Processor Question

[arjepsen]

I believe mineis 366 too.

[M-A]

My humble advice:

Forgot CELERON and go for an AMD (top-of-his-class) like me.
An AMD "move" more data and works faster and than any INTEL at same clock rates).
Look at your D8B MoBo's manual (old model or new model) and find which is the Top-of-the-Range supported CPU by your MotherBoard.

Also works awesome a 256 MB RAM Module on ONE SPOT only (don't try to put 2x 128MB modules onto 2 memory slot-banks because do not work). BIOS "can see" that RAM module while making the POST.

I hope this helps.

[Y-my-R]

Hmm... the reason for my post on this thread, was just because I was curious what processors d8b computers originally shipped with... and the database seems to suggest it's only 166 or 300 MHz Intel CPUs. Since the 366 MHz I found in mine seemed original, I thought I'd ask.

My understanding is, though, that the d8b computer only handles sort of "administrative" tasks, and that besides the amount of RAM, you can't really expect a performance improvement by adding a faster processor. Even the 166 MHz has enough overhead to handle what the d8b needs. The overall system performance of the d8b as a mixer and for using plug-ins, doesn't get faster or more effective, with a faster processor in the rack computer, from what I understand.

Now I'm curious, though - are you actually using an AMD processor in a d8b computer?

I used to be deep into building Hackintoshes (PCs running Mac OS). I built one with an AMD Athlon 4000+ years ago (around OS 10.4 times) as my main computer, and Mac OS required extensive hacks to make this work, since the "instruction set" the AMD processor used, differed significantly from the Intel instruction set. Since Mac OS didn't support the AMD instruction set natively, this meant a deep dive into how the processor operates, and adapting the OS to that (I didn't hack it myself... just followed instructions how to patch what other people had already figured out). It was still a lot of trial an error, with lots of crashes because of the incompatible processor, until everything necessary was "hacked" in Mac OS properly.

If Mackie wasn't planning to use AMD processors at some point, I'd also expect an incompatibility between the CPU Instruction Set the Mackie OS supports (Intel for sure), and what the AMD needs to work with (unclear to me if the Mackie OS has direct support for the AMD instruction set). So... I'd think the Mackie OS would likely also require hacks to make it work with the AMD instruction set.

...but you got that working? That would suggest that Mackie put in some extra work at the time, for the case that they wanted to switch to AMD processors if that would have made (business) sense at the time...

But again... there shouldn't be a benefit to the performance of the d8b as a system by using an AMD CPU. But it would widen to range of compatible replacement processors, which makes this interesting again!

You got me curious! Are you actually using an AMD processor in a d8b computer?

[Crash]

Way back in 2011, I stated that some users upgraded their processor, and I still believe that to be the case. Having said that, it is possible that Mackie used a 366Hz processor toward the end of the run. They bought motherboards and processors in pretty huge quantities and would go to the next processor when they could no longer source what they were using. I am fairly confident that they would have stayed with the 166 if they could have, just from a cost perspective.

I am sure that during my time there, they had yet to switch to the 300Hz processor but they might have. The CPU was built on the same assembly line as the HUI, so I was not super on top of those changes within the CPU. As far as AMD compatibility, I couldn't tell ya. They (Bob Tudor and Peter Watts and I am sure others) may have been thinking down the road as they knew that they would run out of the current processor of the day. The memories get a little more fuzzy with every passing year....

Here is irony for you, I am on a MAC running Windows. Not my doing, only a government operation could come up with this fiasco.

[M-A]

To Y-my-R: see to believe...



My D8B was very old (first models on the market) so an improvement over a 20 years old machine is not a bad idea (I think).


256 MB RAM (1 Dimm).
FlashCard replacing original noisy HD.
AMD K6 @233MHz
Railcaps replaced.
All internal wiring (flat cables and connectors) replaced.
Internal power cables iron-solded.
AT power suply replaced by ATX (modified) X-Silent low noise PSU.

All this "Mods" are very well documented and can be found (thank you Peter a million of times again) at D8B DataBase. (Except AMD K6).

[M-A]

And YES, of course.
Operating system loads 56X faster, you have 238 MB FREE RAM (as you can see in the first picture, close to cursor).
Ultra Low Noise and quiet CPU...
Even screen redrawings when changing layers are a lot faster with the same 1MB Trident graphic card!!

It works like a silk...

All we're very sure that both (old and new MoBos) will do all the tasks more than enough, also when many eating-processors plugins will run onto UFX cards and revs over MFX cards.

I only say that this configuration works very well and I never had an OS freezing (3 years and a half from mod without issues).

CHEERS !!

