Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 18, 2012, 07:53 PM   #276
PunkNugget
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Awesome View Post
Okay,
so I though about the following parts to build a hackintosh:

Intel i7-2600k (I want Sandy or Ivy Bridge, and the Sandy Bridge gvies better overclocking results)
GA-Z77X-UD5H
24GB Corsair Dominator RAM
EVGA GTX570 2560MB (the one I already use in my MB) - maybe I'll add another one in SLI
Watercooling setup for GPU,CPU and Motherboard (I put a big setup together for 1000$, including some fans and light effects and stuff like that. I really want to get a super-silent rig)
Some 1000W PSU - maybe two 700W?

I'll use the SSD/HDD of my Mac Pro.

I'll choose the case later on. I'll probably go visit a big electronics store.
Ihave something in mind there.

Does that look good?
Well EA, all I can say at this point is you are on your own as I don't know anything about the system that you're wanting to build, but I will say this. I'd make sure that you IMITATE the SAME EXACT BUILD as someone like mslide built and ask him EXACTLY what he used for EVERY PART and buy those parts and what his install method was to get Mac OS X 10.8.X working - NO DISTROS !!! I'm sure he didn't go DISTRO, but ALWAYS ASK... That's my last bit of input for you... Later...
__________________
THE HACKINBEAST = Mac OS X 10.7.2/EVGA SR-2/2xX5690's/XFX 6870 2GB GPU/48GB Mushkin 2000MHz RAM
LEPA G1600 PSU/Silverstone TJ11 Case/Geekbench: 36,918/Cinebench 11.5: OpenGL: 50.65 fps, CPU: 22.55
PunkNugget is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:31 PM   #277
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
A potential alternative to the hack - Just get the highest performing PC and VM it.

Free! is Oracle VM VirtualBox - a powerful cross-platform virtualization software. It installs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and Solaris x86 computers, allowing the creation and running of multiple virtual machines, i.e., running different operating systems on the same computer at the same time. Oracle VM VirtualBox is available as open source or pre-built binaries for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and Solaris. For more information check out - http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/se...ew-176608.html .
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>62; 103K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.

Last edited by Tutor; Nov 3, 2012 at 04:05 AM. Reason: correct url
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 12:57 AM   #278
RBR2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
I recently read an article which said that the Mach Kernel was not optimal for a CPU with more than 4 cores. Are there changes in the works to deal with this?

I realize that there is always the difficulty of determining whether the application is not optimized for multi-core CPUs or whether the limitation is in the OS. Grand Central Dispatch seems to have been neglected of late. I am not aware of an equivalent application to a Win one which allows the user to allocate cores to particular application. For example, I know an individual running a six core CPU who allocates four cores to Lightroom so that it can import images from a photo shoot and apply presets while he uses the two remaining cores for web browsing email and games while waiting for the image files to complete processing.

Who knows where the number of cores will be headed with Haswell, but I am beginning to wonder if the gains with a second CPU are marginal when compared to spending the money on a single higher rated CPU. Any thoughts?
RBR2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 01:35 AM   #279
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR2 View Post
I recently read an article which said that the Mach Kernel was not optimal for a CPU with more than 4 cores. Are there changes in the works to deal with this?
...
Regarding your inquiries, I'm setting up WolfPackPrime0 right now to run Oracle VM VirtualBox. I'll let you know how it works when I finish the installation.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>62; 103K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 06:07 AM   #280
RBR2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
Regarding your inquiries, I'm setting up WolfPackPrime0 right now to run Oracle VM VirtualBox. I'll let you know how it works when I finish the installation.

Thanks!
RBR2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 09:41 AM   #281
El Awesome
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
So, I decided to sell my 2009 Mac pro and build me a 3770k-hack instead.
Parts to be used:

Intel i7 3770k
Asus Sabertooth Z77
32GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz RAM
EVGA GTX 680 SC 2GB
2x Samsung 830 128GB SSDs
3x WD Caviar Green 1TB HDDs

And I'm gonna put some nice watercooling on top of that...
__________________
Hackintosh 3.5Ghz i7 3770k, 32 GB RAM, eVGA GTX 680 2048 MB SuperClocked, Samsung 830 128GB SSD
MacBook Pro Late '08 2.8 Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM, Nvidia 9400M & 9600M GT
El Awesome is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 02:21 PM   #282
Middleman-77
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Awesome View Post
So, I decided to sell my 2009 Mac pro and build me a 3770k-hack instead.
Parts to be used:

