The Hackintosh Thread

[DEMinSoCAL]

Playing with hackintoshes is fun, at first. You need a lot of patience and time, as it's definitely a learning process that is very technical and complicated. That sense of accomplishment you get is your reward. Then comes OSX updates and new versions, that break everything. All the little bugs that affect audio, wifi, power saving (on laptops), usb, etc. Then, it just becomes more trouble than it's worth for me. I was recently looking at how to make a new Dell Inspiron 7548 w/4K screen run Yosemite. The hardware seems viable, but all the trouble to get it working and still have bugs and dysfunctional hardware seems like a waste of time. For those that are masters of the art of hackintoshing, it's just time. For those that have no idea what a DSDT file is or bootloaders, etc., it's just frustrating. And the hackintosh forums are full of clueless people begging for help and other members telling them to figure it out for themselves.

For me, the best option is refurbishing used Mac Pro 2009 towers. Often had for $300 or so, add 32GB ECC RAM, a 6-core XEON 3.33Ghz and a new PCI-e SSD (that absolutely screams at 1500MB/s read/write) and you're set with a REAL Mac for under a grand (with careful shopping). Sure, benchmark-wise, a screaming PC Hackintosh will best this, but real-world use, I think most would have a hard time telling which is which. The reward here is fully supported hardware and no issues when upgrading/applying hotfixes (no more than any other Mac user, of course!)

I certainly would do a refurbished Mac Pro over buying a nMP "can" that can't be upgraded.

 

[Studio K]

I have used hack for going on eight year

1) I in my 87 version of the board that you are responding to of the OP am using DDR3 server ram that I had left over from my foray into real MP land. Hardly on the qualified list using four sticks of it with no problems whatsoever.

What RAM were you using with your Gigabyte board? Was it ECC ram from a Mac Pro?

I have some extra ECC ram modules from a 2009 Mac Pro, but never had the courage to install them into the hackintosh.

 

[MacUser2525]

What RAM were you using with your Gigabyte board? Was it ECC ram from a Mac Pro?

I have some extra ECC ram modules from a 2009 Mac Pro, but never had the courage to install them into the hackintosh.

Yes needs to be the nine chip variety like what was used in that model. If you try the ten or more variety like is under them heatsink modules you see for it it will corrupt the BIOS needing reset/removal of cmos battery to get it going again. At least that is my experience trying/using them YMMV. Now you will only get 1333mhz speeds so will lose a couple of percent in speed from them but they have worked without problems here of course this assumes 10600 not the 8500 that did ship in that model.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Edit2: Now I think about it more my second data backup machine a P55 Gigabyte board also has the server ram four sticks in it as well. So excuse me if I am a little skeptical of these claims made by others when I have never experienced them with three different boards.

http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=13267.0
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=12563.0
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=12870.0
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=13435.0
http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyte/57271-gigabyte-z87-hd3-4-dimm-issue.html
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/159647-gigabyte-z97-four-dimms-wont-boot/
http://forums.techarena.in/official-gigabyte-motherboard-forum/1474789.htm
http://superuser.com/questions/640878/random-bsod-crashes-when-all-ram-slots-are-occupied
http://www.tonymacx86.com/general-help/125717-fix-gigabyte-4-dimm-memory-instability.html
http://www.tonymacx86.com/general-help/121042-solved-4-dimm-crashing-freezing-ga-z87.html

I rest my case.

 

[MacUser2525]

http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=13267.0
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=12563.0
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=12870.0
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=13435.0
http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyte/57271-gigabyte-z87-hd3-4-dimm-issue.html
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/159647-gigabyte-z97-four-dimms-wont-boot/
http://forums.techarena.in/official-gigabyte-motherboard-forum/1474789.htm
http://superuser.com/questions/640878/random-bsod-crashes-when-all-ram-slots-are-occupied
http://www.tonymacx86.com/general-help/125717-fix-gigabyte-4-dimm-memory-instability.html
http://www.tonymacx86.com/general-help/121042-solved-4-dimm-crashing-freezing-ga-z87.html

I rest my case.

