Test the First Flashed GTX285 ?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by MacVidCards, Jun 20, 2009.

  1. Cuda macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #26
    I think that's Nvidia, not Apple, tho I did note that too.

    When you say Fails to work, how did you mean?

    I managed to get the lasted Duet to build, what a pain.

    Now I'm going to see if the UEFI64 will build and boot on my C2D.

    Do you know anything about the irc://irc.osx86.hu/UEFI-Boot project, it seems to be what I'm trying to get done?
     
  2. Incision macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #27
    Hello,

    I am down in the orange county area. If you ever need any other testers please let me know and i can get my hands on a GTX285. I have the dual Quad Core 2.8GHZ Mac Pro. Please just let me know and i will come up there in a hurry :)
     
  3. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #28
    you know what....we might be able to work something out.

    I need to find some more 256K chips.

    The only card I can 100% guarantee is the EVGA I just did for teeck2000.

    By Wednesday or Thursday I may be ready to do a card for you.

    When might you want to drive up?

    I am near the Hollywood & Highland mall, by Runyon Canyon park.
     
  4. netkas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #29
    that is about custom bootloader which work in efi shell

    this will not work with gtx285 like on real mac (will not read the keys rom set for card, and will not pass it to OS)
     
  5. Frixo Cool macrumors member

    Frixo Cool

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Location:
    Croatia
    #30
    Is there any way to use original or PC version of the card on 1st gen Mac Pro and to have picture and boot options at boot time?

    Is it only an issue of 32-bit EFI? Why Nvidia does not support older Macs when the card itself could work?
     
  6. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #31
    As far as I know, all the best info on this is here on these pages. So, currently there is NO WAY to see boot screens on First Gen. In fact, as far as I know, I am the only one to run a GTX285 in a 1st Gen. As you can read, it required an additional Nvidia card and Netkas injectors.

    I want to start an effort to learn how to "sew" EFI ROMs for Nvidia cards, as Pipolomo42 did for 4870. Would open up quite a few cards as options.
     
  7. ohkuipo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    #32
    So in order to use a store-bought PC version of this card, it requires physically removing a 128k chip on the card and soldering on a 256k version which Apple supports in its place? Seems a little crazy to me! If that's the case, where would you even get ahold of one of those chips? Sorry if I missed an obvious answer, I'm just trying to wrap my mind about this whole flashing business. :confused:
     
  8. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #33
    Since the early days of Video Card flashing, the usual "block" to making an inexpensive PC card work as if it were a more expensive Mac version has been the size of the ROM file/chip.

    Typically, cards like the Radeon 9800 for PC had a 64K chip while the Mac ROM file itself was 128K. So, like everything else in computer world, the numbers have gotten bigger. Now we have Mac ROM file requiring 156K while most PC boards have a 128K chip...so once again the file won't fit on the chip.

    Same game, different players.
     
  9. ohkuipo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    #34
    I know it is possible to flash a PC 9800 for Mac compatibility with software utilities, such as graphiccelerator. You used the 9800 as your example... does that mean software such as that finds a way of getting around the self-imposed limitations of the size of the ROM chip? Or does it find a sort of workaround?
     
  10. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #35
    There is new Free Lunch or Magic Pill. 128K doesn't fit in 64K chip, no matter what you try.

    Do some more research at Mac ELite.

    There is a reduced 64K ROM for Radeon 9800, but it loses some functionality.

    There MAY be a way to chop 30K out of the EFI GTX285 ROM, but for me it is easier to just solder a new chip on.
     
  11. ohkuipo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    #36
    Sorry to keep pestering you about an unimportant card, but http://themacelite.wikidot.com/compatibility lists the 9800 as having full compatibility for all listed models. Could you please elaborate on what is lost when the ROM is flashed in this way?
     
  12. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #37
    It has been a few years since I fiddled with a 9800 so my memories are a little vague.

    The process of reducing the 9800 ROM clipped out certain things that COULD be replaced by something called "ATI ROM extender" which various ATI packages could install. SO SOME of the loses could be replaced.

    Specific things I can remember were that the reduced 9800 had fewer resolution choices under certain circumstances and the big one to me was that the boot message that would normally be triggered when there was a problem with exterior power connection was removed.

    So, if you forgot to plug in power or there was a connection or voltage issue with the power connection; cards running the reduced ROM would just NOT WORK. Cards with the full rom would have an image of card drawn on screen with power connector flashing in red. If you corrected power issue, the power connection in the image turns green and card resumes booting.

    As far as the GTX285 goes, it may be possible to reduce. The PC BIOS is only 64K so it is hard to understand how the EFI portion of the ROM requires 92K.

    But as I said, I won't be spending hours trying to excise the code. There are better people for that.
     
  13. netkas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #38
    decompressed is much bigger

    174080 Jun 23 10:26 efi_285.efi
    87500 Jun 23 10:26 efi_compressed_285
     
  14. Incision macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #39
    Hey The Rominator,

    I dont have the ability to send you a PM. How would you like for me to get in contact with you?
     
  15. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #40
    had my addy here....removed for security after 2 days
     
  16. GrnEydDvl macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    #41
    Before I brick this card, I better ask:

    I grabbed the part number of my chip via "nvflash -c" and it is "pm25lv512".

    Googling the part number turns up some info on the chip.

    • Memory Organization
    Pm25LV512: 64K x 8 (512 Kbit)


    It looks to my very layman eyes that the OEM Mac gtx285 ROM should fit easily. But before I charged ahead and possibly bricked the card, I thought it best to ask.

    So, should I be OK to flash my PC GTX 285 with the Mac firmware?

     
  17. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #42
    And here is why there are so many problems.

    That is a 64K chip.

    It would seem that there are 8 pages of 64K each but for whatever reason, when these chips are used as EEPROMs for GPU, they only access the "first page"

    So, any attempt to put more than 64K on that card will result in BRICK CITY.

    If anyone in LA wants to try to make another of these, PM me. I have one more 256K chip here and that guy in Orange County hasn't written me yet.
     
  18. hyram macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    #43
    Rom,Rom, Rom... I usually trust you, but this is totally wrong. You are correct that it's a 64k part...at least a 64kByte part. When it says 64k x 8 it is specifing that it's 64k by 8 bits wide. NOT 8 pages of 64k each.

    If you take the 64k and multiply by 8 bits you get 512kbits. Flash and ram parts are useally specified (these days anyway) by their bit capacity, not their byte capacity.

    I sugggest you have a ;look at the data sheet: http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/153931/PMC/PM25LV512.html

    You'll see this part is specified as a 512kbit part organized as 64kBytes.

    hyram
     
  19. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #44
    Whatever you want to define it as....it won't fit the EFI ROM and the card will be bricked.
     
  20. itsalan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    #45
    I'm available if you want to try to make another one, although I don't have a card yet.
     
  21. Guiyon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    #46
    What's the part number of the chip?
     
  22. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #47
    It is an SST chip....I don't have it in front of me.

    Best is to look at the "supported EEPROM" part of Nvflash, it lists chips and sizes.

    I know the SST has a part number ending in 020
     
  23. Guiyon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    #48
    Looks like the only one DigiKey has in stock is the Atmel AT25DF041. Am I correct in assuming that most of the reference-based boards use a 3.9mm wide 8-SOIC package?
     
  24. MacVidCards thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #49
    NVFlash 5.72 Supported EEPROMs

    Supported EEPROM's --
    AMD AM29LV001B 128Kx8 2.7vV, 1B page, 16k blk, ID=(01,006D)
    AMD AM29LV010 128Kx8 2.7vV, 1B page, 16k blk, ID=(01,006E)
    AMD AM29LV001T 128Kx8 2.7vV, 1B page, 16k blk, ID=(01,00ED)
    Atmel AT49F512 64Kx8 5.0,3.0,2.7V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,0003)
    Atmel AT49F001T 128Kx8 5.0V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,0004)
    Atmel AT49F001 128Kx8 5.0V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,0005)
    Atmel AT49BV/LV010 128Kx8 2.7-3.6V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,0017)
    Atmel AT29LV/BV010A 128Kx8 3.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,0035)
    Atmel AT29LV512 64Kx8 3.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,003D)
    Atmel AT25F1024 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 32k blk, ID=(1F,0040)
    Atmel AT29C512 64Kx8 5.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,005D)
    Atmel AT25F1024 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 32k blk, ID=(1F,0060)
    Atmel AT25F512A 512Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 128B page, 32k blk, ID=(1F,0065)
    Atmel AT49F010 128Kx8 5.0V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,0087)
    Atmel AT29C010A 128Kx8 5.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(1F,00D5)
    Atmel AT25DF021 2048Kx1S 2.3-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(1F,4300)
    Atmel AT25DF041 4096Kx1S 2.3-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(1F,4401)
    Atmel AT25FS010 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(1F,6601)
    ST M25P05 512Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 128B page, 32k blk, ID=(20,0005)
    ST M25P10 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 128B page, 32k blk, ID=(20,0010)
    ST M29W512B 64Kx8 2.7-3.6V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(20,0027)
    Tenx ICE25P05 512Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 128B page, 32k blk, ID=(5E,0001)
    PMC Pm39LV512 64Kx8 3.0-3.6V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(9D,001B)
    PMC Pm39LV010 128Kx8 3.0-3.6V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(9D,001C)
    PMC Pm25LV512 512Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(9D,007B)
    PMC Pm25LV010 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(9D,007C)
    SST SST29EE010 128Kx8 5.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(BF,0007)
    SST SST29LE/VE010 128Kx8 2.9,2.7V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(BF,0008)
    SST SST29LE/VE512 64Kx8 2.9,2.7V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(BF,003D)
    SST SST45VF010 1024Kx1S 3.0-3.6V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,0042)
    SST SST25LF020 2048Kx1S 3.0-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,0043)
    SST SST25LF040 4096Kx1S 3.0-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,0044)
    SST SST25VF512 512Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,0048)
    SST SST25VF010 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,0049)
    SST SST29EE512 64Kx8 5.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(BF,005D)
    SST SST39SF010 128Kx8 5.0V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,00B5)
    SST SST39VF512 64Kx8 2.7-3.6V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,00D4)
    SST SST39VF010 128Kx8 2.7-3.6V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(BF,00D5)
    MX MX29F001T 128Kx8 5.0V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(C2,0018)
    MX MX29F001B 128Kx8 5.0V, 1B page, 0k blk, ID=(C2,0019)
    MX MX25L512 512Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(C2,2010)
    MX MX25L1005 1024Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(C2,2011)
    MX MX25L2005 2048Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(C2,2012)
    MX MX25L4005A 4096Kx1S 2.7-3.6V, 256B page, 4k blk, ID=(C2,2013)
    WBond W39L010 128Kx8 3.3V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(DA,0031)
    WBond W39L512 64Kx8 3.3V, 1B page, 4k blk, ID=(DA,0038)
    WBond W29C011A 128Kx8 5.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(DA,00C1)
    WBond W29EE512 64Kx8 5.0V, 128B page, 0k blk, ID=(DA,00C8)

    The chip in RED is the one that 10thHzMac found on original Mac GTX285

    The chip in GREEN is the one I used.

    So those two are only ones I can say work for sure.
     
  25. Guiyon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    #50
    Any idea what package the chips use? Both of those come in multiple packages.
     

Share This Page