Intel i7 3770k
Asus Sabertooth Z77
32GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz RAM
EVGA GTX 680 SC 2GB
2x Samsung 830 128GB SSDs
3x WD Caviar Green 1TB HDDs

And I'm gonna put some nice watercooling on top of that...
I would say the Gigabyte Z77X-UP5-TH is a much much easier and more compatible build than the Sabretooth....because Gigabyte boards have the native power management controls unlocked unlike Asus. Plus you have the addition of dual Thunderbolt ports...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CijGQKJu9aA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPlk2M5rBUk
Middleman-77 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 02:36 PM   #283
El Awesome
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middleman-77 View Post
I would say the Gigabyte Z77X-UP5-TH is a much much easier and more compatible build than the Sabretooth....because Gigabyte boards have the native power management controls unlocked unlike Asus. Plus you have the addition of dual Thunderbolt ports...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CijGQKJu9aA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPlk2M5rBUk
Thanks for the input.

Well, from what I read, the Sabertooth works flawlessy, easy setup. There are a few people on Tonymacx86 who got it working perfectly in no time.

Given that the Gigabyte is 100$ more expensive than the Sabertooth, and I don't need Thunderbolt, I get the better product with the Sabertooth.
El Awesome is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 02:48 PM   #284
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Update on Oracle VM VirtualBox

Oracle VM VirtualBox works, but is slow.

RBR2, regarding your question:... if the gains with a second CPU are marginal when compared to spending the money on a single higher rated CPU? My experience had been that you should expect no more that about an 90% performance increase using a dual CPU system vs. a single CPU system using the equivalent processor where the software takes full advantage of all of the cores. However, because only a few apps can do that, unless you depend on one of those apps, a single higher rated CPU make better sense for many users - a dual CPU system can also be slower than a single CPU system where the software does not take advantage of many cores.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>62; 103K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 04:54 PM   #285
RBR2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
Oracle VM VirtualBox works, but is slow.

RBR2, regarding your question:... if the gains with a second CPU are marginal when compared to spending the money on a single higher rated CPU? My experience had been that you should expect no more that about an 90% performance increase using a dual CPU system vs. a single CPU system using the equivalent processor where the software takes full advantage of all of the cores. However, because only a few apps can do that, unless you depend on one of those apps, a single higher rated CPU make better sense for many users - a dual CPU system can also be slower than a single CPU system where the software does not take advantage of many cores.
Thanks for the update. That is sort of the result I expected. Lloyd Chambers, am performanceguide.com, has occasionally commented about disabling some cores in his 12 core Mac Pro to improve performance in Photoshop. PS CS 6 is supposed to make better utilization of multi-cores, but what I am hearing so far is that, while it is better in this regard, Adobe still has some work to do.

I am thinking that a 6 core Xeon, when Intel releases the Ivy Bridge ones, might be a good compromise between cost & performance because of the additional RAM capacity, larger cache & so on, when coupled with a bootable PCIe SSD (not a PCIe SATA). The choice of a Xeon could be overtaken by events though if it looks like Apple will abandon the Mac Pro. In that circumstance there would be no Heston in my mind that I would look into a Haswell iCore.

I haven't seen a hard date for the introduction of Gen II Thunderbolt, just references to 1st half 2013. It would be most interesting both with respect to external storage and networking, I keep getting the occasional hint that it could eventually become a Gigabit Ethernet replacement.

It should be interesting to see what develops next year.
Cheers!

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Awesome View Post
So, I decided to sell my 2009 Mac pro and build me a 3770k-hack instead.
Parts to be used:

Intel i7 3770k
Asus Sabertooth Z77
32GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz RAM
EVGA GTX 680 SC 2GB
2x Samsung 830 128GB SSDs
3x WD Caviar Green 1TB HDDs

And I'm gonna put some nice watercooling on top of that...
I am not really a fan of Green drives. They are slower and not as sturdily constructed as the Blacks or REs. If you are intending to make a RAID array out of them, I would caution against doing so.[COLOR="#808080"]

----------

Last edited by RBR2; Dec 16, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason: delete double post
RBR2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 05:03 PM   #286
cosmicjoke
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Awesome View Post
Thanks for the input.

Well, from what I read, the Sabertooth works flawlessy, easy setup. There are a few people on Tonymacx86 who got it working perfectly in no time.

