you can get a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take a butchers word for it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Confirmed and Possible Flashable GTX 680 Models
- Thread starter xcodeSyn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You said they were fully functional with all DVI working.
Completely not true.
You claim to never have read those Netkas posts, but obviously you are working with Rankel and he has posted in that exact thread. Quite a coincidence. Just asking you guys to be honest, that's all. You want people to test your rom tries? Say that, don't present them as finished when you haven't even tested them.
You'll likely get them working, I'm just saying that misrepresenting things and claiming you haven't read threads that you are clearly linked too (you paraphrased me wrong and have mis-identified the rom sections, BTW) doesn't give anyone a good feeling.
Just be honest. Say, "Hey we are trying to figure this out, who will help?" not "Hey, we got it all figured out, here they are".
Last edited by a moderator:
Alright, please give this a try and post some feedback. Thank you
This one works as far as boot screens, but still only one DVI port working on OSX (Both DVI ports working on Windows 10 with no problems). This is on a MSI GTX 680 4GB model.
You and me, we're past being cordial. I replied with info to anyone who sent me a private message, but I don't work with any one specific member on this forum. I have got to be honest: I wasted most of my time on you, something that I won't do from now on.
Believe what you want, but the truth is that I didn't even know about the thread that you mentioned before. You're more than welcome to feed into your paranoia thinking that everyone needs something from you. I for one don't. I haven't asked you for help, haven't even talked to you. I can respect a business and that it needs money to thrive, but a can't respect a bully. Apparently you’re trying to be both.
You and honesty don't even belong in the same sentence. I was very enthusiastic that I finally understood how it all fitted together and wanted to share with others.
Business must be pretty lousy if you have all this time at your disposal to spend here and worry about little old me and my level of honesty.
Not sure where all of the anger comes from.
You posted 6 or 5 roms and said they all worked.
From a casual glance I could tell they had multiple errors and I warned MR readers as a courtesy. Sending untested Kepler roms out is dangerous.
You represented them as something they weren't, and having non-technical people do your testing isn't a good idea.
But do try to do something about that anger, won't help you find the part of EFI where the 2nd DVI port is broken, any more then insulting me or what I do for a living.
When posting untested roms/apps/whatever, usual practice is to use the word "Beta". Let's people know they might not have fully functional things.
I was not aware of this mans work until he posted it here. I am actively seeking info, and was alerted to this posting very soon after it was posted. Yes, I commented in his thread because he is doing exactly what I seek to do. Your comment seems very paranoid, as if we were conspiring against you.
I think that the phrasing of the first post is irrelevant. I don't think it is anyone's business to do what you are doing, Rominator/MacVidCards/Whoever. I thank you for your combination of helpfulness, vagueness, and condescending air in the very beginning of my trials. If this is all you have to contribute at this point, as has been requested of you multiple times by multiple people (including a mod), PLEASE keep quiet. Your input thus-far is not welcome.
The phrasing isn't "irrelevant"
They were presented as done & fully working, all ports functional.
They are mostly untested, none worked completely as claimed. Not one of them. He doesn't even know what part is what in the rom.
Flashing the WRONG Kepler rom can easily brick a card. EASILY. If people are going to be guinea pigs and may end up with bricked card, they should know that.
A bricked card isn't "irrelevant".
I will leave you guys alone, I just don't understand why admitting that these are untested is such a contentious issue.
"failed to merge inforom image" means bad things, no easy fix. They need to know that.
Last edited:
Not taking sides here however,
1.Moonshot claimed they were all fully functioning roms - which fooled me into believing this might be the case after reading his post.
2. MVC claimed they might not work (which I took as a be careful when using these roms)
3. Then the slanging off at MVC started.
4. I have never bought a card or rom off MVC, but fooled around with roms and flashed a few cards of my own- so I am what you might consider impartial.
5. Facts are Facts and I dont think MVC strayed away from this.
6. Lets help each other by testing these roms at your own risk and not claim which is obviously not true when you post roms.
6. I appreciate everyones input - Its great we are all on the same page trying to get mac roms to work on our PC cards.
1.Moonshot claimed they were all fully functioning roms - which fooled me into believing this might be the case after reading his post.
2. MVC claimed they might not work (which I took as a be careful when using these roms)
3. Then the slanging off at MVC started.
4. I have never bought a card or rom off MVC, but fooled around with roms and flashed a few cards of my own- so I am what you might consider impartial.
5. Facts are Facts and I dont think MVC strayed away from this.
6. Lets help each other by testing these roms at your own risk and not claim which is obviously not true when you post roms.
6. I appreciate everyones input - Its great we are all on the same page trying to get mac roms to work on our PC cards.
Anyone doing this should be fully aware of the risks. Though for the record I have flashed every rom on this post to a 680 4gb classy and a msi 680 4gb. none of the roms bricked the card.
If anyone bricks a card and is unable to fix it, PM me: I will recover your card for free. Just ship it to me with a return shipping label. This applies to flashing bricks only.
This is a very part time hobby, I have children to raise and a lab to coordinate; but recovering the card is easy. Maximum of 4 working days turnaround time.
If anyone bricks a card and is unable to fix it, PM me: I will recover your card for free. Just ship it to me with a return shipping label. This applies to flashing bricks only.
This is a very part time hobby, I have children to raise and a lab to coordinate; but recovering the card is easy. Maximum of 4 working days turnaround time.
Rankel, thanks for testing that. Did any of them work? (i.e. boot screens and upper DVI port)
If not, I feel the project is actually taking a step backward. The 4GB ROM in Dr. Stealth's thread at least has the boot screen working, and works on a wide range of 4GB cards.
Moonshot, forgive my ignorance on this ROM stuff, but shouldn't that ROM be the starting point?
That ROM is just the 2GB Mac Edition ROM with module #2 modified to detect all 4GB RAM. I am of the creed that cross-flashing cards is a bad idea and that everyone should make their own Mac Pro compatible ROM starting from their original PC ROM that came with their cards.
Two issues that are left to be figured out:
1) Get both DVI ports working properly, something that I obviously missed. I thought that once I use the original PC ROM and do minimal changes to it everything will be okay. It worked for me, testing on one display, so I sold my GTX 680 4GB. Now I have to get another one.
2) Figure out wy only cards that already had a PC/Windows uEFI will work when the uEFI module gets replaced with the Mac EFI module. Out of the 5 ROMs that I've posted only the ASUS and the MSI ROMs show boot screens because only they had originally a valid PC uEFI module. The other three - EVGA GTX 680 Plus, EVGA GTX 680 Classified and Gigabyte GTX 680 did not have a valid PC uEFI module. I only tested the ASUS ROM and it worked perfectly fine, but since I only tested it with one display, I missed the issue with the other DVI port.
Once these two issues are resolved I can post a write-up so that everyone can splice together their own ROMs. If that works out then we can move on to other video cards, and hopefully engage more community members into participating and working on this.
Would you be able to provide that patched version of nvflash? That functionality hasn't been in nvflash for many versions now. I miss it.
It WOULD be a step backward if we knew exactly how that rom was created. We never make progress because anyone who gives this a go has to recreate the wheel. What we have here is someone publicly starting on a path to make these ROMS and let people know how they are made. I never looked inside a ROM before just a few weeks ago, and have already run into the wall of publicly available information. While I understand why someone like MVC wants to keep things private, I don't understand why others are so stingy.
But that is all beside the point. As far as I know, this is more promising than anything else publicly going on. Do you know of anything else? The Dr. Stealth post doesn't hold promise for progress, just the 680, and just certain models (albeit many of them with minor tweaks).
No, I don't. I really know very little about the ROMs, as I am just an end user. Heck, I have not used a hex editor since the Commodore 64 days.
I suggested the ROM from the Dr. Stealth thread as a starting point because, as a layman, it seems great (boot screens for my particular card and many others as well). But Moonshot (and now you) have explained why that's not a good starting point at all.
I wouldn't really say its a bad starting point, just not any better than anything else. The upside of what moonshot is doing is it would allow a rom to be made specifically to each and every card.
Your point is valid though, the Dr. S rom is more complete than the Moonshot product. This is a work in progress, open to the public. The Dr. S product is as finished as it is going to get.
A short update on this: I've just successfully flashed a GTX 760. Sewing a PC ROM together with the Kepler Mac EFI isn't rocket science, but it's a lot more complicated than with AMD Radeon cards.
To get bootscreens, one only has to modify the the EFI from GTX 680 (fix two IDs inside the compressed EFI and another one in the header). The change becomes very obvious by comparing GTX 680 and Quadro K5000.
Properly combining this with the stock PC ROM will produce a working card with bootscreens, but displayed name in the system profiler will be wrong, the card will only be able to drive a single display at a time and you won't have PCIE 2.0.
The cosmetic name can be fixed easily, and multi-display support is also "sort of" obvious when you know where you've to look at (Nvidia DCB Spec, compare GTX 680 Mac & PC), but PCIE 2.0 is absolutely not obvious (well, unless you have a MVC card to look at , I guess).
People who have flashed Radeon cards before will see the difference: On Radeons, it's literally just "copy & paste & flash", no changes needed in any place. With Nvidia cards, you'll have to do custom modifications for every card. (Btw: Why the f*ck is Nvidia using multiple device IDs for the same GPU?!).
I won't release any half-baked tutorials or ROM files though, as I don't want to brick anyones card. I have a soldering iron and a few matching SO8 SPI flashes here, but I guess most of you won't have that.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the "missing upper DVI issue" btw, but that was said before. I'll do some investigation on this in the next days, but "sadly" my GTX 760 has 4 fully functional ports, so I can't test it on my card.
To get bootscreens, one only has to modify the the EFI from GTX 680 (fix two IDs inside the compressed EFI and another one in the header). The change becomes very obvious by comparing GTX 680 and Quadro K5000.
Properly combining this with the stock PC ROM will produce a working card with bootscreens, but displayed name in the system profiler will be wrong, the card will only be able to drive a single display at a time and you won't have PCIE 2.0.
The cosmetic name can be fixed easily, and multi-display support is also "sort of" obvious when you know where you've to look at (Nvidia DCB Spec, compare GTX 680 Mac & PC), but PCIE 2.0 is absolutely not obvious (well, unless you have a MVC card to look at , I guess
).People who have flashed Radeon cards before will see the difference: On Radeons, it's literally just "copy & paste & flash", no changes needed in any place. With Nvidia cards, you'll have to do custom modifications for every card. (Btw: Why the f*ck is Nvidia using multiple device IDs for the same GPU?!).
I won't release any half-baked tutorials or ROM files though, as I don't want to brick anyones card. I have a soldering iron and a few matching SO8 SPI flashes here, but I guess most of you won't have that.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the "missing upper DVI issue" btw, but that was said before. I'll do some investigation on this in the next days, but "sadly" my GTX 760 has 4 fully functional ports, so I can't test it on my card.
Last edited:
I have had similar success with a GTX770 classified. Just imitated what Florian did above: Stock bios, inserting the modified 680 EFI and cosmetic changes. The boot screen via display port with an adaptor acts all funny though. DVI and HDMI boot screens are normal. After port mapping this issue may not persist.
My card had a UEFI on it before so the stock EEPROM was already 2Mbit => no soldering.
Do you agree to explain how to check the size of the eprom ?
I have flashed some "easy" cards, as 680 or 5770, but im far from an expert.
How does compare the flashed 760 with a 680 ?
Without the PCI2x enabled, its a bit weak with video editing.
The memory is not well refreshed. Thanks.
If it bothers you, do you have links to technical explanations.
Of course the best is to learn.
thanks
I have flashed some "easy" cards, as 680 or 5770, but im far from an expert.
How does compare the flashed 760 with a 680 ?
Without the PCI2x enabled, its a bit weak with video editing.
The memory is not well refreshed. Thanks.
If it bothers you, do you have links to technical explanations.
Of course the best is to learn.
thanks
nvflash will show the eeprom type , e.g. when dumping or flashing a ROM. You'll find the size in the corresponding data sheet.
The GTX 760 uses a smaller version of the 680's GK104 chipset, so it's a little slower.
Note that PCIE 2.0 isn't automatically enabled by attaching the Mac EFI to the ROM, this are completely separate things.
The GTX 760 uses a smaller version of the 680's GK104 chipset, so it's a little slower.
Note that PCIE 2.0 isn't automatically enabled by attaching the Mac EFI to the ROM, this are completely separate things.