Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

superamit · Jun 4, 2002, 03:17 PM

Has anyone successfully used the Apple CHUD tools:
<a href="ftp://ftp.apple.com/developer/Tool_Chest/Testing_-_Debugging/Performance_tools/" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.apple.com/developer/Tool_Chest/Testing_-_Debugging/Performance_tools/</a>

and the instructions at Insanely Great Mac today:

<a href="http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=507" target="_blank">http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=507</a>

with one of the new iBooks? I'm more intrested in seeing if my new 600 can be clocked up to the 700 or 800, but any positive experiences will be read with interest.

NDBounce · Jun 4, 2002, 04:10 PM

I could be wrong, but I have never heard of any mac being able to be overclocked via software. I think you have to physically move some jumpers or something on the chip.

And I definitely wouldn't expect to be able to overclock a mac with a tool put out by Apple...they don't exactly smile on people overclocking their machines.

superamit · Jun 4, 2002, 04:43 PM

Well, you've probably already seen an example of a processor being "under-clocked" via software--the setting in the Energy Saver control panel which slows your processor speed. The article claims that the new G3 750FX chip used in the new iBooks allows the CPU/bus ratio to be adjusted using software, and Apple's developer tool, whie it isn't made for overclocking, does allow one to fiddle with register settings in the CPU.

I haven't tried it myself, have no clue if it works, and don't know enough about how these things work to be able to dismiss it as impossible. If anyone does, I'd be interested to learn more.

climber · Jun 4, 2002, 05:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NDBounce:
I could be wrong, but I have never heard of any mac being able to be overclocked via software. I think you have to physically move some jumpers or something on the chip.

And I definitely wouldn't expect to be able to overclock a mac with a tool put out by Apple...they don't exactly smile on people overclocking their machines.<hr /></blockquote>Well that is exactly what XLR8yourmac is reporting today. Using apple software to do it.

flatcatch · Jun 4, 2002, 06:33 PM

Ok, caution to the wind, I'm going to try this. I'm ready to flip the bits, but first I want to find a OS X CPU clock speed utility (that works). I'm searching now, but any suggestions?

jtc · Jun 4, 2002, 09:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by flatcatch:
Ok, caution to the wind, I'm going to try this. I'm ready to flip the bits, but first I want to find a OS X CPU clock speed utility (that works). I'm searching now, but any suggestions?<hr /></blockquote>You could try <a href="http://www.mkd.cc/files/apps/OverclockersHelper10b1.sit" target="_blank">overclockers helper</a>. Could you tell me which values are checked (out of the 0-32) for HID1. You have the 700 I'm guessing?

flatcatch · Jun 4, 2002, 10:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jtc:
Could you tell me which values are checked (out of the 0-32) for HID1. You have the 700 I'm guessing?<hr /></blockquote>I'd love to have this conversation over at xlr8yourmac's bbs, but registration is locked so I can't post.

The default HID1 flagged bits on my iBook 700 are 1, 2, 3, 25, 29. Note that bit 15 is set when you select Low Power Mode ("Reduce Processor Performance") from the Energy Saver preference pane.

Anyhow, I gave this a shot and it didn't work. Some notes:

I ran RC5 in the background to watch keys/sec to determine cpu speed changes:

1) Default everything: RC5 reports ~2.3M keys/sec

2) I set bit 15 and apply just to test, RC5 drops to ~1.3M keys/sec. I then clear bit 15 again to get back to normal.

3) Per the instructions, I set bit 24, and clear 25 though 30.

4) Click apply - nothing appears to happen. RC5 keys/sec are unchanged.

5) I set bit 15 per the instructions and things go to hell. A bunch of debug text appears on the screen and then locks up.