Well who cares really I find it fairly interesting that I can do things that others claim are not possible with these boards. Most times I look at these reports in review sites it is by some fool running their overclock way too high then getting problems small shock there. I have had these z87 boards for year and a half now always running the four sticks the p55 got to be damn close to four years they run flawlessly. My experience with Gigabyte boards over these last few decades has been great do not think one has ever died on me unlike other brands I have had who have gone tits up many times in that period. By running flawlesssly I mean encoding h264 video sometimes for days at a time 100% load on the cpu. I have had weeks of uptime before an update forced a reboot in short the damn things just go on and on like the energizer bunny.

Edit: My Linux server for instance Pentium 3258 @4.5ghz overclock.

uptime
14:06:55 up 13 days, 16:22,  1 user,  load average: 0.60, 0.48, 0.39

Edit2: The board in it.

dmidecode
# dmidecode 2.11
# SMBIOS entry point at 0x000f04c0
SMBIOS 2.7 present.
78 structures occupying 3160 bytes.
Table at 0x000EB530.

Handle 0x0000, DMI type 0, 24 bytes
BIOS Information
   Vendor: American Megatrends Inc.
   Version: F9
   Release Date: 03/18/2014
   Address: 0xF0000
   Runtime Size: 64 kB
   ROM Size: 16384 kB
   Characteristics:
     PCI is supported
     BIOS is upgradeable
     BIOS shadowing is allowed
     Boot from CD is supported
     Selectable boot is supported
     BIOS ROM is socketed
     EDD is supported
     5.25"/1.2 MB floppy services are supported (int 13h)
     3.5"/720 kB floppy services are supported (int 13h)
     3.5"/2.88 MB floppy services are supported (int 13h)
     Print screen service is supported (int 5h)
     8042 keyboard services are supported (int 9h)
     Serial services are supported (int 14h)
     Printer services are supported (int 17h)
     ACPI is supported
     USB legacy is supported
     BIOS boot specification is supported
     Targeted content distribution is supported
     UEFI is supported
   BIOS Revision: 4.6

Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes
System Information
   Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
   Product Name: Z87X-UD3H
   Version: To be filled by O.E.M.
   Serial Number: To be filled by O.E.M.
   UUID: 03000200-0400-0500-0006-000700080009
   Wake-up Type: Power Switch
   SKU Number: To be filled by O.E.M.
   Family: To be filled by O.E.M.

The ram in it.

Handle 0x0042, DMI type 17, 34 bytes
Memory Device
   Array Handle: 0x0007
   Error Information Handle: Not Provided
   Total Width: 128 bits
   Data Width: 64 bits
   Size: 4096 MB
   Form Factor: DIMM
   Set: None
   Locator: ChannelA-DIMM0
   Bank Locator: BANK 0
   Type: DDR3
   Type Detail: Synchronous
   Speed: 1333 MHz
   Manufacturer: 1352
   Serial Number: 00000000
   Asset Tag: 9876543210
   Part Number: SUPERTALENT02   
   Rank: 2
   Configured Clock Speed: 1333 MHz

Handle 0x0043, DMI type 20, 35 bytes
Memory Device Mapped Address
   Starting Address: 0x00000000000
   Ending Address: 0x000FFFFFFFF
   Range Size: 4 GB
   Physical Device Handle: 0x0042
   Memory Array Mapped Address Handle: 0x004A
   Partition Row Position: Unknown
   Interleave Position: Unknown
   Interleaved Data Depth: Unknown

Handle 0x0044, DMI type 17, 34 bytes
Memory Device
   Array Handle: 0x0007
   Error Information Handle: Not Provided
   Total Width: 128 bits
   Data Width: 64 bits
   Size: 4096 MB
   Form Factor: DIMM
   Set: None
   Locator: ChannelA-DIMM1
   Bank Locator: BANK 1
   Type: DDR3
   Type Detail: Synchronous
   Speed: 1333 MHz
   Manufacturer: 1352
   Serial Number: 00000000
   Asset Tag: 9876543210
   Part Number: SUPERTALENT02   
   Rank: 2
   Configured Clock Speed: 1333 MHz

Handle 0x0045, DMI type 20, 35 bytes
Memory Device Mapped Address
   Starting Address: 0x00200000000
   Ending Address: 0x002FFFFFFFF
   Range Size: 4 GB
   Physical Device Handle: 0x0044
   Memory Array Mapped Address Handle: 0x004A
   Partition Row Position: Unknown
   Interleave Position: Unknown
   Interleaved Data Depth: Unknown

Handle 0x0046, DMI type 17, 34 bytes
Memory Device
   Array Handle: 0x0007
   Error Information Handle: Not Provided
   Total Width: 128 bits
   Data Width: 64 bits
   Size: 4096 MB
   Form Factor: DIMM
   Set: None
   Locator: ChannelB-DIMM0
   Bank Locator: BANK 2
   Type: DDR3
   Type Detail: Synchronous
   Speed: 1333 MHz
   Manufacturer: 1352
   Serial Number: 00000000
   Asset Tag: 9876543210
   Part Number: SUPERTALENT02   
   Rank: 2
   Configured Clock Speed: 1333 MHz

Handle 0x0047, DMI type 20, 35 bytes
Memory Device Mapped Address
   Starting Address: 0x00100000000
   Ending Address: 0x001FFFFFFFF
   Range Size: 4 GB
   Physical Device Handle: 0x0046
   Memory Array Mapped Address Handle: 0x004A
   Partition Row Position: Unknown
   Interleave Position: Unknown
   Interleaved Data Depth: Unknown

Handle 0x0048, DMI type 17, 34 bytes
Memory Device
   Array Handle: 0x0007
   Error Information Handle: Not Provided
   Total Width: 128 bits
   Data Width: 64 bits
   Size: 4096 MB
   Form Factor: DIMM
   Set: None
   Locator: ChannelB-DIMM1
   Bank Locator: BANK 3
   Type: DDR3
   Type Detail: Synchronous
   Speed: 1333 MHz
   Manufacturer: 1352
   Serial Number: 00000000
   Asset Tag: 9876543210
   Part Number: SUPERTALENT02   
   Rank: 2
   Configured Clock Speed: 1333 MHz

 

[ixxx69]

Playing with hackintoshes is fun, at first. You need a lot of patience and time, as it's definitely a learning process that is very technical and complicated. That sense of accomplishment you get is your reward. Then comes OSX updates and new versions, that break everything. All the little bugs that affect audio, wifi, power saving (on laptops), usb, etc. Then, it just becomes more trouble than it's worth for me. I was recently looking at how to make a new Dell Inspiron 7548 w/4K screen run Yosemite. The hardware seems viable, but all the trouble to get it working and still have bugs and dysfunctional hardware seems like a waste of time. For those that are masters of the art of hackintoshing, it's just time. For those that have no idea what a DSDT file is or bootloaders, etc., it's just frustrating. And the hackintosh forums are full of clueless people begging for help and other members telling them to figure it out for themselves.

For me, the best option is refurbishing used Mac Pro 2009 towers. Often had for $300 or so, add 32GB ECC RAM, a 6-core XEON 3.33Ghz and a new PCI-e SSD (that absolutely screams at 1500MB/s read/write) and you're set with a REAL Mac for under a grand (with careful shopping). Sure, benchmark-wise, a screaming PC Hackintosh will best this, but real-world use, I think most would have a hard time telling which is which. The reward here is fully supported hardware and no issues when upgrading/applying hotfixes (no more than any other Mac user, of course!)

