NVMe with ST-NGFF2013-C; Vega Internal GPU; Mac Pro 2013 (6,1)

CC88

macrumors 6502
Sep 29, 2010
259
37
Feels the same to me, then again I hardly ever reboot so I'm not too familiar with the boot times anyway. It's not sctually slow as I've seen it reported by some who stated it was taking minutes for them.
Me too. It doesn't take minutes. It take a bunch of seconds more than the Apple one. And like you I hardly do reboot as it's always in sleep mode. Latest uptime without reboot was around 242 days.
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
Not the 127* number though, only "MP61.0124.B00" which I guess is an older version. Anyway, will try the upgrade trick later today and see if this changes anything.
Your firmware is 3 versions outdated:

  • MP61.0124.B00
  • MP61.0125.B00
  • 126.0.0.0.0
  • 127.0.0.0.0
You have to reinstall the Apple original SSD and update it. You can do a clean install and force the firmware upgrade, with the original Apple SSD.
 

zipp0rsch

macrumors newbie
Aug 22, 2018
21
3
Your firmware is 3 versions outdated:

  • MP61.0124.B00
  • MP61.0125.B00
  • 126.0.0.0.0
  • 127.0.0.0.0
You have to reinstall the Apple original SSD and update it. You can do a clean install and force the firmware upgrade, with the original Apple SSD.
Thank you very much, I will try this today.
 

th0masp

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2015
499
256
germany
Minor point about the firmware upgrade - not sure it's related - but my machine came with High Sierra originally. To get the latest and greatest I installed OS version 10.14.1 and then went back down to 10.13.6 for my actual system on the freshly installed NVM drive.

I had a popup about some EFI security check the other day when waking the computer, wanting to send a firmware dump to Apple. First time I had come across that one - is that solved by installing latest security patch? (I'm on plain old .6 that you get by running the combo updater).
Not bothered too much btw - just curious.
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
I had a popup about some EFI security check the other day when waking the computer, wanting to send a firmware dump to Apple. First time I had come across that one - is that solved by installing latest security patch? (I'm on plain old .6 that you get by running the combo updater).
Not bothered too much btw - just curious.
This happened to me dual booting Mojave and High Sierra with two Macs. Apple has a daemon, efi2check, that periodically checks the EFI firmware for modifications, it's a security check.

I suspect that if you don't keep High Sierra totally updated, the 10.13 version of efi2check thinks that the new EFI firmware is a not valid one. I didn't disassembled efi2check to be sure how is the mechanism for updating the valid firmware table, but what I read about seems to confirm my suspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: itdk92 and CC88

th0masp

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2015
499
256
germany
I suspect that if you don't keep High Sierra totally updated, the 10.13 version of efi2check thinks that the new EFI firmware is a not valid one. I didn't disassembled efi2check to be sure how is the mechanism for updating the valid firmware table, but what I read about seems to confirm my suspect.
Thanks, yeah I figure the firmware signature is simply too new for the 'old' OS to recognize. Strange that they don't have some kind of version-independent 'master key' that at least tells them that it's genuine and instead opt to display a dialog that very much alarms the user that his system may have been hacked.

I'll run the security update from a week ago, no problem. Just not too eager to needlessly discard my open sessions.
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
Same 127.0.0.0.0 BootROM with todays 10.14.3 DP2:

Code:
Apple ROM Version
  Model:        MP61
  EFI Version:  127.0.0.0.0
  Built by:     root@saumon
  Date:         Mon Sep 17 15:11:58 PDT 2018
  Revision:     127 (B&I)
  ROM Version:  F000_D00
  Build Type:   Official Build, Release
  Compiler:     Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
Nice so I don't have to install Apple SSD :)
One thing, I'm not checking for other firmwares, just for BootROM.

Apple changed the way they pack the Scripts file from FirmwareUpdate.pkg and it can't be extracted with current xar -xf. So I can't check for blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc - just BootROM.
 

cgscotto

macrumors member
Sep 29, 2018
35
17
Athens, OH
One thing, I'm not checking for other firmwares, just for BootROM.

Apple changed the way they pack the Scripts file from FirmwareUpdate.pkg and it can't be extracted with current xar -xf. So I can't check for blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc - just BootROM.
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that if blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc were part of an update and an Apple SSD was necessary to install them, then the update wouldn't allow installation unless the Apple SSD was installed?

The alternative seems less appealing. Updates can be installed with the NVMe drive, but blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc won't be installed, and you will never know that they have not been installed. To be safe, you will have to install the Apple SSD before every update on the off chance that a blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc is included in the update. This seems like a huge pain.
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that if blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc were part of an update and an Apple SSD was necessary to install them, then the update wouldn't allow installation unless the Apple SSD was installed?
I don't even remember the last time Illumination firmware was updated, Thunderbolt was at least two or three years ago, SSUAX blades had an update very early on. So, it's not common like BootROM.

Minor macOS updates install without you needing to go back to the original Apple blade.

The alternative seems less appealing. Updates can be installed with the NVMe drive, but blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc won't be installed, and you will never know that they have not been installed. To be safe, you will have to install the Apple SSD before every update on the off chance that a blade firmware updates/Thunderbolt/illumination/etc is included in the update. This seems like a huge pain.
I don't think that it's sane or have a need to do that, just check MR, if we get a new BootROM, you will see it here. I always check the payloads, other people do the same.

The xar situation is temporary, Apple usually update it's internal tools before sending to everyone else, after that, business as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgscotto

Harlock

macrumors newbie
Dec 28, 2018
2
0
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this excellent thread.
I purchased a Sintech adapter (the right one) and I am going to purchase a Samsung 970 Pro SSD for my MacPro 6.1 (late 2013). For the moment, I will try without heat sink.
I have just a doubt: it seems to me that the above configuration would be missing of the two solid pads connected to ground.
Could this have any negative consequence?
I think that if Apple provided a connection to the ground for the SSD this should have some kind of use.
OWC SSDs have the tho solid pads (Aura Pro X) or a connection to the ground by wiring (Aura).
I do not like OWC SSDs but I am wondering if changing configuration and purchasing a Transcend JetDrive 850/855 that has the two solid pads too and 5 years warranty.
What is your opinion (or direct experience) about transcend SSDs vs Samsung (Pro) ones in terms of:
- speed;
- reliability;
- lifetime (in TBW); Samsung declares 1,200 TBW for the 970 Pro, what about Transcend?
Thanks in advance to anyone who could help me better undestranding.
 

iMactouch

macrumors member
Mar 22, 2017
34
15
Wunstorf, Germany
A few days ago I installed the following Sintech adapter in my Mac Pro 2013: http://eshop.sintech.cn/ngff-m2-pcie-ssd-card-as-2013-2014-2015-macbook-ssd-p-1139.html
Normally I wanted the adapter: http://eshop.sintech.cn/ngff-m2-pcie-ssd-card-as-2013-2014-2015-macbook-ssd-p-1229.html but it was not available in the moment here in Germany. The seller told me that they are electrically the same.

I installed the adapter together with a Crucial P1 with 1TB (CT1000P1SSD8). I used this slower NVMe SSD because the port in the Mac Pro 2013 is not so fast that it takes advantage of a faster one.

Before I had a SSUBX 512GB from Apple (SM0512G) that writes with 1054 MB/s and reads with 1410 MB/s.

The Crucial now writes with 1227 MB/s and reads with 1448 MB/s. So everything is fine, it is fast and I have more free place.
I have no problems with sleep or any other glitch. It is simply great!
After updating the original Quadcore to a 10-Core this was the best update so far!

Here is a picture showing the SSD in the small adapter inside the Mac Pro:

IMG_8507.jpeg
 

Harlock

macrumors newbie
Dec 28, 2018
2
0
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this excellent thread.
I purchased a Sintech adapter (the right one) and I am going to purchase a Samsung 970 Pro SSD for my MacPro 6.1 (late 2013). For the moment, I will try without heat sink.
I have just a doubt: it seems to me that the above configuration would be missing of the two solid pads connected to ground.
Could this have any negative consequence?
I think that if Apple provided a connection to the ground for the SSD this should have some kind of use.
OWC SSDs have the tho solid pads (Aura Pro X) or a connection to the ground by wiring (Aura).
I do not like OWC SSDs but I am wondering if changing configuration and purchasing a Transcend JetDrive 850/855 that has the two solid pads too and 5 years warranty.
What is your opinion (or direct experience) about transcend SSDs vs Samsung (Pro) ones in terms of:
- speed;
- reliability;
- lifetime (in TBW); Samsung declares 1,200 TBW for the 970 Pro, what about Transcend?
Thanks in advance to anyone who could help me better undestranding.
Any information about what above?
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
Today Apple released 10.14.4 DP1, same 127.0.0.0.0 BootROM:

Code:
$IBIOSI$ MP61.88Z.0125.B00.1809171517
Copyright (c) 2005-2018 Apple Inc.  All rights reserved.
Apple ROM Version
  Model:        MP61
  EFI Version:  127.0.0.0.0
  Built by:     root@saumon
  Date:         Mon Sep 17 15:11:58 PDT 2018
  Revision:     127 (B&I)
  ROM Version:  F000_D00
  Build Type:   Official Build, Release
  Compiler:     Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
 

tsialex

macrumors 604
Jun 13, 2016
7,655
8,367
Brazil
MP6,1 got a new BootROM with 10.14.4 DP2, 128.0.0.0.0:

Code:
$IBIOSI$ MP61.88Z.F000.B00.1812191437Copyright (c) 2005-2018 Apple Inc.  All rights reserved.
Apple ROM Version
  Model:        MP61
  EFI Version:  128.0.0.0.0
  Built by:     root@saumon
  Date:         Wed Dec 19 14:37:18 PST 2018
  Revision:     128 (B&I)
  ROM Version:  F000_B00
  Build Type:   Official Build, Release
  Compiler:     Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
 
  • Like
Reactions: itdk92 and cgscotto

sdshannon

macrumors member
Aug 11, 2006
44
1
Oakland
MP6,1 got a new BootROM with 10.14.4 DP2, 128.0.0.0.0:

Code:
$IBIOSI$ MP61.88Z.F000.B00.1812191437Copyright (c) 2005-2018 Apple Inc.  All rights reserved.
Apple ROM Version
  Model:        MP61
  EFI Version:  128.0.0.0.0
  Built by:     root@saumon
  Date:         Wed Dec 19 14:37:18 PST 2018
  Revision:     128 (B&I)
  ROM Version:  F000_B00
  Build Type:   Official Build, Release
  Compiler:     Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
ohh so when full release comes out , we would need to put the original drive back in to update. then put the new drive back in to update again?
 

jclmavg

macrumors regular
Aug 2, 2014
168
81
Are those bootrom updates available separately somewhere in case the update fails during a regular upgrade?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.