6) Rebooted and everything is fine (the HID1 values appear to reset on boot)

So, either my CPU can't handle 800Mhz or the posted instructions aren't entirely correct. Perhaps bit 15 activates the software selected multiplier (that being the default bit 25 + 29 value for "low power" mode). Perhaps bit 24 through 31 act as an 8 bit virtual jumper, but until I get more information on the layout I don't plan on experimenting.

jtc · Jun 4, 2002, 11:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by flatcatch:
 I'd love to have this conversation over at xlr8yourmac's bbs, but registration is locked so I can't post.

The default HID1 flagged bits on my iBook 700 are 1, 2, 3, 25, 29. Note that bit 15 is set when you select Low Power Mode ("Reduce Processor Performance") from the Energy Saver preference pane.

Anyhow, I gave this a shot and it didn't work. Some notes:

I ran RC5 in the background to watch keys/sec to determine cpu speed changes:

1) Default everything: RC5 reports ~2.3M keys/sec

2) I set bit 15 and apply just to test, RC5 drops to ~1.3M keys/sec. I then clear bit 15 again to get back to normal.

3) Per the instructions, I set bit 24, and clear 25 though 30.

4) Click apply - nothing appears to happen. RC5 keys/sec are unchanged.

5) I set bit 15 per the instructions and things go to hell. A bunch of debug text appears on the screen and then locks up.

6) Rebooted and everything is fine (the HID1 values appear to reset on boot)

So, either my CPU can't handle 800Mhz or the posted instructions aren't entirely correct. Perhaps bit 15 activates the software selected multiplier (that being the default bit 25 + 29 value for "low power" mode). Perhaps bit 24 through 31 act as an 8 bit virtual jumper, but until I get more information on the layout I don't plan on experimenting.<hr /></blockquote>I have (on my 600) 1,2 25 and 29. 1,2 and 3 are not changeable, and seem to indicate the CPU speed. The hex value at the top (0x60000044 on mine) changes to 0x70000044 if I check the third box, but the setting isn't saved after pressing apply. The values between 24 and 30 seem to change the speed when "reduce processor speed" is selected. I would like to figure these out. On my 600, checking 25,26,27,28,29 and 30 seems to change the CPU speed to 750 (guessing be dnet benchmarks - not the most scientific way but the app I linked to above doesn't seem to work).
I would guess that everything is working on yours, but your CPU can't do 800.

[ 06-04-2002, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: jtc ]

BTP · Jun 4, 2002, 11:17 PM

I tried with my new 700, and it just locked up on step 7.

jtc-

It won't work on a 600. It doesn't use the correct chip needed for this procedure.

EDIT: Whoops. I was a bit hasty. I mean unless it is the new 600 announced last week.

[ 06-04-2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: BTP ]

flatcatch · Jun 5, 2002, 12:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jtc:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by flatcatch:
 I'd love to have this conversation over at xlr8yourmac's bbs, but registration is locked so I can't post.

The default HID1 flagged bits on my iBook 700 are 1, 2, 3, 25, 29. Note that bit 15 is set when you select Low Power Mode ("Reduce Processor Performance") from the Energy Saver preference pane.

Anyhow, I gave this a shot and it didn't work. Some notes:

I ran RC5 in the background to watch keys/sec to determine cpu speed changes:

1) Default everything: RC5 reports ~2.3M keys/sec

2) I set bit 15 and apply just to test, RC5 drops to ~1.3M keys/sec. I then clear bit 15 again to get back to normal.

3) Per the instructions, I set bit 24, and clear 25 though 30.

4) Click apply - nothing appears to happen. RC5 keys/sec are unchanged.

5) I set bit 15 per the instructions and things go to hell. A bunch of debug text appears on the screen and then locks up.

6) Rebooted and everything is fine (the HID1 values appear to reset on boot)

So, either my CPU can't handle 800Mhz or the posted instructions aren't entirely correct. Perhaps bit 15 activates the software selected multiplier (that being the default bit 25 + 29 value for "low power" mode). Perhaps bit 24 through 31 act as an 8 bit virtual jumper, but until I get more information on the layout I don't plan on experimenting.<hr /></blockquote>I have (on my 600) 1,2 25 and 29. 1,2 and 3 are not changeable, and seem to indicate the CPU speed. The hex value at the top (0x60000044 on mine) changes to 0x70000044 if I check the third box, but the setting isn't saved after pressing apply. The values between 24 and 30 seem to change the speed when "reduce processor speed" is selected. I would like to figure these out. On my 600, checking 25,26,27,28,29 and 30 seems to change the CPU speed to 750 (guessing be dnet benchmarks - not the most scientific way but the app I linked to above doesn't seem to work).
I would guess that everything is working on yours, but your CPU can't do 800.<hr /></blockquote>fyi - my HID1 bits 1-3 are read only as well.

flatcatch · Jun 5, 2002, 09:03 PM

If anyone is interested in this, check out <a href="http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000500.html" target="_blank">this forum over at xlr8yourmac</a>. From that forum:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />checking the specs file Michiro linked to shows

Pg 13 under "features" section in power section it notes
"dual PLLs for seamless frequency switching"

and page 16 para 3.2 Power notes (bold emphasis mine)
<blockquote>quote:<hr />"includes two PLLs allowing the processor clock frequency to be changed "on-the-fly" to match processing requirements.

During reset PLL0 is selected to provide the internal processor (i.e core) clock. The external clock to core clock multiplier is selected using external pins. Thereafter, PLL0 and PLL1 may be controlled using software. The HID1 register contains fields that specify the frequency range of each PLL, the clock multiplier for each PLL, external or internal control of PLL0 and a bit to choose which PLL is selected as the source of the processor clock at any given time.<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>

jtc · Jun 5, 2002, 09:28 PM

My 600 is completely stable at 700 or 750, but won't do 800 either. I thought I read that the 750fx chips started at 700, so I'm guessing that all the 600s are really 700s under-clocked, and should do 700, 750 and maybe some will do 800. This doesn't seem to work when on battery power, and unplugging the power cord while oc'ing this way locks up my machine immediately - so this isn't very useful to me since I'm usually not plugged in.

[ 06-05-2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: jtc ]

flatcatch · Jun 5, 2002, 10:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jtc:
My 600 is completely stable at 700 or 750, but won't do 800 either. I thought I read that the 750fx chips started at 700, so I'm guessing that all the 600s are really 700s under-clocked, and should do 700, 750 and maybe some will do 800. This doesn't seem to work when on battery power, and unplugging the power cord while oc'ing this way locks up my machine immediately - so this isn't very useful to me since I'm usually not plugged in.<hr /></blockquote>I am stable at "750Mhz" using HID1 bits 25-30. That speed it my best guess as well, since my rc5 keys/sec seem to jump about 6% to 7% when I use that setting (and 750Mhz is about a 7% increase from my 700Mhz model).

However, I do freeze immediately after going to battery power. Maybe once someone figures out which bits relate to PLL0 and PLL1 (see my previous post for these) this can be overcome, Anyhow, this is all pretty interesting though, since software overclocking certainly seems to be a reality with the 750EX.

jtc · Jun 6, 2002, 11:54 AM

Looks like 750 might not be stable. I got an error while compiling, so I brought it back down to 600 and recompiled - no error. The reggie hack is a neat trick, but it's looking like it's not worth the effort for 10% or so increase in speeed.

T u r b o · Jun 7, 2002, 12:06 AM

I have a new ibook 600 (750FX), but the HID1 bits are all marked 'read-only' in reggie... Am I missing something?

- Mike

flatcatch · Jun 7, 2002, 01:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by T u r b o:
I have a new ibook 600 (750FX), but the HID1 bits are all marked 'read-only' in reggie... Am I missing something?

- Mike<hr /></blockquote>Sorry, can't be of help. Even my read-only bits (1-3) allow me to attempt to change them, even though they won't persist the new value after I click "Apply". All I had to do was install the dev tools, install CHUD, launch reggie, and flip bits.