Given that the Gigabyte is 100$ more expensive than the Sabertooth, and I don't need Thunderbolt, I get the better product with the Sabertooth.
It's fine, basically all you want to do is flash your bios for unlocked power management, otherwise you're gonna have to use a patched power management kext.

http://biosrepo.wordpress.com/asus/z77/

That's link to modded Bios. Works a charm.. I use the P8Z77-V Pro on one of my rigs, I preferred it to the Sabertooth (which I almost got just because I hate the baby blue color scheme of the Pro rofl), because it has more power phases for high end OCing.

Anyways, Tonymac just steals other people's work, there's really no reason to use it whatsoever... Chameleon, Fakesmc, and Audio/Lan kexts is all you need to get this build up and running. DSDT free solution. I do use an SSDT.aml for getting all my p-states with my OC.

Last edited by cosmicjoke; Dec 16, 2012 at 05:11 PM.
cosmicjoke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 12:29 AM   #287
El Awesome
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicjoke View Post
It's fine, basically all you want to do is flash your bios for unlocked power management, otherwise you're gonna have to use a patched power management kext.

http://biosrepo.wordpress.com/asus/z77/

That's link to modded Bios. Works a charm.. I use the P8Z77-V Pro on one of my rigs, I preferred it to the Sabertooth (which I almost got just because I hate the baby blue color scheme of the Pro rofl), because it has more power phases for high end OCing.

Anyways, Tonymac just steals other people's work, there's really no reason to use it whatsoever... Chameleon, Fakesmc, and Audio/Lan kexts is all you need to get this build up and running. DSDT free solution. I do use an SSDT.aml for getting all my p-states with my OC.
Very cool, thanks for the input! I appreciate that.
El Awesome is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 01:48 PM   #288
Middleman-77
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
For those interested, here's a speed test on a Gigabyte i7 Ivy Bridge Thunderbolt Hackintosh running Geekbench on Mountain Lion...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO43WwljRq8
Middleman-77 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:06 PM   #289
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middleman-77 View Post
For those interested, here's a speed test on a Gigabyte i7 Ivy Bridge Thunderbolt Hackintosh running Geekbench on Mountain Lion...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO43WwljRq8
14K's not bad.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:51 PM   #290
ashman70
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR2 View Post
Thanks for the update. That is sort of the result I expected. Lloyd Chambers, am performanceguide.com, has occasionally commented about disabling some cores in his 12 core Mac Pro to improve performance in Photoshop. PS CS 6 is supposed to make better utilization of multi-cores, but what I am hearing so far is that, while it is better in this regard, Adobe still has some work to do.

I am thinking that a 6 core Xeon, when Intel releases the Ivy Bridge ones, might be a good compromise between cost & performance because of the additional RAM capacity, larger cache & so on, when coupled with a bootable PCIe SSD (not a PCIe SATA). The choice of a Xeon could be overtaken by events though if it looks like Apple will abandon the Mac Pro. In that circumstance there would be no Heston in my mind that I would look into a Haswell iCore.

I haven't seen a hard date for the introduction of Gen II Thunderbolt, just references to 1st half 2013. It would be most interesting both with respect to external storage and networking, I keep getting the occasional hint that it could eventually become a Gigabit Ethernet replacement.

It should be interesting to see what develops next year.
Cheers!

----------



I am not really a fan of Green drives. They are slower and not as sturdily constructed as the Blacks or REs. If you are intending to make a RAID array out of them, I would caution against doing so.[COLOR="#808080"]

----------
Just to let you know, your mileage can vary with green drives, I don't know if you are speaking from personal experience or from what you've read. I have read that a lot of people have had issues with green drives in and out of raid arrays, my personal experience has been this:

I have a 6 bay NAS that ran for a year and a half with 6x1.5TB WD Green drives in RAID 5, not one issue and it ran 24x7 and served up media files. Those drives were replaced with 2TB WD Greens which also ran for over a year and a half, no issues either. I now have a tower with 8x1.5 WD Green's and 8x2TB WD Green's running off two raid adapters, and they are still going strong. I did nothing to the drives firmware wise or anything. Maybe I got lucky, but with 16 WD Green's that's a lot of luck.
__________________
Iphone 5s 32GB, iPad Mini 32GB wifi
2013 iMac 27" 16GB RAM, 1TB fusion drive, Nvidia 780M, 2xDell 23" monitors, 4x3TB Thunderbay IV enclosure.
MacBook Air 13" mid 2014, 128GB, 4GB RAM.
ashman70 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 10:30 PM   #291
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR2 View Post
Who knows where the number of cores will be headed with Haswell, but I am beginning to wonder if the gains with a second CPU are marginal when compared to spending the money on a single higher rated CPU. Any thoughts?
Haswell mainstream Core i CPUs with integrated graphics? It is 4 cores. Ditto on the derivative Xeon E3 class models.


Haswell Xeon E5's have relatively high chance of being the same core budget as the Ivy Bridge Xeon E5's. A range of 4-8 (for 1600's ) and 6-10 (for 2600's) and arrive around 2014. There is no process shrink between Ivy Bridge to Haswell so likely keep the same core count since the transistor budget isn't going to grow that much. The big deal is more so DDR 4 memory and substantively improved micro-architecture. So 4-8 cores with faster throughput/"horsepower".

There are rumors of 14 cores with Haswell E5 ( '-EP' )
http://vr-zone.com/articles/idf-sf-2...res/17188.html
But those seem a bit flawed on several fronts.

1) With no process shrink at all somehow there is a 4 core jump from Ivy to Haswell; a doubling of the past trends. (maybe better 3D layout gets 2 but 4? Where was all this space back in Ivy Bridge? Same size package so die size likely roughly the same. ).

2) I don't see how transactional memory (http://www.realworldtech.com/haswell-tm/) is "ultrabook focused". I'd suspect that transactional memory to improve lock performance would have bigger impact on a 8-10 core system than one limited at 4.


3) There is lots of handwaving needing a "recompile" to get gains being a problem. Well, the bleeding edge Intel compilers would have been out for more at least a year before Haswell E5's arrive. There is going to be alot more Haswell optimize code around when the E5 class arrives than when the desktop class arrives a year (or slightly more ) earlier. AVX would have been around for at least two years. On code with heavy math computation loops the code will perform better. Unless committed to running Pentium 4 optimized CS2, there will be a bigger than 10% bump for most workstation/server class code.


4) There are significant changes to memory hierarchy in Haswell (http://www.realworldtech.com/haswell-cpu/5/ ) that have a good chance of having more impact when coupled to DDR 4 (and context of math oriented workloads: AVX, SIMD, dp float loads , etc. ) than to the mainstream's coupling to DDR 3 and 2 channel memory starved workloads.

So the whole "the cores are weak but lower power so just pile more of them on the die" mentality just seems rather limited thinking for Intel to be following where scalar critical sections are going to be important. The Xeon Phi already does that with an even higher core count density oriented for more parallel workloads. The Xeon E5's should aimed at a different target than the Phi.


Fewer cores (10 versus 14 ) clocked faster would be better use of the power budget.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 10:48 PM   #292
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidLethargy View Post
It's interesting that someone stated that it's illegal to Hackintosh a computer as I have heard firmly that this is a gray area under much debate.
It's not really grey at all.

The only thing in doubt is whether it is worth apple's time to prosecute random end users for it or not.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:25 AM   #293
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by throAU View Post
It's not really grey at all.

The only thing in doubt is whether it is worth apple's time to prosecute random end users for it or not.
Remember it is sorta grey in the states it violates the EULA and the EULA is enforceable so not grey. Here in Germany Apples EULA is not allowed therefore Hacks are legal there is even a company that sells them. But Germany's view on the EULA isn't held throughout the entire EU. But the entire EU is in the process of reviewing all software EULA's.

Right now it's kinda grey if you're outside the US.

http://www.pearc.de/
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 09:56 AM   #294
RBR2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashman70 View Post
Just to let you know, your mileage can vary with green drives, I don't know if you are speaking from personal experience or from what you've read. I have read that a lot of people have had issues with green drives in and out of raid arrays, my personal experience has been this:

I have a 6 bay NAS that ran for a year and a half with 6x1.5TB WD Green drives in RAID 5, not one issue and it ran 24x7 and served up media files. Those drives were replaced with 2TB WD Greens which also ran for over a year and a half, no issues either. I now have a tower with 8x1.5 WD Green's and 8x2TB WD Green's running off two raid adapters, and they are still going strong. I did nothing to the drives firmware wise or anything. Maybe I got lucky, but with 16 WD Green's that's a lot of luck.
Indeed! That is "a lot of luck".

First off, my experience with Green drives is less than yours. In situations where speed is not an issue, as single drives, they work well and accomplish their intended purpose of reducing power consumption.

Part of my concern about Green drives is their physical construction. That is not to say that it is bad, but others are more rugged ("better"). This has arisen out of shipping of drives. I have had very bad experiences with drives of nearly any construction when purchased from one vendor because of their poor packing of drives before entrusting them to the tender mercies of UPS. Long story made short, a lot of them died almost right away and the rest much too early. My conclusion is that drives simply do not stand up to the sort of G loading that the engineers suggest. Here is where construction maters. The Black drives have bearings at both ends of the spindle which reduces bending moment. Bent shafts mean that the platters are out of alignment and the heads are struggling to maintain position. Sooner than later the battle is lost and so is the drive. OK, the obvious solution is to quit using that vendor which I did a long time ago, but an enterprise class drive, in my opinion, is simply a better bet for long(er) term survival of the drive(s).

Nevertheless, your solution appears to serve you well. Congratulations.

I have had RAID (0) arrays that have failed when things get out of sync...it happens and is one of the risks of using RAID arrays and serves as a reminder of the importance of keeping backups, even with RAID 5 arrays, which will be my next RAID extravaganza as I had moved away from RAIDs as drives became larger and I used non-RAID multiple drive arrangements for data storage.

Cheers!
RBR2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 10:04 AM   #295
El Awesome
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
I already have all of the drives in my current Mac Pro. I packed them in there in 2009 and they never stopped working.
So with the experience I have, they do work good.
I had them in a RAID0 array for 3 years, and now they run normal.
__________________
Hackintosh 3.5Ghz i7 3770k, 32 GB RAM, eVGA GTX 680 2048 MB SuperClocked, Samsung 830 128GB SSD
MacBook Pro Late '08 2.8 Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM, Nvidia 9400M & 9600M GT
El Awesome is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 10:08 AM   #296
RBR2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by deconstruct60 View Post
Haswell mainstream Core i CPUs with integrated graphics? It is 4 cores. Ditto on the derivative Xeon E3 class models.


Haswell Xeon E5's have relatively high chance of being the same core budget as the Ivy Bridge Xeon E5's. A range of 4-8 (for 1600's ) and 6-10 (for 2600's) and arrive around 2014. There is no process shrink between Ivy Bridge to Haswell so likely keep the same core count since the transistor budget isn't going to grow that much. The big deal is more so DDR 4 memory and substantively improved micro-architecture. So 4-8 cores with faster throughput/"horsepower".

There are rumors of 14 cores with Haswell E5 ( '-EP' )
http://vr-zone.com/articles/idf-sf-2...res/17188.html
But those seem a bit flawed on several fronts.

1) With no process shrink at all somehow there is a 4 core jump from Ivy to Haswell; a doubling of the past trends. (maybe better 3D layout gets 2 but 4? Where was all this space back in Ivy Bridge? Same size package so die size likely roughly the same. ).

2) I don't see how transactional memory (http://www.realworldtech.com/haswell-tm/) is "ultrabook focused". I'd suspect that transactional memory to improve lock performance would have bigger impact on a 8-10 core system than one limited at 4.


3) There is lots of handwaving needing a "recompile" to get gains being a problem. Well, the bleeding edge Intel compilers would have been out for more at least a year before Haswell E5's arrive. There is going to be alot more Haswell optimize code around when the E5 class arrives than when the desktop class arrives a year (or slightly more ) earlier. AVX would have been around for at least two years. On code with heavy math computation loops the code will perform better. Unless committed to running Pentium 4 optimized CS2, there will be a bigger than 10% bump for most workstation/server class code.


4) There are significant changes to memory hierarchy in Haswell (http://www.realworldtech.com/haswell-cpu/5/ ) that have a good chance of having more impact when coupled to DDR 4 (and context of math oriented workloads: AVX, SIMD, dp float loads , etc. ) than to the mainstream's coupling to DDR 3 and 2 channel memory starved workloads.

So the whole "the cores are weak but lower power so just pile more of them on the die" mentality just seems rather limited thinking for Intel to be following where scalar critical sections are going to be important. The Xeon Phi already does that with an even higher core count density oriented for more parallel workloads. The Xeon E5's should aimed at a different target than the Phi.


Fewer cores (10 versus 14 ) clocked faster would be better use of the power budget.
I think the 6 or 8 core models may represent a price/performance point of interest to many. From what I have read, Haswell supposedly will have the ability to simultaneously natively run multiple OSes on various cores (rather than on VMs) which is interesting for the server market, but I am wondering if there will be the ability to assign cores to specific applications which will be incorporated in OS X. At present, I am told there is a Windows application which allows the user to manually assign a number of cores to certain applications and a number of others to other cores. I can foresee using 4 or 6 cores to import and process images in Lightroom or whatever and use some of the remaining cores to catch up on email, browsing or even running a game without bogging down the other processes.

The Ivy Bridge process/node should be quite mature by the time that Haswell makes its entry which, one hopes, may mean that there is a good chance of Intel making their release dates. It should be interesting.
RBR2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 11:42 AM   #297
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR2 View Post
Haswell supposedly will have the ability to simultaneously natively run multiple OSes on various cores (rather than on VMs) which is interesting for the server market,
No. The interfaces to Hypervisors improved. A slide that Anandtech covered:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/i...rchitecture/11

Haswell is at least 66% faster than VT switching 4 tick/tock cycles back (~1500 -> 500 ). With IOMMU mapping ( VT/d in Intel's marketing labels ) and hypervisor exits call reduced an OS can be placed in a VM where most of the activity proceeds without invoking the Hypervisor at all. The difference between "native on the raw iron" and a very good hypervisor ( VMware ESXi or Hyper-V ) isn't going to be all that significant.


Quote:
but I am wondering if there will be the ability to assign cores to specific applications which will be incorporated in OS X.
The underlying ability to suggest is already there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_affinity

in particular to OS X

http://developer.apple.com/library/m...PI/_index.html

there is not going to be a "I can do a better job than you" switch totally block the scheduler from doing its job though. Nor a exposing that to general users with an ease to use GUI.


Quote:
The Ivy Bridge process/node should be quite mature by the time that Haswell makes its entry which, one hopes, may mean that there is a good chance of Intel making their release dates. It should be interesting.
It is not process or yield that was the primary blocker last time. It was more so bugs/defects and perhaps a bit of lack of competition. Neither one of those is likely to go away. DDR 4 and transactional memory are two things that are going to make the acceptance process be somewhat conservative by the system vendor and their major customers.

But yes if Intel is shooting for about 12 months after Ivy Bridge to do Haswell there is a good chance they will hit the date.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2012, 09:35 AM   #298
Middleman-77
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
For those interested in speed comparisons here's another test on the Gigabyte Hackintosh, this time from a 2TB Fusion Drive to a standard 1TB HD via Thunderbolt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2mFzKyzBcc

and from 120GB SSD to 120GB SSD via Thunderbolt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CwXNQ7J9RA

Last edited by Middleman-77; Dec 20, 2012 at 05:14 AM.
Middleman-77 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 06:13 PM   #299
El Awesome
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
I'm sitting here next to my new hackintosh.
It tookme about 1.5 days to get it working 100% - you can be much faster than that.

It was actually pretty easy, I just ran into a problem that took me several hours to solve. But I must say, setting up a hackintosh is really easy!

Specs:
ASUS Sabertooth Z77
Intel i7 3770k @ stoc 3.5 (until my water cooling arrives)
EVGA GTX680 Superclocked
16GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz RAM (another 16 to come)
Samsung 830 SSD from my Mac Pro

It's pretty fast (GB-Score: ~13500)
Until now it didn't KP once!

I must say I'm pretty pleased with this machine!
__________________
Hackintosh 3.5Ghz i7 3770k, 32 GB RAM, eVGA GTX 680 2048 MB SuperClocked, Samsung 830 128GB SSD
MacBook Pro Late '08 2.8 Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM, Nvidia 9400M & 9600M GT
El Awesome is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 11:13 AM   #300
musio
macrumors 68000
 
musio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Is there such thing in the hackintosh world yet as building a system with listed parts so you don't need any special software mods to run OSX? (no ktext, modding, hacking, terminal, i mean working like an official apple product)

I was thinking of building a Mac Pro hackintosh but i wanted a high end system with minimal tinkering and max stability (for future updates)

Last edited by musio; Dec 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM.
musio is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hackintosh Mac Pro bomberaia Mac Pro 14 Feb 27, 2014 04:29 PM
From Hackintosh to Turbo Mac Pro Thomaspin Mac Pro 34 Aug 15, 2013 06:24 AM
3.1 Mac Pro or iMac or Hackintosh flintandtinder Buying Tips and Advice 16 Mar 27, 2013 11:21 PM
For Lion Server: 2011 Mac mini, 2006/8 Mac Pro, or Hackintosh? Yebubbleman Mac mini 0 Mar 15, 2013 12:14 AM
Mac Pro/Hackintosh... Liquinn Mac Pro 85 Mar 7, 2013 12:54 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC