32EFI Mac Pro video upgrade path dying out?

[gugucom]

It's a different board though, and though very similar, it's going to have different microcode for the CPU's and chipset.

It would need to be modified or work as an example to re-write the existing firmware. Lot of work though to reverse engineer what's there. Too big a gamble otherwise, and wouldn't recommend taking a "stab in the dark" with it.

Try running a pair of X5365 or X5355 in a 2008 Mac Pro. I bet it will not work. If it works against expectations you might have a chance. Then you are still faced with the challenge to get the firmware on the EEPROM. I do not know of any procedure that will do it.

 

[MacVidCards]

Try running a pair of X5365 or X5355 in a 2008 Mac Pro. I bet it will not work. If it works against expectations you might have a chance. Then you are still faced with the challenge to get the firmware on the EEPROM. I do not know of any procedure that will do it.

Who's got a loose Logic Board?

Needs to be a 1st or 2nd gen. Let's have a look at EEPROM.

If it happens to be SOIC8 style, I may be able to help.

(ROM flashing and installing chip, ability to remove and restore MP if need be...........I am NOT the one to write the firmware.

Gugucom is right about the 2008 test though.

Other thing to test would be other processors. Could 1st Gen run newer chips with this?

Bus speed might be an issue

 

[gugucom]

The MP3,1 firmware is designed to run quad CPUs only. This is why I would first try it with an identical configuration from 5300 series Xeons. If they run you can check if one 5300 runs and then you could check if the dual core 5100 series run in pairs.

Bus speed should not be an issue on the 5400 chipset. It is designed to run slower memory. The problem might be in firmware again. We learned that Apple hard wired the multiplicator in the Nehalems to 8 instead of flexibly selecting it according to SPD reads.

 

[jmggs]

when i bought my mac pro 1,1 it has marketed as a 64 BIT MACHINE an in fact isn't, this very wrong, apple is making FALSE publicity of is products.

 

[gugucom]

when i bought my mac pro 1,1 it has marketed as a 64 BIT MACHINE an in fact isn't, this very wrong, apple is making FALSE publicity of is products.

the Power Mac G5 back in 2003 was marketed as a 64-bit computer and when Apple finally launched a 64-bit kernel they obsoleted it. Speaking of some misleading PR.

 

[nanofrog]

Try running a pair of X5365 or X5355 in a 2008 Mac Pro. I bet it will not work. If it works against expectations you might have a chance. Then you are still faced with the challenge to get the firmware on the EEPROM. I do not know of any procedure that will do it.

My point is it likely would not work, not that it would. Sorry it wasn't clear enough.

As per the ROM, I'd pull it, and extract it with a Universal Device Programmer (and an adapter board if it's an SMD part).

when i bought my mac pro 1,1 it has marketed as a 64 BIT MACHINE an in fact isn't, this very wrong, apple is making FALSE publicity of is products.

It's 64 bit in the sense the K32 versions of OS X can run 64 bit applications. But it's not true 64 bit. No 64 bit ROM based cards will work in it.

the Power Mac G5 back in 2003 was marketed as a 64-bit computer and when Apple finally launched a 64-bit kernel they obsoleted it. Speaking of some misleading PR.

The G5 to the '06 Intel MP was definitely a step backwards.

 

[gugucom]

The G5 to the '06 Intel MP was definitely a step backwards.

I don't think so. The Mac Pro users immediately had XP Professional 64-bit Edition available as a full 64-bit operating system, even with full 32-bit support. Some obscure Apple drivers wold not work but that was pretty negligeable. Four months later Vista-64 launched and one year later it was even officially supported on Mac Pros. Many people had Vista-64 running before Apple supported it by Bootcamp64.msi.

In many other regards the Mac Pro immediately expanded on the capabilities of the Power Mac. Graphic cards had better choice from the start and could be used for Windows only. Games were instantly much better. Every Mac Pro had at least 4 cores compared to dual core standard of the last Power Mac. By 2007 the Mac Pro was reaching 3,0 GHz and got eight cores. PPC never got to 3 GHz and octads were way beyond what IBM had reached with Apple in spring 2007 if the partnership had continued.

The point I wanted to make was the consistency that Apple showed in misleading their customers about the 64-bit capabilities of their machines. They lied for 6 years and when they finally issued a 64-bit kernel they obsoleted all 64-bit machines which were sold from 2003 to mid 2006.

 

[nanofrog]

I don't think so.

I only meant in terms of the firmware. The G5 had 64 bit firmware, but the first Intel systems used 32 bit.

Beyond that, the Intel parts were a much better choice, as the PPC had hit a wall. And as you mentioned, it was still possible to use 64 bit applications and OS's such as XP-64 at the time.

The point I wanted to make was the consistency that Apple showed in misleading their customers about the 64-bit capabilities of their machines. They lied for 6 years and when they finally issued a 64-bit kernel they obsoleted all 64-bit machines which were sold from 2003 to mid 2006.

This I understand, and agree with you.

There's also the issues with omissions (quite common lately ). Not exactly lying, but close enough, as with the '06 systems, theres no mention of 32 bit firmware in the specifications, but it does highlight the CPU's are 64 bit. They'd think it had 64 bit firmware from day one. Seriously, What other conclusion would people draw from that?

 

[akadmon]

I smell a CAS. Any lawyers here?