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

[h9826790]

Well, that's hardly surprising. Apple deals exclusively with AMD GPUs these days; they have no reason to enable higher functionality on what is essentially competing hardware. It seems my decision to switch from nVidia to AMD was a wise choice. Now if only we can get an EFI ROM to flash it with...

That's nothing about AMD / Nvidia GPU, but all PCIe 3.0 cards now can correctly negotiate at 5GT/s with 138.0.0.0.0 in slot 1 and 2.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-mojave-dp7-pb6.2132317/page-24#post-26383809

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-mojave-dp7-pb6.2132317/page-26#post-26388138

Anyway, Nvidia GPU able to work at 5GT/s in macOS long long time ago. But since it's link speed is adjusted dynamically for power saving. It only reported 2.5GT/s in system info. But the card always work in 5GT/s actually. It can easily be confirmed by CL!ng.

[doublepost=1535571935][/doublepost]

I installed 0138 firmware on my 4,1->5,1 with a MVC-flashed 980 and the system info still reports 2.5.

It seems this affect the MVC flashed card, but non flashed may able to show the correct link speed with 138.0.0.0.0

 

[Earl Urley]

Just checked again, its actually a retail EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition card that's negotiating at 5 GT/sec under Mojave PB8..

 

[h9826790]

Just checked again, its actually a retail EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition card that's negotiating at 5 GT/sec under Mojave PB8..

From memory, the genuine GTX680 and HD7950 Mac Edition card always negotiate at 5GT/s

 

[mucunucu]

On Osx y get 5gt on windows 10 i get pci 1.1 on gpuz ????

 

[tsialex]

Oddly enough, another machine running 0138 and an EFI'd GTX 680 has it negotiating at 5 GT/sec, so maybe with NVidias both conditions must be met to get 5 GT/sec (EFI ROM, 0138)

Lot's of people reported 5GT/s with non-flashed GTX 980/1080 here.

 

[h9826790]

On Osx y get 5gt on windows 10 i get pci 1.1 on gpuz ????

There is a little question mark next to the PCIe link speed box, click that, and you will know the answer.

 

[karsten]

5 googletexels here on a bog standard GT710.

 

[kings79]

I've read this thread through and have been watching for some time now and I have to say. WOW. What a fantastic job tsialex and everyone else has done! I'd also like to chip in for the research if I can.

I have a 1,1>2,1 and a 5,1 so I will try and get you a rom dump of the 1,1>2,1. Will have to look at the notes on how to do this...

For my 5,5 I have USB 3.0 & 3.1 card I'd like to unlock 10gbs on. Will this firmware unlock this speed on the 3.1 port? its a Startech PEXUSB312EIC.

2nd question is, is this safe to do? I have a MP51.0089.B00. I'd be doing the firmware upgrade from the Public Beta. I first need to get a metal GPU. Do I need a Rom Dump of my 5,1 as a backup just to be safe?

Thanks again tsialex!

 

[h9826790]

I've read this thread through and have been watching for some time now and I have to say. WOW. What a fantastic job tsialex and everyone else has done! I'd also like to chip in for the research if I can.

I have a 1,1>2,1 and a 5,1 so I will try and get you a rom dump of the 1,1>2,1. Will have to look at the notes on how to do this...

For my 5,5 I have USB 3.0 & 3.1 card I'd like to unlock 10gbs on. Will this firmware unlock this speed on the 3.1 port? its a Startech PEXUSB312EIC.

2nd question is, is this safe to do? I have a MP51.0089.B00. I'd be doing the firmware upgrade from the Public Beta. I first need to get a metal GPU. Do I need a Rom Dump of my 5,1 as a backup just to be safe?

Thanks again tsialex!

Your card seems already running at 5GT/s x2, won't get any faster.

Also, the official webpage says it won't get 10Gbps unless you have PCIe 3.0 connection.

 

[kings79]

cMP doesn't have PCIe 3.0 right?

 

[crjackson2134]

cMP doesn't have PCIe 3.0 right?

Correct.

 

[kings79]

Correct, unless you added it.

How does one add it?

 

[crjackson2134]

How does one add it?

One doesn’t, it was a reading mistake, I had USB 3 on the brain from your previous post.

I tried to redact it before it posted but I was too slow. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[kings79]

Sorry for the confusion.

All good man.

thanks for the clarification.

 

[cococheaf]

Is someone able to create a 138 rom from one of my backups including nvme patch?
I am not able to do it by myself as i have no sata devices anymore and therefore cannot boot into any osx to dump the rom, inject nvme dxe and flash it back... I would provide my working 89 rom with nvme patched...

Thank's and sorry for the dumb questions - BTW - if you want i can also dump the rom of a 1,1->2,1 cMP

 

[tsialex]

Is someone able to create a 138 rom from one of my backups including nvme patch?
I am not able to do it by myself as i have no sata devices anymore and therefore cannot boot into any osx to dump the rom, inject nvme dxe and flash it back... I would provide my working 89 rom with nvme patched...

Thank's and sorry for the dumb questions - BTW - if you want i can also dump the rom of a 1,1->2,1 cMP

Yes, sent PM.

 

[cococheaf]

Yes, sent PM.

Thank you so much! PM sent back. If you PM me your PayPal account, i will spend you a beer for patching my rom

 

[saulinpa]

Nice boot ROM but I suppose they would re-name it back to the standard MP5 nomenclature prior to production release?

I didn't need to put back a card that supports boot screens but did need to attach a monitor as it did not seem to work headless.

This did upgrade the link speed of my RX460 to 5 GT/s

 

[Earl Urley]

Don't know about anyone else, but I am seeing a HUGE improvement with the 138 revision BootROM in a particular category.

I run a distributed project client (BOINC) that has several projects that have GPU based clients. One such client has gone from taking 1 hour 44 minutes to complete one task block down to only 21-22 minutes per task block!

Also very sure they didn't tweak the GPU code right after the BootROM update.

This is with a flashed AMD R9 280x that I was able to overclock a bit a long time ago but didn't see much of a bump in compute speed. Also dedicated 1 CPU core solely to the GPU, still didn't see much difference. I believe the upgraded BootROM let loose the flood gates!

And this is directly attributable to the fine job that tsialex did cleaning up my ROM, thanks!

Wonder if anyone else running something more interactive (like FCP) will report anything..

If RobArt from BareFeats reads this, I hope he tries this out..

Also yeah I'm reading slightly increased temps from the card, about 10-15C hotter on average but I've got Macs Fan Control blasting the PCIe cage..

Fake Edit: Also seeing improved compute on another machine running with an unflashed Sapphire RX380 Nitro, but on that machine there's only one core dedicated to pushing two GPU tasks running simultaneously, and it's doing well at 40 minutes per task.. (it took over 2 hrs, 15 minutes before to do the same tasks) and to think I actually wrecked a PowerColor 280x trying to dig out that stupid resistor... sigh.

 

[MoerBoer]

Don't know about anyone else, but I am seeing a HUGE improvement with the 138 revision BootROM in a particular category.

I run a distributed project client (BOINC) that has several projects that have GPU based clients. One such client has gone from taking 1 hour 44 minutes to complete one task block down to only 21-22 minutes per task block!

Also very sure they didn't tweak the GPU code right after the BootROM update.

This is with a flashed AMD R9 280x that I was able to overclock a bit a long time ago but didn't see much of a bump in compute speed. Also dedicated 1 CPU core solely to the GPU, still didn't see much difference. I believe the upgraded BootROM let loose the flood gates!

And this is directly attributable to the fine job that tsialex did cleaning up my ROM, thanks!

Wonder if anyone else running something more interactive (like FCP) will report anything..

If RobArt from BareFeats reads this, I hope he tries this out..

Also yeah I'm reading slightly increased temps from the card, about 10-15C hotter on average but I've got Macs Fan Control blasting the PCIe cage..

