can i have good yield this way?

normally about 1 plant per 100W per square foot and a half in basic terms. but you can place a 500W lights in a 2x2 and 5 plants wont work. to tight. even 4 plants will be tight.

Without knowing the size of the rooms, this question is impossible to answer accurately. Your question is a bit like asking how fast your vehicle can go without telling us what sort of vehicle you have.

Lol "short and sweet".....classic Binary It's really gonna boil down to how big of plants you want to grow and how you plan to grow them. A 600w light should be able to cover a 4×4 area decently well for flower. Your goal is to maximize your footprint...no wasted space under your light....wall to wall tops. If you plan to veg out some fairly big plants you should probably run about 4 plants if you are training under a net or maybe 6 if you just wanna let them grow vertical. If you go REALLY big maybe even fewer...but that's a lot of veg time. Alternatively you could opt for a short veg and really cram your flower tent, like 8-12 plants, and run more of a SOG grow that primarily focuses on tops off small plants. In the diaries I've made over the last year I've ran both 4 and 6 plants in a 4×4 under a 500w, those could give you an idea how easily a space can be filled using those numbers, along with roughly how long it takes-of course strain affects that too. I personally try to grow quicker, 7-10 week strains.

Short and sweet: Insufficient information to give an educated guess, but can ask a couple questions to get the answers yourself... Area in squre feet multiplied by 50-60g/sq ft = potential yield of growing area. Expect less unless using clones or culling all the weak plants, if not using clones. How many plants is a choice up to a point. A seedling probably needs 2 weeks before it can go into flower phase - this will be as fast as any autoflower can be, too. Growing ability, environment, and genetics will impact just how small of a plant that vege time amounts to, which will dictate maximum number of plants you can pack in without having to prune wasted growth to fit. number of plants doesn't impact yield, unless you poorly fill the sapce - a self-inflicted mistake. It only impacts required vege time to fill out the space. --- Details of why... Efficacy of various grow light options makes it impossible to answer without that key piece of information. If you use HPS/cmh it'll be a much smaller number for the same number of watts compared to high-end LED grow lights. Given ambient co2, you'll max out at 50-60g/sq ft any time the area is properly filled - whether 1 plant or many and no matter the efficacy of your lights. How much space can your chosen lights cover while providing ~35-40 DLI to the canopy? That is your potential "production" of any 1 yield using the entire space, but time invested is also something to consider to compare "productivity." Productivity is what matters. The rotational aspect of perpetual grows is an added layer of complexity that inevitably reduces potential productivity. Any sort of rotational logistics of a perpetual grow makes it more difficult to maximize growing area. Unless using clones, you'll waste more time in vege due to plants that take longer in flower than expected (roadblock / bottleneck formed), or if you err the other direction you'll waste more time waiting for plants to grow to proper size in vege area (reduces utilization of sq footage). Due to these types of things occurring cyclically and consistently, perpetual grows are always less productive in the long-run. If you want to maximize production per year or whatever increment of time, it ls better to overlap the early weeks that require little to no resources by comparison. Use a small area to keep your tents full with minimal wasted space - better utilization of space and electricity. It'll always be more efficient to run full tents of plants and not some rotational thing going on. The waste from the small area not being used all the time is insignificant by comparison to perpetual grow waste over time. The first 2-3-4 weeks don't require much space or wattage. Don't need a tent or duct fans etc. Can be something temporary and easily stored inbetween uses. Ovarlapping like this can give you 5 harvests per year and less wasted space/resources while doing it. Single greatest way to impact time invested is how many plants you use to fill the sapce. more plants = less vege time up to a point, of course. Regardless, if the space is properly filled, the potential yield is always 50-60g/sq ft given ambient co2 and basic competency in growing. Also expect to fall short of that target unless working with clones of a robust plant or willing to plant enough seed that you can cull the weak and defective. Weak plants or a plant that herms out obvsiouly reduces potential yield. *supplementing co2 will increase that grams per sq ft factor for potential yield, but it will cost more per gram to do it by comparison to ambient co2. So, it's not cost-effective. If you can expand growing area, that's always the better option to increase yield. If you cannot expand the area and need more prodution, then co2 becomes an viable choice but will cost more per gram produced. how many plants is a choice for the most part. there is a minimal size that will result in your garden given your ability, environement and genetic variety. That would dictate the most you can pack in and the shorted vege time possible without pruning wasted growth. When chosing number of plants, consider keeping it symmetrical to the shape of your garden. Number of plants in each row/column should be in proprtional to LxW dimensions so that plants can grow symmetrically. This will be the most efficient time-wise and least amount of pruning wasted growth to fit a non-symmetrical area of responsibility per plant to fill it up properly. Easier to train a symmetrical plant too. No need to be overly anal... Sometimes the resuts of "more optimal" choices are not worth the cost of the incremental difference in outcomes. Common sense is required. Sometimes convenience is more important than some minimal improvement to results, too. If looking at something specific, always take a step back and consider bigger picture to avoid mistakes caused by tunnel-vision..... or fretting over somthing that amounts to a 10-gram difference in dry weight (i.e. small potatoes)... who gives a fuck about 10 grams averaged-out over 80-100 days invested? LOL Still important to understand what "optimal" is to make a smart choice in such situations. *** There are benefits to a perpetual garden. Productivity is quantitatively not one of them. Cost is not one of them, either. Neither is abhorrently smaller given a competent grower, so it can be justified from certain persepctives. Each to their own on that personal opinion.