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

MP51.0087.B00 10.13.5 BootROM update: Missing Microcode...

hi all!
pardon my noob question, but is there any avantage to reinject the newest microcodes on a 2x3,46 cMP 4.1?
I mean does it makes a hell of a difference?
so far my last firmware upgrade was going from 4.1 to 5.1, I‘m planing to add NVME support thanks to Gilles@polysoft and dosdude1 so if i touch the firmware i‘d like to do all what needs to be done in order to only do it once!!!!
are microcode just some fancy correction for scientific precision, or will it improve rendering time in video?
thanks in advance for your help!
 
edgerider said:
hi all!
pardon my noob question, but is there any avantage to reinject the newest microcodes on a 2x3,46 cMP 4.1?
I mean does it makes a hell of a difference?
so far my last firmware upgrade was going from 4.1 to 5.1, I‘m planing to add NVME support thanks to Gilles@polysoft and dosdude1 so if i touch the firmware i‘d like to do all what needs to be done in order to only do it once!!!!
are microcode just some fancy correction for scientific precision, or will it improve rendering time in video?
thanks in advance for your help!
Click to expand...
Microcode improves everything from inaccuracies in edge calculations to significant improvements in security.
They're very much recommended.
 
Squuiid said:
Microcode improves everything from inaccuracies in edge calculations to significant improvements in security.
They're very much recommended.
Click to expand...
Many thanks!
yeah I imagine they are, usualy comany like intel dont bother doing new stuff just for fun.
but what I have trouble to find out is :
does my premiere pro render are going to be much faster , or is it just a „it’s juste better to do the thing the right way!“ and i‘m taki g the risk to brick my work machine for marginal gain?
 
edgerider said:
Many thanks!
yeah I imagine they are, usualy comany like intel dont bother doing new stuff just for fun.
but what I have trouble to find out is :
does my premiere pro render are going to be much faster , or is it just a „it’s juste better to do the thing the right way!“ and i‘m taki g the risk to brick my work machine for marginal gain?
Click to expand...

Depending on your workload there probably are a performance regression because of things like SPECTRE and MELTDOWN. Microcode usually fixes things you can't do in the silicon after it has been produced.
 
Quick update with Mojave Beta 2

I checked the BootROM version included in the installer app and...

its 0085! they rolled back the BootROM update it seems!, im curious if someone with 0087 BootROM launches the Mojave beta 2 app if it would roll back the BootROM or not. (my MP is on 0085)

did I just get Apple to change something Major like the BootROM? im curious if we will get an revised 0087 or a 0088 with the spectre patched microcodes...

also shows that Apple does listen to us :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: esjr, frou, MIKX and 2 others
LightBulbFun said:
Quick update with Mojave Beta 2

I checked the BootROM version included in the installer app and...

its 0085! they rolled back the BootROM update it seems!, im curious if someone with 0087 BootROM launches the Mojave beta 2 app if it would roll back the BootROM or not. (my MP is on 0085)

did I just get Apple to change something Major like the BootROM? im curious if we will get an revised 0087 or a 0088 with the spectre patched microcodes...

also shows that Apple does listen to us :)
Click to expand...
Yes, the apple restored the old Bootrom in the Mojave Beta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: esjr and handheldgames
LightBulbFun said:
Quick update with Mojave Beta 2

I checked the BootROM version included in the installer app and...

its 0085! they rolled back the BootROM update it seems!, im curious if someone with 0087 BootROM launches the Mojave beta 2 app if it would roll back the BootROM or not. (my MP is on 0085)

did I just get Apple to change something Major like the BootROM? im curious if we will get an revised 0087 or a 0088 with the spectre patched microcodes...

also shows that Apple does listen to us :)
Click to expand...
See here ;) #18
Good news indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun
Interesting, I'm running with the 0087 code. I wonder if and 10.13.6 update will roll me back.

It makes me wonder what the change was in the 0087 code to begin with.
 
crjackson2134 said:
Interesting, I'm running with the 0087 code. I wonder if and 10.13.6 update will roll me back.

It makes me wonder what the change was in the 0087 code to begin with.
Click to expand...

Even that's a roll back, I bet Apple will still call that ROM 0088, or 0087.B01, but not 0085. So, we have to compare the ROM image bit by bit to determine if that's a roll back.
 
crjackson2134 said:
No doubt, but what did we get (besides missing microcode) in the 0087. What was the purpose of it to begin with?
Click to expand...

https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208849

Firmware

Available for: macOS High Sierra 10.13.4

Impact: A malicious application with root privileges may be able to modify the EFI flash memory region

Description: A device configuration issue was addressed with an updated configuration.

CVE-2018-4251: Maxim Goryachy and Mark Ermolov
Click to expand...

Edit: And that was implemented for all/most supported Macs--not just the 5,1 Mac Pro
 
Please ! Someone with a higher Terminal ability than myself . .. . check this ' 85' rollback' bootROM !
Who knows what else they put into it.

Also, I wonder if dosdude1's ROMTool still works

=========================================
From Netkas :

"Just updated to Mojave Beta2 on some 15″ mac book pro 2017 (with touchbar) and found out unpleasant thing.
Mac firmware was updated and mac efi now refuses to boot into efi shell (bootx64.efi file located on efi partition in /EFI/BOOT folder), it was working fine before update.

============================================

Apple being malicious ?
 
MIKX said:
Please ! Someone with a higher Terminal ability than myself . .. . check this ' 85' rollback' bootROM !
Who knows what else they put into it.

Also, I wonder if dosdude1's ROMTool still works

=========================================
From Netkas :

"Just updated to Mojave Beta2 on some 15″ mac book pro 2017 (with touchbar) and found out unpleasant thing.
Mac firmware was updated and mac efi now refuses to boot into efi shell (bootx64.efi file located on efi partition in /EFI/BOOT folder), it was working fine before update.

============================================

Apple being malicious ?
Click to expand...

iv only had a quick look but the 0085 BootROM in Mojave DP2 is the same 0085 that showed up with 10.13.4 IIRC

also if you read the entire post on the Netkas blog, it turned out he just ran into a bug and that once he moved the file to another location it booted up fine so Apple has not changed anything in that regard most likely... so i would not worry :)

BTW speaking of 10.13, I cant seem to bring up the High Sierra installer page in the MAS can anyone else here do so?

I wanted to download the 10.13.5 full installer to see if Apple rolled back the BootROM there too but the entire page is missing a direct link gives me... has apple pulled 10.13.5 for some Reason or? (I asked a friend in Canada to try as well, and he too is having the same issue)

upload_2018-6-21_4-39-55.png
 
Sorry, it’s a little late for me to check this. My cMP is in the east wing of the house, so I’ll check it tomorrow if you don’t post back with the answer beforehand.
 
Squuiid said:
Same here. That's odd!
Click to expand...

I am at work and can’t try it yet. But it seems Apple finally realise there is something wrong in the 10.13.5 installer which may stuck during installation (infinite loop due to varification fail). This bug only exist in the 10.13.5 installer.

I can install any MacOS on my spare HDD, but not the 10.13.5 without switching to Wifi network.

And this issue is not cMP only. I’ve seen quite a few users request help due to their clean installation stuck at that stage for many many hours (they have no idea the installation not even started yet).
 
Well. This was interesting.

Had the updated microcode running fine in OSX.

Tried booting from my windows drive. Got an unsupported processor stop code. Windows would not boot up even from an install CD until I reflashed to the stock microcode.

Anybody else have anything like this happen?
 
MIKX said:
Please ! Someone with a higher Terminal ability than myself . .. . check this ' 85' rollback' bootROM !
Who knows what else they put into it.

Also, I wonder if dosdude1's ROMTool still works

=========================================
From Netkas :

"Just updated to Mojave Beta2 on some 15″ mac book pro 2017 (with touchbar) and found out unpleasant thing.
Mac firmware was updated and mac efi now refuses to boot into efi shell (bootx64.efi file located on efi partition in /EFI/BOOT folder), it was working fine before update.

============================================

Apple being malicious ?
Click to expand...
Did you see the update on Netkas' post?

UPDATE: probably a bug, placing efi shell to /usr/standalone/i386/boot.efi location and using system prefs to reboot into target volume (which will rebless the partition) helped to get efi shell booted. no sig check obviously.

http://netkas.org/?p=1472
 
LightBulbFun said:
I wanted to download the 10.13.5 full installer to see if Apple rolled back the BootROM
Click to expand...

Back on Friday, I was preparing a quad core 5,1 running 10.11 for possible Mojave beta upgrade, I used a fresh download of 10.13.5, created a USB stick, performed the requested firmware upgrade and then the OS upgrade. When the smoke cleared, the machine was running 10.13.5 and the firmware was 0087.
 
Earl Urley said:
Back on Friday, I was preparing a quad core 5,1 running 10.11 for possible Mojave beta upgrade, I used a fresh download of 10.13.5, created a USB stick, performed the requested firmware upgrade and then the OS upgrade. When the smoke cleared, the machine was running 10.13.5 and the firmware was 0087.
Click to expand...

And which Microcode version?

Terminal -> sysctl machdep.cpu
 
Synchro3 said:
And which Microcode version?

Terminal -> sysctl machdep.cpu
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this right..

machdep.cpu.microcode_version: 29

Also did the NVMe boot patch, seems to have worked although I didn't wait a long time for it.. guess the only way to see if it works is to pick up a Lycom DT-120 and a 970 Pro, yeah I know NewEgg has a sale for $199 for the non-Pro but Amazon has the Pro for only $30 more..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
So, firmware 0087 and microcode version 29?
I take it then Apple has done something with the firmware update that comes with the MacOS 10.13.5 update, preventing us from getting microcode version 0?
 
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
Back