Fake Edit: Also seeing improved compute on another machine running with an unflashed Sapphire RX380 Nitro, but on that machine there's only one core dedicated to pushing two GPU tasks running simultaneously, and it's doing well at 40 minutes per task.. (it took over 2 hrs, 15 minutes before to do the same tasks) and to think I actually wrecked a PowerColor 280x trying to dig out that stupid resistor... sigh.

Is this only in Mojave?

I'm thinking of updating to ROM 138, but still running High Sierra.

 

[Earl Urley]

Nope, it's a 138 BootROM running 10.13.6, machine is running from a system booted from an NVMe M.2/PCIe card.

Haven't tried Mojave on a machine running a GPU client yet.

 

[JoshCalvetti]

(been watching this thread for a while now, finally set up an account after probably a decade of lurking)

Has anyone confirmed the new bootrom works fine with Bootcamp? Excluding APFS, of course. I'm currently running a 4,1 > 5,1 at 10.13.6 on bootrom .0085, but I just set up a system for a friend who wound up with .0089 and for whatever reason I can never get it to boot back into macOS from Windows, even though it's almost the same exact installation as my cMP.

I'd like to update to the new bootrom, but I'm a little concerned it might do something to my finicky windows side. Would love to hear any info from people running Windows 10 on a separate drive. Thanks!

 

[MoerBoer]

Nope, it's a 138 BootROM running 10.13.6, machine is running from a system booted from an NVMe M.2/PCIe card.

Haven't tried Mojave on a machine running a GPU client yet.

Thanks, so you ran the beta installer and did the firmware and booted back into High Sierra?

I'm also running M.2 but AHCI.

 

[bookemdano]

(been watching this thread for a while now, finally set up an account after probably a decade of lurking)

Has anyone confirmed the new bootrom works fine with Bootcamp? Excluding APFS, of course. I'm currently running a 4,1 > 5,1 at 10.13.6 on bootrom .0085, but I just set up a system for a friend who wound up with .0089 and for whatever reason I can never get it to boot back into macOS from Windows, even though it's almost the same exact installation as my cMP.

I'd like to update to the new bootrom, but I'm a little concerned it might do something to my finicky windows side. Would love to hear any info from people running Windows 10 on a separate drive. Thanks!

Are you absolutely positive your friend's macOS install isn't on an APFS-formatted volume? Because the symptom you describe (inability to get back to macOS from Windows) is exactly what happens when the macOS install is APFS. So check that first. If it is indeed APFS, you can jump through hoops to convert it back to HFS+ (though that will not work if you upgrade to Mojave). Or you can leave it on APFS and use the Boot Picker (hold option when you hear the boot chime and choose the macOS install there). There are a couple of other workarounds too.

If you're positive it is formatted HFS+ then maybe try zapping PRAM on his system.

 

[tu2thepoo]

Has anyone confirmed the new bootrom works fine with Bootcamp? ...
I'd like to update to the new bootrom, but I'm a little concerned it might do something to my finicky windows side. Would love to hear any info from people running Windows 10 on a separate drive. Thanks!

I'm running the 138 bootrom, High Sierra 10.13.6, and Windows 10 education (enterprise) on a separate drive. Updating the bootrom did not change any of the boot behavior - I can reboot to windows/reboot to MacOS without any problems. I'm running a 2009 4,1->5,1.

Caveat: My high Sierra drive is HFS+, and my Windows 10 installation is in legacy mode (installed from a DVD). Like you've seen, when I had HS installed on APFS I could not reboot to MacOS from the boot camp control panel (had to soft reboot and rely on the default startup disk settings). When I had Win10 installed in EFI mode (installed from a USB flash drive), I could not reboot from MacOS into Win10 starting with the 89 firmware - MacOS wasn't choosing the right EFI partition to boot into. I haven't tested Win10 EFI with the 138 firmware.

H98 says his Win10 EFI installation works perfectly fine though, so your mileage may vary.