All of this software overclocking brings up an interesting point though, since we now (or do we?) have an "opportunity" to void our warranty with software alone. My 700Mhz iBook only seems to like 750Mhz, no higher, so I don't think there'd be much of a heat damage issue though. Still it'd be nice to find a robust CPU monitoring app for X (temp and Mhz).

T u r b o · Jun 7, 2002, 10:56 PM

Ok then, what version of CHUD/reggie are you all using? I just noticed that the version currently up on Apple's site is a 2.0 beta dated 6/5/2002. I wonder if they updated it and no longer allow fiddling with the HID1 registers?

Are you using the 1.1.1 CHUD kit from 3/2002? If so, could somebody put it up somewhere (apple's FTP site doesn't have the 1.1.1 release anymore) if that's the one that works?

Thanks.

- Mike

jtc · Jun 8, 2002, 01:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by T u r b o:
Ok then, what version of CHUD/reggie are you all using? I just noticed that the version currently up on Apple's site is a 2.0 beta dated 6/5/2002. I wonder if they updated it and no longer allow fiddling with the HID1 registers?

Are you using the 1.1.1 CHUD kit from 3/2002? If so, could somebody put it up somewhere (apple's FTP site doesn't have the 1.1.1 release anymore) if that's the one that works?

Thanks.

- Mike<hr /></blockquote>Mine is listed as 2.1.1 in the about box, but the package says CHUD_2.0.0b14.pkg. The one up on apple's website is CHUD_2.0.0b16.pkg, so it looks like they put a new one up that fixes this.

[ 06-08-2002, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: jtc ]

Panzer · Jun 8, 2002, 01:07 AM

For whatever it's worth, the one I have is dated May 24, and is version 2.0.0b14. I see that the current one is 2.0.0b17.
I downloaded it when I first found out about all this on Monday.
Don't know if it works since I don't have a new iBook

flatcatch · Jun 8, 2002, 01:38 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by T u r b o:
Ok then, what version of CHUD/reggie are you all using? I just noticed that the version currently up on Apple's site is a 2.0 beta dated 6/5/2002. I wonder if they updated it and no longer allow fiddling with the HID1 registers?

Are you using the 1.1.1 CHUD kit from 3/2002? If so, could somebody put it up somewhere (apple's FTP site doesn't have the 1.1.1 release anymore) if that's the one that works?

Thanks.

- Mike<hr /></blockquote>Very interesting... maybe Apple did pull the plug on our fun new experiments. I have CHUD_2.0.0b14 dated May-24-2002. Mike, <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=email;ToWhom=00007592" target="_blank">email</a> or <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=private_message;u=00007592" target="_blank">PM</a> if you want b14.

T u r b o · Jun 9, 2002, 12:40 AM

That was it! b14 works just fine.

Can't believe those bitches at apple, sheesh

Now to go and screw up my ibook!@#$

- Mike

Jet Powers · Jul 22, 2002, 02:19 AM

flatcatch:

ygm

Jet

joltguy · Jul 22, 2002, 07:39 AM

So I'm reading here that these software overclocking methods don't work for those of use with a 600MHz G3. Would it be correct then to assume then that the Energy Saver feature to reduce processor usage/increase battery life does not have the desired result as well? Both operations are based on the same principle, right?

flatcatch · Jul 23, 2002, 02:04 AM

Everyone who has emailed me for b14 check your email for the link. And for anyone else who hasn't asked yet, get it from my iTools drive while iTools is still free! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/~skylars/CHUD.htm" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/~skylars/CHUD.htm</a>

(Might as well download it now while you can, even if you don't plan on using it now... there may be some future hacks that may require b14).

Good luck all!

klinux · Jul 23, 2002, 04:21 AM

THANKS!

klinux · Jul 23, 2002, 04:58 AM

THANKS!