I certainly would do a refurbished Mac Pro over buying a nMP "can" that can't be upgraded.

What I find ironic about some of the cMP crowd is that they dismiss Hackintosh as not being a real Mac that "just works" and yet they recommend buying 5+ year old hardware and then replacing all the parts with various upgrades that require their own drivers (often unsupported) that can be just as finicky as a Hackintosh. Look at all the "clueless people begging for help" tricking out their cMPs with current video cards, USB3 cards, PCIe SSD cards, etc. and all the problems they run into. All built on what still is 5+ year old hardware.

Even the fastest cMPs feel a little pokey on the desktop compared to a Mac/Hackintosh using the latest high performance CPUs.

I did the Hackintosh thing 2009-2011, and aside from the system updates which were always a little nerve rattling, it worked just as solidly as any other Mac. And while you have to be careful with the system updates, it's not the end of the world if you know what you're doing. I eventually tired of it (and computer tinkering in general) and got a 2010 cMP (in 2011), but it was already feeling poky by the time the nMP came out (which I have now).

I would recommend to anyone considering tricking out a cMP to instead consider a Hackintosh.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

What I find ironic about some of the cMP crowd is that they dismiss Hackintosh as not being a real Mac that "just works" and yet they recommend buying 5+ year old hardware and then replacing all the parts with various upgrades that require their own drivers (often unsupported) that can be just as finicky as a Hackintosh. Look at all the "clueless people begging for help" tricking out their cMPs with current video cards, USB3 cards, PCIe SSD cards, etc. and all the problems they run into. All built on what still is 5+ year old hardware.

Even the fastest cMPs feel a little pokey on the desktop compared to a Mac/Hackintosh using the latest high performance CPUs.

I did the Hackintosh thing 2009-2011, and aside from the system updates which were always a little nerve rattling, it worked just as solidly as any other Mac. And while you have to be careful with the system updates, it's not the end of the world if you know what you're doing. I eventually tired of it (and computer tinkering in general) and got a 2010 cMP (in 2011), but it was already feeling poky by the time the nMP came out (which I have now).

I would recommend to anyone considering tricking out a cMP to instead consider a Hackintosh.

It's not really ironic, because you're already buying parts for a Hackintosh, and replacing parts is an advantage to the cMP over the nMP (like you bought). It's easy, actually. I've never had to use a bootloader, or edit a plist file, or mess around with DSDT or SDST, kext, or any other acronym file. I am safe with OS X updates, except for possibly my nVidia card, but that is a simple download of a web driver and install and even a novice can do it. Any card that I put in my cMP is either supported by the OSX directly, or has a simple install package takes care of it for me. I can add drives internal, put in bigger SSD's, upgrade my video card, etc., none of which you can do with the nMP.

"Finicky" is the last term I would use to describe a cMP upgrade. It's rock solid.

A tricked out cMP with PCI-e SSD and 6-core 3.46Ghz CPU is pretty darn fast regardless of it's age. Look over in the cMP forums and you see some cMP's that are FASTER than a nMP! So, age has nothing to do with it.

The fact is, ANYONE can "trick out" a cMP. That certainly cannot be said of a Hackintosh.

(I should add that I, too, did "the Hackintosh thing" a few years back, and quickly grew tired of maintaining the OS and patches and updates to keep it functional.)

 

[ixxx69]

It's not really ironic, because you're already buying parts for a Hackintosh, and replacing parts is an advantage to the cMP over the nMP (like you bought). It's easy, actually. I've never had to use a bootloader, or edit a plist file, or mess around with DSDT or SDST, kext, or any other acronym file. I am safe with OS X updates, except for possibly my nVidia card, but that is a simple download of a web driver and install and even a novice can do it. Any card that I put in my cMP is either supported by the OSX directly, or has a simple install package takes care of it for me. I can add drives internal, put in bigger SSD's, upgrade my video card, etc., none of which you can do with the nMP.

