PowerMac 6100 Graphics Performance

Logo

Conclusions

What does all this mean? The results of this extremely un-scientific experiment (sample size of 1) suggest the following. It’s been more than three years since I first wrote this page, and I need to update it with some current information. But here it is the way it’s always been:

The stock 6100/60 exhibits really slow graphics performance.
A 256K level 2 cache provides the best bang for the buck at $9. In addition to accelerating graphic performance as well as an HPV card, it also accelerates just about everything else your computer does. Every Power Mac should have one.
While it doesn’t include any QuickDraw acceleration, the HPV card is still significantly faster than the built-in DRAM video. Furthermore, you get more colors and the option to add a second monitor. For $200, I believe this is a great value over any of the Nubus-based solutions out there.
Benchmarks and numbers aside, adding one or both of the above will result in your machine feeling zippier. It’s hard to describe, but you’ll just feel better about your machine.
A clock-accelerator can really crank your machine up to a new level, but it can be a bit risky. See my notes above.
I don’t know anything about Nubus video cards, except that you’ll need a PDS-Nubus adapter in order to use one. If anyone out there’s got data on these, please let me know!

Feedback

If you disagree with the results I’ve listed here, or (better!), if you’ve got results from a test using a Nubus video card (such as a 7 Rasterops 24XP [?]), please send them to me and I’ll plant them on the page.

The party line from some vendors is that speed increases dramatically with the installation of a 256K cache, but that increases beyond this level for larger (512K or 1MB) caches are very small. But other manufacturers, such as the L2 Company highly recommends larger caches.

Feedback I’ve received so far includes some from a fellow with a 1 MB Level 2 cache, who says that at 640x480/8 bit, the entire video page can be cached, resulting in very fast text scrolling that outperforms the HPV card. I can’t duplicate his results, since I don’t have a 1MB cache, but it certainly sounds logical. Of course if your goals also include increased bit depth, then you’ll have to go with a video card.

I’ve also heard scuttlebutt that clock-chipping is not dangerous to your CPU at all. The logic here goes: the CPU will stop working properly and the computer will crash long before the chip gets hot enough to get damaged. Of course, I’ve also heard stories of people whose clock-chipped computers have failed. Permanently. Caveat emptor. So far my email reads 6 no- problem’s, 2 I-fried-my-motherboard’s, and 2 I’m-scared-now-so-I’m-not-going-to-buy-one’s.

It definitely gets hot under the hood with all that additional hardware dissipating heat and blocking airflow. I got email from one guy whose clock-chipped 6100/DOS got so hot that he sawed holes in the case to ventilate it. If that sounds bizarre, I also got email from a guy who made a Frankenstein’s Mac out of 6100 guts and a briefcase. So it’d be portable. (He wanted to drive two monitors, so a PowerBook would not have worked.)

Well, that’s all for now.