[Y-my-R]

@Crash, what you described totally makes sense. Use up parts supply, and if the previously used component is no longer available, move to the current one as long as the mainboard supports it. I guess that CPU with the 366 MHz processor I have, is just one of the later production models. Also very cool, that you used to work at Mackie and knew Bob Tudor and all!

...and about Windows on Mac... that does sound a bit backwards. I'm actually still running a Hackintosh (i7 w/ Thunderbolt 3 and all), but I also run Parallels on it, to be able to open certain Windows specific files. So, I'm running a PC with Mac OS, that runs Parallels with Windows within Mac OS for some apps, hahaha. Why easy, when you can have it complicated

@M-A, that's so cool that you're running an AMD processor in your d8b! I really wouldn't have thought that this works! Awesome! Could be that AMD support was really already built into the OS... or maybe the OS is not doing anything that makes use of anything that is different between the instruction sets. Regardless, it's great to know that this actually works!!

Maybe it's the AMD, that makes things boot and react faster, etc. I'm running 166 MHz and 300 MHz d8b's side-by-side (the 366, I had bought for parts, but it only needed a battery).
Both my d8bs have 256 MB RAM (2 sticks in each, btw., which works for me). The 300Mhz has an SD Card for the OS, the 166MHz has the spinning HD that came with it. They both take about the same amount of time to boot.

In fact, I just tried it, and pushed both power buttons at the same time. The 300MHz/SD-Card computer, took 5 seconds longer to boot, than the 166MHz with the spinning drive. That shouldn't be... maybe some setting is different. But at least the difference is not significant, so a faster Intel processor and SD card doesn't seem to change much, when it comes to boot time, at least.

I'm also not noticing a difference in switching between layers between my two boards. It all seems to be about the same between the two.

I'm aware of the possible upgrades, but only did cheap ghetto-versions of upgrades to mine. Like, swapped out the CPU fan, and the fan in the PC power supply for random quieter ones I bought at Fry's (instead of replacing the whole power supply). Then there's that one SD-Card, so it's a little quieter. Never got around to swapping the other drive out.
Replacing the ribbon cables some day would be a great idea. I'll think about that when it's time to re-seat them again. Lately, both of my consoles worked fine without acting up, so I won't touch anything until then

Speaking of ribbon cables... I don't know if this is true, but I just recently spoke to another guy who used to work for Mackie, and he said that Mackie sourced the cables with the connectors on them, and the sockets on the boards from different vendors, and that's what supposedly lead to a less-than-ideal fit, and those ribbon cable issues down the road. Sounds kinda crazy... but it wasn't the only crazy story he had (nothing else was about the d8b), so maybe it's true

Anyway, thanks for sharing those screenshots, M-A! AMD for the win!

[Crash]

@Crash, what you described totally makes sense. Use up parts supply, and if the previously used component is no longer available, move to the current one as long as the mainboard supports it. I guess that CPU with the 366 MHz processor I have, is just one of the later production models. Also very cool, that you used to work at Mackie and knew Bob Tudor and all!

Speaking of ribbon cables... I don't know if this is true, but I just recently spoke to another guy who used to work for Mackie, and he said that Mackie sourced the cables with the connectors on them, and the sockets on the boards from different vendors, and that's what supposedly lead to a less-than-ideal fit, and those ribbon cable issues down the road. Sounds kinda crazy... but it wasn't the only crazy story he had (nothing else was about the d8b), so maybe it's true

Anyway, thanks for sharing those screenshots, M-A! AMD for the win!

The ribbon cable issue reared it's ugly head on the analog 8 bus line as I recall. I believe that the mechanical engineers had sorted that out by the time the d8b came into being. You know business, always trying to save a buck.

[M-A]

@M-A, that's so cool that you're running an AMD processor in your d8b! I really wouldn't have thought that this works! Awesome! Could be that AMD support was really already built into the OS... or maybe the OS is not doing anything that makes use of anything that is different between the instruction sets. Regardless, it's great to know that this actually works!!

Maybe it's the AMD, that makes things boot and react faster, etc.

As far as I know, the most important thing "to match" was the chipset motherboard, not CPU. It was the one that had to comply with the specifications and chipsets. I read it a long time ago in a thread of this forum.

The 300Mhz has an SD Card for the OS, the 166MHz has the spinning HD that came with it. They both take about the same amount of time to boot.

CF Cards works at many different transfer rates (some slow and some ultra-fast). I can't remember what brand and model but I bought the fastest one 1st brand, that's why (I think) OS 5.1 loads faster than my old (and noisy) HD. I think that the CF Card slot/controller do the rest to speed-up the system.

Best regards!