Overclocking PowerPC laptops is nigh impossible...
I was under the impression that it was only possible to overclock the GPU(ATICellerator), is this true?

If your DLSD was really running a 194MHz bus speed, wouldn't this make the CPU operate at 1.94GHz?
Also, isn't the DDR RAM clock speed directly related to the bus frequency as well? As such a 167MHz bus would have the RAM at ~501MHz, but a 194MHz bus would have the RAM at 582MHz? Or am I missing something?

Either way, if the DLSD is really running at 1.94GHz, that's quite impressive(a 16% increase in clock speed would give a nice performance improvement), I wonder what the battery life is!
My battery life and after didnt change. It still is 17 minutes as my battery is dead and the little battery near the superdrive is dead too. I cant get any of the batteries here replaced, in here it seems there are no parts for these machines and i dont really like ordering computer parts from ebay.

Quote from overclock.net as linked above:

"I call the High-Res / Late-2005 PowerBooks G5s because they use the Freescale 7448 / 7458. A single Freescale 7458 has the performance of a single IBM 970, which is what Apple named the G5. Apple crippled the Late-2005 PowerBooks. They lowered the 200MHz FSB to 167MHz, shut down the GPU x16 PCIe bus, lowered CPU speed to 1.67GHz even though it was built for 2.0GHz and up, shut down the 2nd core on the die (I'm not sure about the second core, the CPU does have two PLLs, leading me to suspect that it is two CPUs in one package, but I cant prove it), disabled 85% of the cache, and closed half of the 64-Bit FSB.
Why would they do that?
I don't know. I speculate that when Freescale began shipping the 7458s, Apple had already finalized the deal with intell. Apple used the 7458 in the Late-2005 PowerBooks because: A. they wanted DDR2 RAM and/or B. Freescale had stopped fabricating 7447As. Off the top of my head, Dual unlocked 7458s should have GeekBenched somewhere between 3500 and 6500, that would have have destroyed all the intell MacBooks, all MacBook Pros until the 2010 models came out, and still be able to compete with today's MacBook Airs. Apple was not going to let its brand-new MacBook Pros be half the speed of an old PowerBook, so they cut the PowerBook's speed to 1/4 to 1/8 of what it could really do. They also covered up the fact that the High-Res PowerBook had a 7458, opting to call it a "7447B", a magical CPU that never existed in Freescale documentation.
"

I find that very hard to believe. That'd be either crazy or awesome (I'm undecided...) if it were actually true.
I higly doubt it too but its not impossible to some degree. As I searched for the 7447B and I also cant find anything about it, just images of the cpu die with the “7447B” on it.

Remember, according to Apple, the main reason they switched to Intel anyways was so they could get higher performance in a laptop form-factor(and they couldn't get 3GHz G5 chips to use in the PowerMac.).

If Apple could have realized stable 200MHz bus speeds, 16x PCIe GPU, 2.0GHz CPU, have 2 cores, 85% higher cache, and a 64-bit data bus, then they would have never switched to Intel.
It should also be known, that even *if*, they did have a second core on the same die, they would have had good reason to disable it. The existing single 1.67GHz PPC G4 runs really hot under load, imagine 2 of them, running at 2GHz, can anyone comprehend the cooling that would need to be involved?

Does anyone really think that Apple would do something so stupid, like spending millions in R&D to switch to a new architecture(which would merit a full, ground-up redesign of the entire internals of the new laptops), if they could just double the performance of the existing computers without issue?

I doubt it....
Apple is doind stupid things, look at the macbook airs, they are thermal throttling as hell... But anyways it wouldnt be first manufacturer that used underpowered hi-power cpu in theyr system... *cough* sony *cough*
 

mzs.112000

macrumors 6502
Apr 22, 2015
254
119
You guys dont like sleeping?



Yeah, but I need to get another PC4200 and here where I live it seems pretty hard... And for that SSD upgrade it seems very funny that i cant get mSATA drives with a big capacity in such a low price as m2 drives here in my country... This place is odd... I will report with everything new I have, like the clock checked with oscilloscope or the ram change.



My battery life and after didnt change. It still is 17 minutes as my battery is dead and the little battery near the superdrive is dead too. I cant get any of the batteries here replaced, in here it seems there are no parts for these machines and i dont really like ordering computer parts from ebay.



I higly doubt it too but its not impossible to some degree. As I searched for the 7447B and I also cant find anything about it, just images of the cpu die with the “7447B” on it.



Apple is doind stupid things, look at the macbook airs, they are thermal throttling as hell... But anyways it wouldnt be first manufacturer that used underpowered hi-power cpu in theyr system... *cough* sony *cough*

Oh, where I live, it was only 7PM when I posted, we do sleep sometimes....

What country do you live where its hard to get PC4200 RAM, and mSATA drives? Do you have eBay?
MacSales has PC4200 RAM and Newegg has tons of mSATA SSD's

IMO right now, getting a SSD in there with an adapter, and getting that PC4200 RAM, is your best bet...

P.S., has anyone ever had luck putting 2x 2GB RAM sticks in a PowerBook and got it to boot?
 

B S Magnet

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2018
334
291
don’t read my status message
Quote from overclock.net as linked above:

"I call the High-Res / Late-2005 PowerBooks G5s because they use the Freescale 7448 / 7458. A single Freescale 7458 has the performance of a single IBM 970, which is what Apple named the G5. Apple crippled the Late-2005 PowerBooks. They lowered the 200MHz FSB to 167MHz, shut down the GPU x16 PCIe bus, lowered CPU speed to 1.67GHz even though it was built for 2.0GHz and up, shut down the 2nd core on the die (I'm not sure about the second core, the CPU does have two PLLs, leading me to suspect that it is two CPUs in one package, but I cant prove it), disabled 85% of the cache, and closed half of the 64-Bit FSB.
Why would they do that?
I don't know. I speculate that when Freescale began shipping the 7458s, Apple had already finalized the deal with intell. Apple used the 7458 in the Late-2005 PowerBooks because: A. they wanted DDR2 RAM and/or B. Freescale had stopped fabricating 7447As. Off the top of my head, Dual unlocked 7458s should have GeekBenched somewhere between 3500 and 6500, that would have have destroyed all the intell MacBooks, all MacBook Pros until the 2010 models came out, and still be able to compete with today's MacBook Airs. Apple was not going to let its brand-new MacBook Pros be half the speed of an old PowerBook, so they cut the PowerBook's speed to 1/4 to 1/8 of what it could really do. They also covered up the fact that the High-Res PowerBook had a 7458, opting to call it a "7447B", a magical CPU that never existed in Freescale documentation.
"

I find that very hard to believe. That'd be either crazy or awesome (I'm undecided...) if it were actually true.
Oh sweet christmas, why won’t this fib just die already?

Contrary to rabidz7’s hot take lacking authority or credence, none of the DLSD PowerBooks was built with 7448 chips.

I hecking own one of the very last ever made (an A1139 manufactured during the second week of March 2006, maybe 7–10 days prior to the 17" MacBook Pro came out), and no, as nice as it is, this A1139 does not have a 7448. It has a 7447B, just as every later PowerBook and iBook have.

While there had been tentative plans for Apple to throw in the Apollo 8/7448 on their final PowerBooks, they basically told Freescale that wasn’t gonna happen.
 

d-oost

macrumors 6502a
Jan 10, 2016
696
786
Oh sweet christmas, why won’t this fib just die already?

Contrary to rabidz7’s hot take lacking authority or credence, none of the DLSD PowerBooks was built with 7448 chips.
The biggest fraud concerning the 7448 rumor is @asaggynoodle, as this user falsified a picture of a 7447B into a 7448. It clearly wasn't a 7448, as those have square dies, and the 7447B has a more rectangular shape, which the doctored photo very clearly showed.

Ironically, when I called him out for it on 68kMLA, that got the attention of the Freescale engineer who posted about how the 7448 never got into any official Apple products, with photos of the Freescale labs as evidence, which has been linked in this thread.

To paraphrase Chernobyl, "You didn't see a 7448! BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!" (Of course, the person in question is actually delusional and should be taken to the infirmary ;) )
 

LightBulbFun

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2013
2,127
1,941
London UK
What I could never fathom is, according to Open Firmware, the CPU in the last iBook is identical to the one in the DLSD but it's only the DLSD that had frequency scaling?
hang on a second, I thought you always complained of the lack of frequency scaling control of the DLSD in OS X?

(also as I explained before, the DLSD, while it has the same 7447B CPU as other macs, is a completely different platform to other macs)
 
  • Like
Reactions: B S Magnet

JoyBed

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 14, 2019
60
30
I found 7448 for 60 dollars but I cant find any patches or hacks for the powerbook to accommodate the new CPU. Tomorrow I will try to bump it to full 200MHz and also check the actual frequency with the oscilloscope. Also I will replace the thermal paste so it will run cooler, it wasnt changed till it was new. Any other ideas?
 

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Jun 17, 2014
3,022
2,467
Lincolnshire, UK
hang on a second, I thought you always complained of the lack of frequency scaling control of the DLSD in OS X?
I do - I prefer manual control - I don't see how that contradicts my observation? And if you have explained why the DLSD has the same CPU but different power management can you send me the link as I've forgotten?
 

Hughmac

macrumors demi-god
Feb 4, 2012
3,493
12,449
Kent, UK
Thanks man! Mine really have more score so the feeling that it is a bit faster wasnt just a placebo.
View attachment 843258

And it isnt maxed out because one of my ram modules is PC3200. So now basically I need to replace the PC3200 with PC4200 to get more performance. Or can I replace both to PC5200? Does it have some performance improvement over the 4200 in the PowerBook? Here is my ram setup:
View attachment 843260
I was also considering an SSD, in setup like M2/mSATA drive in M2/mSATA to SATA adapter and that into SATA to PATA adapter. I think it will fill the PATA bus to its maximum transfer rate. And I think the only way to check the real frequency of the bus would be to probe the chip responsible for generating clock signal acording to the resistor setup with oscilloscope.
Regarding the PC2-3200 - have you actually looked at your RAM, because in this DLSD I have PC2-6400, and due to an Apple limitation it shows up in System Profiler as PC2-3200 ;)

Cheers :)

Hugh
[doublepost=1560798969][/doublepost]
ishot-1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun

LightBulbFun

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2013
2,127
1,941
London UK
Regarding the PC2-3200 - have you actually looked at your RAM, because in this DLSD I have PC2-6400, and due to an Apple limitation it shows up in System Profiler as PC2-3200 ;)

Cheers :)

Hugh
[doublepost=1560798969][/doublepost]View attachment 843472
Ditto on this, its just a cosmetic Open Firmware glitch, PCIe G5s do the same thing interestingly enough

also worth noting the DDR2 on the DLSD, was nothing but a marketing thing

it runs at 333Mhz regardless of what you put in the slots (well just whatever double the FSB is at) and has no speed advantage over regular DDR in this case, especially given the very slow by 2005 FSB of the PowerPC G4 CPU
 
Last edited: