Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MP 1,1-5,1 MacPro5,1: BootROM thread | 144.0.0.0.0

Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
Synchro3 said:
It was the macOS 10.13.5 full installer with the bad MP51.0087.B00 firmware, if I remember correctly.

So I recommend deleting all copy's of that 10.13.5 installer for not accidentally installing the MP51.0087.B00 firmware in the future.
Click to expand...
Yes, MP51.0087.B00 shouldn't be installed.

Mac Pro 5,1 recent firmware releases:

10.13 DP5 with MP51.0083.B00 with initial APFS support
10.13 DP6 with MP51.0084.B00 with APFS support
10.13.4 with MP51.0085.B00 (Mojave DP1/DP2/PB1/DP3/PB2 too)
10.13.5 with MP51.0087.B00 missing the Intel Xeon microcodes
10.13.6 with MP51.0089.B00 updating to the Spectre mitigated microcodes on the April 2 Microcode Update Guidance.
10.14 DP7/PB6 with 138.0.0.0.0 with 5GT/s and new microcodes
10.14.1 DP1 with 139.0.0.0.0
10.14.1 DP3 with 140.0.0.0.0 with NVMe support
10.14.4 DP2 with 141.0.0.0.0
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Speedstar, Fooze, digidow and 4 others
B

bsbeamer

macrumors 601
Sep 19, 2012
4,313
2,713
Synchro3 said:
It was the macOS 10.13.5 full installer with the bad MP51.0087.B00 firmware, if I remember correctly.

So I recommend deleting all copy's of that 10.13.5 installer for not accidentally installing the MP51.0087.B00 firmware in the future.
Click to expand...

Think everyone may be better off having a bootable clone of High Sierra 10.13.6 available on a SATA SSD (they're under $20 for no name brands right now) or on a standard SATA HDD.

Once firmware is updated to something newer, you will not be prompted to install an older version. So once you're past MP51.0087.B00, shouldn't have to worry about it. Everyone should probably be on 138.0.0.0.0 or 140.0.0.0.0 at this point, even if you're on High Sierra full time.
 
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
bsbeamer said:
Think everyone may be better off having a bootable clone of High Sierra 10.13.6 available on a SATA SSD (they're under $20 for no name brands right now) or on a standard SATA HDD.

Once firmware is updated to something newer, you will not be prompted to install an older version. So once you're past MP51.0087.B00, shouldn't have to worry about it. Everyone should probably be on 138.0.0.0.0 or 140.0.0.0.0 at this point, even if you're on High Sierra full time.
Click to expand...
One thing that I only realised recently, there are a lot of people with MP51.007F.B03. People that never did any firmware upgrades because still use old macOS versions or don't have Mac EFI GPUs anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
B

bsbeamer

macrumors 601
Sep 19, 2012
4,313
2,713
tsialex said:
One thing that I only realised recently, there are a lot of people with MP51.007F.B03. People that never did any firmware upgrades because still use old macOS versions or don't have Mac EFI GPUs anymore.
Click to expand...

There were years of people using non-EFI GPU's simply not knowing about firmware updates, or unaware the different process on MacPro5,1 (or 4,1>5,1). Very few of us regularly swapped GPUs with something that wasn't an NVIDIA off the shelf, unmodified version. Really wasn't until I became concerned about the Spectre/Meltdown patch releases that I started swapping an EFI GPU in during updates (or shortly after).

Everyone should probably keep an EFI GPU on hand, even if it's not a Metal GPU. Selling your old OEM hardware is probably not worth the longer-term value. Personally wish I held onto the original 5770 that came with my machine (just in case), but it was replaced with a GTX 680 Mac Edition at the time and never really thought twice about selling it back then. At least I have an EFI GPU to turn to in case it's ever needed and it's Mojave-ready (without web drivers or CUDA). Already on the 140.0.0.0.0 firmware, so between that and the RX 580 should be set for the immediate future in case one ever fails.

Have noticed an uptick in the number of people upgrading MP5,1's to Mojave from much older OS versions. Do not recall the same sort of "jump" for previous OS versions. Do think some of these machines re-entering service the past few years have played a part in this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex Sanders74 and tsialex
Macschrauber

Macschrauber

macrumors 68030
Dec 27, 2015
2,982
1,487
Germany
@tsialex:

Is it worth a note to clear nvram before updating the firmware by

Code: 
sudo nvram -c

or it is pointless ?

I do this before updating in a row, just to feel safe :)
 
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
Macschrauber said:
@tsialex:

Is it worth a note to clear nvram before updating the firmware by

Code: 
sudo nvram -c

or it is pointless ?

I do this before updating in a row, just to feel safe :)
Click to expand...
If the Mac Pro has a NVIDIA GPU that don't have UGA support and need web drivers, it's a problem, so it's not something that helps everyone. For someone that have a original GPU, a NVIDIA with UGA support, a NVIDIA Kepler, or an AMD GPU, cleaning NVRAM helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macschrauber
crjackson2134

crjackson2134

macrumors 601
Mar 6, 2013
4,847
1,957
Charlotte, NC
Macschrauber said:
@tsialex:

Is it worth a note to clear nvram before updating the firmware by

Code: 
sudo nvram -c

or it is pointless ?

I do this before updating in a row, just to feel safe :)
Click to expand...

I do an SMC reset and then an NVRAM reset/clear before updating. I also do an NVRAM clear after updating as well.

The Pre update resets have eliminated occurances whereby the Mac didn’t want to enter into programing mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reindeer_Games, tsialex and Macschrauber
expede

expede

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2018
236
67
Sweden
@tsialex

Looking at your post #2802 and seeing the firmware line-up got me reflecting on two things;

1 Is firmware 141.0.0.0.0 just a security/compatibility upgrade?
2 I miss the old label of firmware. MP51 probably standing for Mac Pro 5.1. Now it is so cold just 141.0.0.0.0. No soul.

/Per
 
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
expede said:
@tsialex

Looking at your post #2802 and seeing the firmware line-up got me reflecting on two things;

1 Is firmware 141.0.0.0.0 just a security/compatibility upgrade?
Click to expand...
Usually, when all Macs get firmware upgrades, it's security related. We'll know exactly what changed when 10.14.4 Security notes are published.
2 I miss the old label of firmware. MP probably standing for Mac Pro. Now it is so cold just 141.0.0.0.0. No soul.

/Per
Click to expand...
Every Mac model BootROM version lost the prefix and changed from hexadecimal to decimal. I liked to old system too.
 
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
crjackson2134 said:
Heads-Up

New DP released today. I haven't had a chance to check for any firmware updates...
Click to expand...
Still the same 141.0.0.0.0:

Code: 
MP51.88Z.F000.B00.1812191621
‰Apple ROM Version
  Model:        MP51
  EFI Version:  141.0.0.0.0
  Date:         Wed Dec 19 16:15:33 2018
  Build Type:   Release
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reindeer_Games
V

vintagealuminum

macrumors newbie
Apr 23, 2018
8
2
I have macpro 5.1 with 10.13.4 and boot rom
MP51.0085.B00 actually ( i don't want to update this drive for security reasons, my work....i am scared)
,
i would like to install 10.13.6.02 with the latest boot rom availaible for high sierra 10.13.6.02 on new classic ssd,
i have the installer 10.13.6.02 ready on usb key and empty ssd,
which procedure i should use to have the boot rom updated?
sorry, i am little lost with all updates and procedures.
thank you!
 
Last edited:
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: kings79
V

vintagealuminum

macrumors newbie
Apr 23, 2018
8
2
bsbeamer said:
Do you have an EFI GPU?
Your signature appears to show GTX 1060 only, which I assume was not flashed?

Firmware needs to be on MP51.0089.B00 before installing Mojave. If GTX 1060 is your current GPU, it is unsupported in Mojave.

Please re-read this thread again:
MP5,1: What you have to do to upgrade to Mojave
Click to expand...
thank you,

no i have only gtx 1060 or GT120 original card, so i need probably the ati for this update :(

thank you.
 
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
I was checking what Apple released yesterday on the Seed channel, to check any new firmware updates to my other Macs and opened the Mac App Store to check the last build of 10.13.6 Security Update 2019-002.

This is what I saw when opened the Past Purchases list, now sorted alphabetically:

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 06.08.39.png


Just took 8 years to do this…
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjar, tommy chen, Synchro3 and 4 others
B

bsbeamer

macrumors 601
Sep 19, 2012
4,313
2,713
tsialex said:
I was checking what Apple released yesterday on the Seed channel, to check any new firmware updates to my other Macs and opened the Mac App Store to check the last build of 10.13.6 Security Update 2019-002.

This is what I saw when opened the Past Purchases list, now sorted alphabetically:

View attachment 822529

Just took 8 years to do this…
Click to expand...

There appears to be a date bug in App Store right now. Purchases from January/February 2019 show their actual purchase date but everything else shows as January 1, 1970. Only the downloads from "January 1, 1970" are sorted by name. Still cannot force sort by app name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
tsialex

tsialex

Contributor
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
bsbeamer said:
There appears to be a date bug in App Store right now. Purchases from January/February 2019 show their actual purchase date but everything else shows as January 1, 1970. Only the downloads from "January 1, 1970" are sorted by name. Still cannot force sort by app name.
Click to expand...
My rMBP with 10.13.6 2019-002:

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 10.20.24.png


Seems that Apple changed it in this, or in the last, build of 10.13.6 Security Update 2019-002.
 
h9826790

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
16,656
8,587
Hong Kong
Used the native tool inside macOSUpd10.14.4.RecoveryHDUpdate to update to 141.0.0.0.0
Screenshot 2019-02-19 at 9.33.46 PM.png


Fully stable so far. No adverse effect.
Screenshot 2019-02-19 at 9.33.15 PM.png
 
Last edited:
B

bsbeamer

macrumors 601
Sep 19, 2012
4,313
2,713
Same microcodes (version 31) for dual X5690 with 140.0.0.0.0 firmware.

The only difference I can spot from this screenshot vs my report would be for physical cpu address bits (40 vs 36) but do not believe that is firmware update related.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom