Have you tried a deep NVRAM reset? Do you have any other macOS installs or do you have a Mojave disk you can boot from?
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.
MP 1,1-5,1 Manually Configured OpenCore on the Mac Pro
- Thread starter cdf
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I am about to try it after I finish this coffee, and then I'm going to reflash my bootROM to see if that also does anything, since option 2 depends upon a healthy bootROM.
I do have Mojave on my "maintenance" ssd, for when I have to reflash the bootROM. It lives outside of my cMP. I remove all of my other drives and insert just the maintenance drive into slot 1 everytime I reflash the bootROM. When that is finished, I remove it, install back my OC, Windows, and other drives, and I put the Maintenance drive back in the box with the RX-580.
This isn't the first time i've dealt with stuff like this, but was just saddened that it didn't go as smooth as some of the reports i've read from everyone else...
Last edited:
I had a similar issue a while back, the NVRAM reset fixed it (post is in this thread):
Deep (7 chimes) NVRAM Reset and BootROM flash didn't do anything.
I was still getting KP's at this time, but I figured out the solution, so if you are experiencing something similar -- see post # 11,858 below
I was still getting KP's at this time, but I figured out the solution, so if you are experiencing something similar -- see post # 11,858 below
Last edited:
I did as well - I think it was a Big Sur point update but I got stuck with an apparently failed install that wouldn't boot until I did a deep NVRAM reset and that allowed me to complete the install.
Yeah, i've had that happen to me in the past when I added this new Crucial drive. I installed a fresh copy of Big Sur and had the same thing where an NVRAM cleaned it all up and let it complete, but sadly, isn't working on Monterey.
I've done a deep NVRAM reset and refreshed my BootROM on my system including my MATT card, so maybe installing Monterey this time around will work. my config and crash log are above if interested.
Will report back if I am successful, and with the fix for anyone else that experiences this.
Voila!
I figured it out, but had to reinstall Monterey via recovery.
I had NOT "enabled" ASPP Override!
So the lesson learned here is -- ALWAYS make sure to thoroughly read through your config, especially when you are updating through OpenCore versions!
I didn't have time to keep up with the incremental updates since 0.8.0, so I had to jump from 0.8.0 up to 0.8.5, and while doing that, I missed that I had to enable ASPP Override (I had already added ASPP into my config when I upgraded to 0.8.0 from 0.7.9, but because it wasn't needed in Big Sur, I just kept it disabled, in anticipation for when I would eventually get to Monterey) I forgot about that, but as soon as I enabled it, everything was fine.
I did have to reinstall Monterey via booting into Recovery from within the OC boot menu, but now all is well!
Cheers!
...now to update my sig!
I figured it out, but had to reinstall Monterey via recovery.
I had NOT "enabled" ASPP Override!
So the lesson learned here is -- ALWAYS make sure to thoroughly read through your config, especially when you are updating through OpenCore versions!
I didn't have time to keep up with the incremental updates since 0.8.0, so I had to jump from 0.8.0 up to 0.8.5, and while doing that, I missed that I had to enable ASPP Override (I had already added ASPP into my config when I upgraded to 0.8.0 from 0.7.9, but because it wasn't needed in Big Sur, I just kept it disabled, in anticipation for when I would eventually get to Monterey) I forgot about that, but as soon as I enabled it, everything was fine.
I did have to reinstall Monterey via booting into Recovery from within the OC boot menu, but now all is well!
Cheers!
...now to update my sig!
Last edited:
This is weird, it's just happened again. I have changed LauncherOption to Full and have been messing with updating to 22H2, which doesn't seem to want to take (but that's a different story). No issues with OC being bypassed.
Last night I applied the latest updates to my Windows 11 21H2 install and no problems. Reboots bring up OC first, all good. Shut down, then come back this morning, cold boot - bam, we're straight into Windows and OC is out of the loop again.
I'll go through my EFI partitions again and delete everything except for the OC one and my Mojave rescue, see where that lands me.
Lands me with a working Windows 11 22H2 install on this Mac Pro!
Used AveYo's "bypass11" scripts from MediaCreationTool.bat after making sure the system was completely up to date and that I had deleted the Boot/Bootx64.efi from the Windows drive (leaving the Microsoft directory there of course). For whatever reason the upgrade went perfectly this time. Just going to try a reboot to macOS now...
UPDATE: OC was still blessed and working, back in macOS now. Boot/Bootx64.efi had reappeared on the Windows drive's EFI partition, so I've just knocked that on the head again.
Last edited:
This is not the OCLP forum (neither is it the OCPL forum). See Post 1.
This forum is focused on how to use an OpenCore boot loader to install, run, and update macOS Catalina, Big Sur or Monterey on the MacPro5,1, resulting in a clean, unaltered operating system just like on a supported Mac.
OCLP is quite different, it alters the basic installation via root patching for many macs.
This forum is focused on how to use an OpenCore boot loader to install, run, and update macOS Catalina, Big Sur or Monterey on the MacPro5,1, resulting in a clean, unaltered operating system just like on a supported Mac.
OCLP is quite different, it alters the basic installation via root patching for many macs.
I found this video
I don’t want to experiment with the OCLP yet, but maybe someone knows what the settings are in the smbios spoof level?
if we set up, like cdf in post number 1, are we all ok? or is there something better?
I don’t want to experiment with the OCLP yet, but maybe someone knows what the settings are in the smbios spoof level?
if we set up, like cdf in post number 1, are we all ok? or is there something better?
So, accordingly to the end of this video, 2012 Macs that have AVX and can run Ventura with almost no patching besides adding the GPU drivers and METAL compilers back are in some way related to the issues MacPro5,1 (he also added the 3,1 to the same line of thought) have with Ventura. Being kind, this is beyond an uninformed take.
SMBIOS spoofing of iMacPro1,1 or MacPro7,1 are needed for VideoToolBox hardware assistance (aka AMD hardware acceleration) and other resources like Continuity.
Last edited:
I meant that there was a change in the OCLP settings that he achieved a performance improvement of 30% in the geekbench4
Running benchmarks faster don't make real life workflows faster. Makes even less sense if your workflow needs something that demands spoofing, like video encoding, for example.
OCLP devs never fine-tuned for Mac Pros specific needs, they didn't even had the hardware configs that we usually have here available, this started to change recently, but they still don't have GPUs newer than Polaris.
Edit: this is not a criticism of OCLP, I'm very grateful for OCLP development efforts and we should help OCLP with hardware donations, suggestions and pull requests.
Last edited:
Why should they do that? When coming in here with an OCLP related question you know the final/standard answer. And non of you guys spent time on developing or enhancing OCLP. With all your knowledge it will be so easy. Just fork OCLP on Github, implement changes and start a pull request!
It never came into your mind to share your valuable knowledge? My impression is that there is an island mentality deeply burned into the DNA of this thread. If you do not overcome it you might have to write your own patcher, but it has become easy after the OCLP devs solved most of the problems (VA is an open one, the solution is even known, the tools to get there are broken and need further development). Another play ground to waste a lot of energy and development skills.
About your GPU statement: Wrong, again!
I'm not criticizing OCLP devs, I'm very grateful for all efforts and I'm frequently trying to change the perception here. You got my last post completely wrong.
About the GPUs, AFAIK @khronokernel stated that last week.
GPU situation got better during the last days, do not forget he is a student and cannot afford to purchase a 2000 USD dGPU just for fun/development.
About the Ventura situation:
Personally I am a little bit frustrated because my (beloved) iMacs hit the same (AVX/AVX2) road block like the MacPro5,1 Macs - we will (likely) have to live with patching in the future. The worst thing is: Code has not changed, one can link nearly one by one the AVX with the pre AVX instructions within the AMD driver stack or the OpenCl stack. Changing the compiler switch just broke older Intel CPU support.
We can hope for the white knight bringing the AVX2 emulator out of the blue. If this does not happen (we have some time to wait and spend until we are forced to move away from Monterey) you (power users from this thread) could start to optimize the MacPro5,1 settings within OCLP. You loose nothing, but you will have at least a potential solution for another year of macOS support.
Sorry about about my last post. When translating from my native tongue to english the direct approach of my own language cannot be really disguised.
Yes, maybe someone in Canada that have a spare VEGA/NAVI GPU could donate it to the cause. I bet that a BCM94360CD kit will also be useful.
Sure, I wrote about it some days ago, if I can avoid, I prefer to not patch at all. Now we can't overcome the roadblock with just careful hardware upgrades and patching will be needed for Ventura.
If patching get me one more release of macOS running until the next Mac Pro is released, excellent. I know that I'm not going to buy a brand new Mac Pro, but I bet that a used Mac Studio will be in my future, when the second hand market prices drop to reasonable levels after the next Mac Pro is released.
Two more years of Monterey support, maybe Syncretic will get all the problems solved with AVX emulation long before that.
Yes, if people here start to test OCLP and see all the issues then suggest improvements, make pull requests, everyone wins.
No problem, this also happened with me before. =)
The change was to remove the board-ID spoofing (board-ID-only spoofing is called “hybridization” in post #1 and “minimal spoofing” in OCLP), but as @tsialex mentioned, this type of spoofing is important for hardware acceleration and other key features. So the default settings mentioned in post #1 as well as those used in OCLP are indeed correct.
Recall that sleeping and waking the machine before a GPU intensive task (including running a benchmark) can improve performance to a similar degree. I wonder if toggling the spoofing level and rebooting is not having the same effect…
As a postscript, I should mention that minimal spoofing is mostly specific to Mac Pros because so far it’s the only way we’ve managed to enable hardware acceleration. With SecureBootModel, it also allows for macOS updates and installations. In contrast, for other unsupported Macs, the use of VMM (cleverly implemented in OCLP with a kernel patch in OC) is the cleanest way of allowing for macOS updates and installations.
I mention this because recently the unsupported Mac thread on MR has been spreading a false belief about the general use of spoofing, particularly for Ventura...
I mention this because recently the unsupported Mac thread on MR has been spreading a false belief about the general use of spoofing, particularly for Ventura...
For technical knowledge only, what chips do we need to look for?
Advanced Vector Extensions - Wikipedia
AFAIK Ventura needs AVX2 and this is Haswell+
So all Macs from Late 2013 and newer are good to go.
All Intel CPU from 2011+ starting with Sandy Bridge support AVX(1). But this is definitively not sufficient for Ventura as I can report first handed from countless tests here.