"Finicky" is the last term I would use to describe a cMP upgrade. It's rock solid.

A tricked out cMP with PCI-e SSD and 6-core 3.46Ghz CPU is pretty darn fast regardless of it's age. Look over in the cMP forums and you see some cMP's that are FASTER than a nMP! So, age has nothing to do with it.

The fact is, ANYONE can "trick out" a cMP. That certainly cannot be said of a Hackintosh.

Why are you comparing the cMP to the nMP? What does the nMP have to do with this? This is about Hackintosh. And a tricked-out Hackintosh can outperform ANY Mac.

You cMP folks live in a fantasy world where 5 year old CPUs are just as fast as the latest CPUs, and all those aftermarket parts are simply trouble-free. I've heard it all a million times before and the reality always turns out to be quite different.

Anyone (who has any sense) that wants to buy a used cMP and trick it out can certainly build and maintain a Hackintosh and have a faster performing and more modern computer.

 

[MacUser2525]

Why are you comparing the cMP to the nMP? What does the nMP have to do with this? This is about Hackintosh. And a tricked-out Hackintosh can outperform ANY Mac.

You cMP folks live in a fantasy world where 5 year old CPUs are just as fast as the latest CPUs, and all those aftermarket parts are simply trouble-free. I've heard it all a million times before and the reality always turns out to be quite different.

Anyone (who has any sense) that wants to buy a used cMP and trick it out can certainly build and maintain a Hackintosh and have a faster performing and more modern computer.

Most Apple owners live in a world where somehow bog standard PC hardware just because it has Apple label on it is somehow special and different than the PC version you can buy dirt cheap. Suppose they have to justify that massive price premium somehow...

 

[Synchro3]

Why are you comparing the cMP to the nMP? What does the nMP have to do with this? This is about Hackintosh. And a tricked-out Hackintosh can outperform ANY Mac.

You cMP folks live in a fantasy world where 5 year old CPUs are just as fast as the latest CPUs, and all those aftermarket parts are simply trouble-free. I've heard it all a million times before and the reality always turns out to be quite different.

Anyone (who has any sense) that wants to buy a used cMP and trick it out can certainly build and maintain a Hackintosh and have a faster performing and more modern computer.

A cMP upgraded with Xeon W3690 might not be the fastest CPU in single core performance, but still fast enough to compete with many new CPU's. There was no significant CPU progress performance wise in the last years unlike ~15 years ago. For example, Skylake will be again only 11% faster: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/24/intel-skylake-processors-leaked-slides/

Even the RAM-speed progress in the last years is negligible. The difference between DDR3 2133 MHz and DDR3-1333 MHz is less than 2%, and there is 4.5% difference from DDR3 2133 MHz to DDR3-1066 MHz.
I quote: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/314892-30-cl11-what-difference
and http://www.computerbase.de/2012-05/test-welchen-ram-fuer-intel-ivy-bridge/3/

That's why I prefer a cMP, and not having for example these hassles:

Playing with hackintoshes is fun, at first. You need a lot of patience and time, as it's definitely a learning process that is very technical and complicated. That sense of accomplishment you get is your reward. Then comes OSX updates and new versions, that break everything. All the little bugs that affect audio, wifi, power saving (on laptops), usb, etc. Then, it just becomes more trouble than it's worth for me.

In a few years I might think different about it, but for now the maxed out cMP is the path of least resistance with maximum yield for me.

Nevertheless i appreciate the efforts of the Hackintosh community.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

A cMP upgraded with Xeon W3690 might not be the fastest CPU in single core performance, but still fast enough to compete with many new CPU's. There was no significant CPU progress performance wise in the last years unlike ~15 years ago. For example, Skylake will be again only 11% faster: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/24/intel-skylake-processors-leaked-slides/

Even the RAM-speed progress in the last years is negligible. The difference between DDR3 2133 MHz and DDR3-1333 MHz is less than 2%, and there is 4.5% difference from DDR3 2133 MHz to DDR3-1066 MHz.
I quote: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/314892-30-cl11-what-difference
and http://www.computerbase.de/2012-05/test-welchen-ram-fuer-intel-ivy-bridge/3/

That's why I prefer a cMP, and not having for example these hassles:


In a few years I might think different about it, but for now the maxed out cMP is the path of least resistance with maximum yield for me.

Nevertheless i appreciate the efforts of the Hackintosh community.

Yeah tinkering and upgrading a cMP is hackintoshing. We add CPUs, graphics, drives and ports that were not and are not even generally available to any Mac.

 

[ixxx69]

A cMP upgraded with Xeon W3690 might not be the fastest CPU in single core performance, but still fast enough to compete with many new CPU's. There was no significant CPU progress performance wise in the last years unlike ~15 years ago. For example, Skylake will be again only 11% faster: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/24/intel-skylake-processors-leaked-slides/

Spoken like someone who is just regurgitating this "common wisdom", while the fact is an i7-4790K (even without overclocking) is well over 50% faster than the 6 core W3690 in single-core performance (which still makes up the vast vast majority of computer tasks), while being just as fast at multi-core (actually a tad faster).

You want tons of cores? The Xeon E5-2696 v2 with 12 cores is 130% faster than the W3690 at multi-core tasks, while being almost 10% faster at single core.

You want a balanced direct replacement? A 6-core i7-5930K is almost 50% faster than the W3690 in both single-core and multi-core tasks.

Those 10% per year increases add up.

People who say they can't tell the difference on the desktop either have their head in the sand or just aren't very sensitive to performance differences.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Spoken like someone who is just regurgitating this "common wisdom", while the fact is an i7-4790K (even without overclocking) is well over 50% faster than the 6 core W3690 in single-core performance (which still makes up the vast vast majority of computer tasks), while being just as fast at multi-core (actually a tad faster).

You want tons of cores? The Xeon E5-2696 v2 with 12 cores is 130% faster than the W3690 at multi-core tasks, while being almost 10% faster at single core.

Single core performance is a joke and nobody should be talking about it. Overall real world performance is the only benchmark worth referring to.

No point comparing E5-2696 v2 to a single six core W3690 CPU. Compare it to dual X5690.

Yeah would love to have a dual E5 2696 v2. But I don't use any software that would benefit right now.

 

[ixxx69]

Single core performance is a joke and nobody should be talking about it. Overall real world performance is the only benchmark worth referring to.

No point comparing E5-2696 v2 to a single six core W3690 CPU. Compare it to dual X5690.

Yeah would love to have a dual E5 2696 v2. But I don't use any software that would benefit right now.

Sorry, but this post doesn't make any sense.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Sorry, but this post doesn't make any sense.

I don't care

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Yeah tinkering and upgrading a cMP is hackintoshing. We add CPUs, graphics, drives and ports that were not and are not even generally available to any Mac.

No, it's called tinkering and upgrading. Hackintoshing is hacking the Mac OS in order to install and run Mac OS X on non-Apple computers. The classic Mac Pro is obviously an Apple computer and is officially supported to run any version of Mac OS.

 

[ixxx69]

I don't care

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. Please do us a favor and don't waste our time. Thanks!

You stated in another thread:

And I don't care what people say about single core benchmarks. Single core sucks. Even a modern dual core sucks. I'll never go below six cores again.

This implies you don't understand how this all works. I'd suggest a little bit more learning/ask some questions before being so dismissive of others.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

You cMP folks live in a fantasy world where 5 year old CPUs are just as fast as the latest CPUs

They're fast enough.

and all those aftermarket parts are simply trouble-free.

They mostly are. I haven't had any problems installing USB 3.0 cards, a PCI-e SSD, or anything else I've thrown into mine. I sure as heck didn't have to hack the OS to make them work.

I've heard it all a million times before and the reality always turns out to be quite different.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times not to exaggerate.

Anyone (who has any sense) that wants to buy a used cMP and trick it out can certainly build and maintain a Hackintosh and have a faster performing and more modern computer.

I guess if you say it enough, you begin to believe it. Personally, I don't want the learning curve or the hassles.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. Please do us a favor and don't waste our time. Thanks!

It's a sign of insecurity and trying to rouse the mob when a person refers to themselves as 'us' and 'our'. Spare yourself that poor image. Instead of looking for a stick to bash someone with just try not to compare a six core CPU to a 12 core CPU in the future.

 

[ixxx69]

It's a sign of insecurity and trying to rouse the mob when a person refers to themselves as 'us' and 'our'. Spare yourself that poor image. Instead of looking for a stick to bash someone with just try not to compare a six core CPU to a 12 core CPU in the future.

So you rebuke my previous post without having any clue what you're talking about, and now you're trying to put your poor attitude on me?

Why shouldn't we compare a six core CPU to a 12 core CPU when discussing the CPU improvements in multi-core performance? Would you suggest that we don't compare GPUs with less cores to GPUs with more cores?

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

So you rebuke my previous post without having any clue what you're talking about, and now you're trying to put your poor attitude on me?

Why shouldn't we compare a six core CPU to a 12 core CPU when discussing the CPU improvements in multi-core performance? Would you suggest that we don't compare GPUs with less cores to GPUs with more cores?

You must have been debate champion in high school. You sure love to argue over pointless issues.

I don't think I did anything but express my personal opinion and some Hackintosh facts in my post, and yet, you're still arguing (trying to convince) people otherwise. You're preaching to the Pope here. I've built Hackintoshes, I've built up classic Mac Pro's, I've custom built hundreds of PC's in my time. I know numbers and benchmarks don't translate into real world speed. Just because I don't notice a 10% increase in clock speed doesn't mean my head is in the sand or I'm somehow an idiot.

I'm not arguing that a Hackintosh can be faster than a souped up cMP. I even said it in my post.

I'm not really sure what your point is about going on and on about the virtues of a Hackintosh. I get it, but I don't want one. Isn't that OK?

 

[bladerunner2000]

I contemplated getting a legit Mac Pro, either a 2012 model or a 2009 model and then upgrade it. But... the platform is already dated. The processors on their own aren't the greatest (but still decent) but it takes TWO of them to get the performance of what one would ideally like to have. Then there's the heat issue, essentially acting as a small space heater, the power consumption and worse of all; NOISE. With the parts and case I've selected, my machine is nearly completely silent when idle and produces only a low hum when under load. Even when gaming in Battlefield 4, the temperatures dont exceed 60c from the GPU, so it remains pretty damn quiet. The Mac Pros however, those fans are LOUD. And even then, I'd be paying more.

So it's either a Mac Pro (dual x5960) for around $2,700 CAD w/ a geekbench score of approx. 31,000 but have dated tech and nothing better than that to upgrade it with OR a Hackintosh with a 4790K for $1,600 with a geekbench score of 18,000 (and up to 23,000 if overclocked). When it comes to single CPU, a 4790k vs x5960..... the Hackintosh wins, easily, and I can reuse all of my parts if I want more speed as the only things that would need to be replaced would be the motherboard and CPU (assuming intel doesnt release anything better than the 4790k for LGA 1150 sockets).

 

[ixxx69]

You must have been debate champion in high school. You sure love to argue over pointless issues.

I don't think I did anything but express my personal opinion and some Hackintosh facts in my post, and yet, you're still arguing (trying to convince) people otherwise. You're preaching to the Pope here. I've built Hackintoshes, I've built up classic Mac Pro's, I've custom built hundreds of PC's in my time. I know numbers and benchmarks don't translate into real world speed. Just because I don't notice a 10% increase in clock speed doesn't mean my head is in the sand or I'm somehow an idiot.

I'm not arguing that a Hackintosh can be faster than a souped up cMP. I even said it in my post.

I'm not really sure what your point is about going on and on about the virtues of a Hackintosh. I get it, but I don't want one. Isn't that OK?

Do you have me confused with someone else? Where was I spouting the virtues of a Hackintosh or trying to talk you or anyone else into one?

I made a point in reply to your post (let's remember that you posted in a Hackintosh thread) that tricking out a cMP isn't that different from a Hackintosh and that anyone considering tricking out a cMP should consider a Hackintosh. You don't have to agree with it, but it's an educated opinion, and this thread (and your post) seemed like an appropriate place to express is it.

Where I did take issue is on the speed of a cMP compared to a new Hackintosh. I stated a bunch of factual numbers about CPU performance, and in response, I've gotten a bunch of incomprehensible replies. Not every benchmark translates into general real world performance (i.e. memory benchmarks), but that doesn't mean benchmarks never translate into real world performance. It depends on what you're benchmarking and how it applies to your usage. If you do a lot of video encodes, those kooky "numbers and benchmarks" can mean a great deal in "real world" performance.

I never suggested a 10% speed increase would be noticeable, but I did imply that a 50% increase would be, and I stick by the opinion that if you can't perceive it, you either have your head in the sand (i.e. you don't want to acknowledge it because your world view of the cMP would crash) or you're just not very sensitive to system performance. Most people aren't that sensitive to it, and that's fair enough.

 

[MacUser2525]

I contemplated getting a legit Mac Pro, either a 2012 model or a 2009 model and then upgrade it. But... the platform is already dated. The processors on their own aren't the greatest (but still decent) but it takes TWO of them to get the performance of what one would ideally like to have. Then there's the heat issue, essentially acting as a small space heater, the power consumption and worse of all; NOISE. With the parts and case I've selected, my machine is nearly completely silent when idle and produces only a low hum when under load. Even when gaming in Battlefield 4, the temperatures dont exceed 60c from the GPU, so it remains pretty damn quiet. The Mac Pros however, those fans are LOUD. And even then, I'd be paying more.

So it's either a Mac Pro (dual x5960) for around $2,700 CAD w/ a geekbench score of approx. 31,000 but have dated tech and nothing better than that to upgrade it with OR a Hackintosh with a 4790K for $1,600 with a geekbench score of 18,000 (and up to 23,000 if overclocked). When it comes to single CPU, a 4790k vs x5960..... the Hackintosh wins, easily, and I can reuse all of my parts if I want more speed as the only things that would need to be replaced would be the motherboard and CPU (assuming intel doesnt release anything better than the 4790k for LGA 1150 sockets).

I have owned both a 2009 and 2010 (same as 2012 really) while the heat you speak of is a reality the noise is not them things run damn quiet unless you use something like the smc fan control app to increase the speeds to lower temperature. Apple likes to run them hot and the firmware on those machines is hot over loud based such that you need to be getting around the 80-90C range before the fans even think of kicking in. Now I use to run the fan control just because I did not like my machine running at 60C at idle ramp it up doing some x264 encodes it really never increased the speed over what I had it set to, the cooler design is damn effective on those machines. Oh in case your new to the way Intel does things that chip is the last in line for that socket and we are lucky to have got that if they were not having problems getting out the next socket at the time we would never have got it.

 

[RoastingPig]

Man I've been a real fool the last couple of years messing around with Cmp's ...just got my hackintosh up an running and boy am I satisfied. A 4790k at 4.5 on a gigabyte ud7-TH , h100i , 840evo, hx750w and a 980ti with 3x27 cinema displays. Define r4 with everything noctua All running 10.10.4 with iMessage working. I tried hackintosh back in 2012 with a asus board and I wanted to kill myself but now them clover boys have got something special going.

I never want to use, see or hear a cmp ever again. I can't even hear my hack and with water cooling I can really tax dat ass on my cpu