Not sure why that is. The 2.6 gHz MBP gets a 3300 and my 3.2 gHz quad gets more than twice that. Can't be just gHz.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Merged Hackintosh Thread
- Thread starter ease718
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be the FSB with in my case for a q6600 it would be ~356 for a 9x multiplier if running a 8x chip then 400mhz for it. The higher FSB allows for faster data transfers then you have the higher latency ram that so-dimms have as compared to lower in a desktop machine. You could try lowering the speed of your machine and increase the latency of the ram and see what that does for you I doubt it will increase the score.
all your hardware should work, if you are ready to.
that's the board i first booted deadmoo on. what a day that was!
10.5.4 Leopard is running flawlessly on my old Asrock P4Dual-915GL,
a lower performing board than the P4P800. have fun!
I too have a Asrock P4Dual-915GL build. I'm looking for the right build to install on my machine. Which build did you have such great results with? Also, what components did you install? I was able to get the ToH RC2 build going, but it seems buggy. I have also tried the iAtkos 4i, and didn't have much luck with it (probably had trouble choosing the proper bootloading method).
Perhaps you can provide a little insight.
The thing is, guys; it's all very well making comparisons to QUAD core Mac Pro, and saying how it will beat it in X/Y/Z test or benchmark... but the thing is... lets come back to reality here; HOW many people actually buy a SINGLE quad core Mac Pro?... not nearly as many as buy the 8-core I can tell you!. So let's hear about how your Hackintosh beats the 8-core XEON... I won't hold my breath.
Okay so you're *halfway* or slightly more there speed wise, as compared to an 8-core (and nowhere NEAR the whole Mac experience)... so why don't you go and buy an Intel Skulltrail board, two 2.8Ghz XEONS and the FBDIMMS to go with it huh (or, if you REALLY think you can beat a Mac pro, buy 2 of the 3.2Ghz Quad XEONS!), and see how that scores... . Oh - that's right - buying the same spec hardware would almost be AS MUCH as a Mac Pro!. Core 2 Quad processors are lower spec than XEON - anyone knows that.
As "clever" as all this is, you *CANNOT* avoid the fact that a REAL Mac is a REAL Mac, and what you are building are just mere imiations - fakes - counterfeits, and they will only EVER slightly approximate a Mac, because you run a (hacked) OSX which is an update - sometimes a COUPLE - behind the real Mac platform.
Okay so you do it "because I can" and because it's cheap?. It's cheap monetarily, but you DON'T get support/Applecare/updates or the joy of owning a quality piece of hardware. Whilst you are sitting there scouring Google and forums for hacked and patched drivers for your hardware, we have been getting on with our lives and USING the machines. Time wise, bulding a hackintosh is more hassle than it's worth, unless you enjoy reproducing a well proven experiment?. As much as I respect that it's your choice (this is not a flame btw) I cannot agree that a hackintosh is a favourable substitute for an Apple Macintosh, by a VERY long shot indeed. The clever people are the ones that compiled OSX to make it to run on x86/x64 hardware...
OH WAIT - THAT'S APPLE!
All the best with your tinkering - time & sanity are worth one million fold of mere money!
PS: To all those who say Apple "gave in" and moved to Intel, and somehow equate this to the superiority of windows... I hasten to remind you that Intel existed a LONG time before windows ever existed, and so it has nothing to to with windows whatsoever!. They could have chosen VIA or AMD or Cyrix... makes no odds.
Okay so you're *halfway* or slightly more there speed wise, as compared to an 8-core (and nowhere NEAR the whole Mac experience)... so why don't you go and buy an Intel Skulltrail board, two 2.8Ghz XEONS and the FBDIMMS to go with it huh (or, if you REALLY think you can beat a Mac pro, buy 2 of the 3.2Ghz Quad XEONS!
), and see how that scores... . Oh - that's right - buying the same spec hardware would almost be AS MUCH as a Mac Pro!. Core 2 Quad processors are lower spec than XEON - anyone knows that.As "clever" as all this is, you *CANNOT* avoid the fact that a REAL Mac is a REAL Mac, and what you are building are just mere imiations - fakes - counterfeits, and they will only EVER slightly approximate a Mac, because you run a (hacked) OSX which is an update - sometimes a COUPLE - behind the real Mac platform.
Okay so you do it "because I can" and because it's cheap?. It's cheap monetarily, but you DON'T get support/Applecare/updates or the joy of owning a quality piece of hardware. Whilst you are sitting there scouring Google and forums for hacked and patched drivers for your hardware, we have been getting on with our lives and USING the machines. Time wise, bulding a hackintosh is more hassle than it's worth, unless you enjoy reproducing a well proven experiment?. As much as I respect that it's your choice (this is not a flame btw) I cannot agree that a hackintosh is a favourable substitute for an Apple Macintosh, by a VERY long shot indeed. The clever people are the ones that compiled OSX to make it to run on x86/x64 hardware...
OH WAIT - THAT'S APPLE!
All the best with your tinkering - time & sanity are worth one million fold of mere money!
PS: To all those who say Apple "gave in" and moved to Intel, and somehow equate this to the superiority of windows... I hasten to remind you that Intel existed a LONG time before windows ever existed, and so it has nothing to to with windows whatsoever!. They could have chosen VIA or AMD or Cyrix... makes no odds.
While I agree it's a true Mac, in reality it kind of is. Running a couple of updates behind? I am running a native version of 10.5.4 with the Vanilla Kernel and all is well. This was all installed from a Retail disk.
But like I said earlier, I would not recommend this to someone unless they could make it themselves. No matter what you say though, I'm running the same operating system you are and running the same programs any legitimate Mac can fun.
jon
WITHOUT the peace of mind of Applecare and support, or being able to take it to an Apple store if it blows up.
There is no such thing as "kind of is"; it isn't. Each to their own, but I see it as a copout to owning the best computer money can buy. Each to their own. You can't use your hackintosh in FTDM either, as an external disk. Mac graphics have proprietory Apple video bios flashes, so standard PC cards are also different. The only thing the two have in common, is x86/x64 and nothing else; this is where the parallels finish.
Unlokia, get a grip, man!
A Mac Pro is a lump of metal that enables you to run Photoshop, Logic whatever as fast as you can afford. That is all. Building your own for less is always good. Who on earth wastes any time gazing upon it in wonder? Presumably, that is what you mean by "the experience".
And as for 'support, Applecare, updates' - well you get all those, except Applecare. So you save even more money. Or do you mean support as in "I took my Macbook to the Applestore and I knew more than the 'genius' who served me"? Plenty of threads attesting to that sort of support on this forum.
I know that Apple has broken Front Row on my Macbook Pro with its graphics update and seems to be in no hurry to fix it. No such problems with 10.5.4 on my Dell, however.
A Mac Pro is a lump of metal that enables you to run Photoshop, Logic whatever as fast as you can afford. That is all. Building your own for less is always good. Who on earth wastes any time gazing upon it in wonder? Presumably, that is what you mean by "the experience".
And as for 'support, Applecare, updates' - well you get all those, except Applecare. So you save even more money. Or do you mean support as in "I took my Macbook to the Applestore and I knew more than the 'genius' who served me"? Plenty of threads attesting to that sort of support on this forum.
I know that Apple has broken Front Row on my Macbook Pro with its graphics update and seems to be in no hurry to fix it. No such problems with 10.5.4 on my Dell, however.
The best money can buy? You're not serious, are you? How do you quantify 'best'?
Apparently, you don't really think so, otherwise you wouldn't be on this diatribe.
I never use my other macs in target disk mode, either, so this is really irrelevant.
Yeah, we have far more video options on hackintoshes than you do on your Macs. What, four the the MP and one for all the rest?
And you think that's meaningful?
Your defensive reaction only serves to reinforce my valid points. You know I am right, but will fervently deny so until the end of time. I am not attacking anyone, but merely speaking the truth. If you wish to continue hobbling along on a Wannabe-intosh, then that is entirely your perogative. My further input will serve no purpose; talking to people with selective hearing has always been hard work - enjoy your unsupported copies.
Piece of mind of AppleCare? I built the damn thing myself, I can solve my own problems. I'm not saying I should give this to my grandma or something, this is my own personal hobby. And as for the record, I"ve probably owned more Macs than you can imagine over the past 18 years, first one being an LC II.
As for Target Disk mode, I can hook up my MacBook Pro just fine in Target Disk Mode. Can't do it the other way around but that doesn't matter. You're just fishing around for little features that don't work.
As for the graphics card, I can take my pick of any NVidia or ATI card on the market for PC's and use it on my Hackintosh.
Other than that you are still not getting my point. I am NOT recommending building these for people and giving them the computer as an ACTUAL Mac. I can make it my actual Mac cause I have the resources and knowledge to fix it and build it. We are just a small group of hobbyists who like to build machines and put Mac OS X on it. At the end of the day I can do the same things on my Hackintosh that I can do on my legitimate Mac Book Pro.
jon
I built my Hackintosh, because I like to tinker. Even though it is not 100% Mac, it does what I want it to do. It is at 10.5.2 and it will never be upgraded beyond that. Some of the things it will not do: Target disk mode, I have never used. Time machine might not work, but I would never use it anyway. My house is full of real Macs and also Windows computers. I do not recommend Hackintosh to others because the average user does not want to experiment in this manner. Mac is incredible, and I am glad it is growing in popularity.
So, in closing, I say that the last several posters are each right in their opposing stances. Most Hackers also own Apple Macs and promote Apple Macs.
So, in closing, I say that the last several posters are each right in their opposing stances. Most Hackers also own Apple Macs and promote Apple Macs.
There are fixes for both your Time Machine problem as well as getting to 10.5.3 and beyond. But if you don't care about the features then what's not broke don't fix
.
There are fixes for both your Time Machine problem as well as getting to 10.5.3 and beyond. But if you don't care about the features then what's not broke don't fix
I have my own backup system that works great for me, and Time Machine would only be clutter for me. Everything I want my Hackintosh to do, it does, so I do not need the 10.5.3 upgrade.
Thanks for pointing out the fixes that are available.
Apologies if I upset people; I suppose PERSONALLY I just don't see the point. The whole technical challenge is the same as building a PC - virtually zero, as it's as simple as putting LEGO together. The real skill is with those who hack drivers and cross-compile patches etc, but whatever; if you enjoy it, then I'm noone to argue with that, and I apologise.
I think the majority of Mac users, buy them in order to be used as a tool for a job, whereas the PC enthusiasts generally enjoy building custom kit. I can see the PC side (customising) and I can relate to the Mac side (buying beautiful equipment for a purpose) but I suppose I got my wires crossed with the hybrid of the two, and stupidly assumed that the tinkerers are ALL trying to move to Mac, without the investment. I now see my inherent short-sightedness, and apologise for hurt feelings.
My opinion is NOT gospel, so ignore me if you wish to. Sorry!
I think the majority of Mac users, buy them in order to be used as a tool for a job, whereas the PC enthusiasts generally enjoy building custom kit. I can see the PC side (customising) and I can relate to the Mac side (buying beautiful equipment for a purpose) but I suppose I got my wires crossed with the hybrid of the two, and stupidly assumed that the tinkerers are ALL trying to move to Mac, without the investment. I now see my inherent short-sightedness, and apologise for hurt feelings.
My opinion is NOT gospel, so ignore me if you wish to. Sorry!
I'm willing to bet that almost everybody who has built a hackingtosh isn't just running OSX. Probably dual booting with Ubuntu, XP, Vista or all of them..
Its not an either or situation.
We just want the choice to be able to add more HD to our set up, to change the video card etc..If there was a reasonably priced alternative most wouldn't build one. (well ...maybe not) The OSx86 project allows to us build a very powerful 'mac' at a price far less than a macpro.
I don't think you will find any supporters on this thread..
Its not an either or situation.
We just want the choice to be able to add more HD to our set up, to change the video card etc..If there was a reasonably priced alternative most wouldn't build one. (well ...maybe not
) The OSx86 project allows to us build a very powerful 'mac' at a price far less than a macpro.I don't think you will find any supporters on this thread..
I'm willing to bet that almost everybody who has built a hackingtosh isn't just running OSX. Probably dual booting with Ubuntu, XP, Vista or all of them..
Its not an either or situation.
We just want the choice to be able to add more HD to our set up, to change the video card etc..If there was a reasonably priced alternative most wouldn't build one. (well ...maybe not
I don't think you will find any supporters on this thread..
I am triple booting on my current build and my atom hackintosh parts should be here by tuesday!
I'm willing to bet that almost everybody who has built a hackingtosh isn't just running OSX. Probably dual booting with Ubuntu, XP, Vista or all of them..
Its not an either or situation.
We just want the choice to be able to add more HD to our set up, to change the video card etc..If there was a reasonably priced alternative most wouldn't build one. (well ...maybe not
I don't think you will find any supporters on this thread..
Maybe not... but guess what?... it's a MAC forum!
.
I don't think people do it for the technical challenge. Then again, Lego is fun too
The point, at least for me, is to get the best of two worlds; The best and most versatile desktop OS out there currently and the most flexible hardware solution as well.
However good Apple's build quality is, mine is probably better, because I took my time and spend a day on it, wheras the Mac Pro is in all probability put together by some underpaid chinese worker who cares most about meeting her quota. I used high-quality components and I'm very satisfied with the result. However, if Apple were selling a computer that met my needs I would've bought from them even at a higher price. + $1000 simply isn't worth it to me, though. I don't mind paying slightly more but I don't need a server grade computer, so I don't want to pay for one.
I made the move to OS X because I wanted an OS that suited my needs. I did not make the move to Apple hardware, because they don't sell anything that suits my needs. Maybe I will buy a Macbook at some point, once Apple get around to putting in a LED screen, but if they don't release one soon, I'll just buy a MSI Wind instead, which is actually much closer to what I need. It's sorta like a Macbook Air, only smaller, lighter, cheaper, and without the core shutdowns. It can even play youtube videos without stuttering
for anyone whos interested ive attached a price comparison of a home built Hackintosh Pro versus the Mac Pro.
for anyone who wants a server grade workstation for rendering or video editing youd be crazy not to go with the Mac Pro. so who would go for the home built over a Mac Pro? no one!
Hackintosh users dont need all that power and want 1x CPU, desktop grade components, flexibility for cooling and a good cheap video card which all-in-all costs a lot less.
NOTE: the Hackintosh Pro adds tax and shipping after the subtotal while the Mac Pro includes tax and has free shipping. plus the Hackintosh Pro's mobo only supports up to 24 GB of RAM and its video card isnt PCIe 2.0 compatible.
REVISED NOTE: i didnt notice the ASUS mobo included a sound card so dismiss the Creative sound card and subtract 50 bucks from the total.
for anyone who wants a server grade workstation for rendering or video editing youd be crazy not to go with the Mac Pro. so who would go for the home built over a Mac Pro? no one!
Hackintosh users dont need all that power and want 1x CPU, desktop grade components, flexibility for cooling and a good cheap video card which all-in-all costs a lot less.
NOTE: the Hackintosh Pro adds tax and shipping after the subtotal while the Mac Pro includes tax and has free shipping. plus the Hackintosh Pro's mobo only supports up to 24 GB of RAM and its video card isnt PCIe 2.0 compatible.
REVISED NOTE: i didnt notice the ASUS mobo included a sound card so dismiss the Creative sound card and subtract 50 bucks from the total.
Maybe not... but guess what?... it's a MAC forum!
Yeah, maybe we shouldn't talk about Fusion, Parallels or Samba, eh?
Maybe not... but guess what?... it's a MAC forum!
Actually, this is The Merged Hackintosh Thread of MacRumors. It was done so that all Hackintosh discussions can be found at one place rather than all over the place like they used to be. That being said, we welcome you to our forum. If Apple built a mid tower, most of us would be driving that instead of building our own. I keep having that feeling that Apple is finally going to offer it, but I keep waiting. Who knows what the next few months will bring.
unlockia and others,
i seriously don't think that people care THAT much about benchmarks compared to current MP's and whatnot.
ill try to put it into perspective; if a person is smart enough to even attempt to build a hackintosh, they would know a little bit about components/hardware etc. they would be aware that any xeon server grade CPU would FLOG some ****** quad core core 2 duo....
my personal opinion is that people like boasting and showing what they have. i know i have talked about my hackintosh here, comparing it to various macs... its the reason why we have built it, to STAND IN as a basic mac that can do basic tasks. my hackintosh has been built as a folding machine and a ripping/torrent/video converting machine.. yes i could have done everything on winblows but osx is my niche and its where i feel most comfortable.
to the people that use their hackintosh's as their "master" machine, good on you! i wouldnt personally do it, basically because it is not stable. i have machine crashes quite constantly compared to a real mac, i have no idea why.. it just does. i do nothing more nor less than i would on my weaker, older CD MBP.
from what i understand, with some of the newer versions of osx86 and whatnot you can do software updates, which is awsome. but i dont see what the big deal is about being a few updates behind? my MBP is still on 10.5.2!!
unlockia; in reference to your
"It's cheap monetarily, but you DON'T get support/Applecare/updates or the joy of owning a quality piece of hardware."
quote...
if you can build a hackintosh and work through all the problems, you can figure out what you need to fix it if something is wrong, applecare pfft, and the updates are meh to me. the 'quality peice of hardware' your referring to is pretty much the case, because EVERYTHING else can be copied down to the tee. you can get the same CPU, same RAM, same GPU, same everything.. hell you can even get the same OS!!
so yea... thats my opinion.
i seriously don't think that people care THAT much about benchmarks compared to current MP's and whatnot.
ill try to put it into perspective; if a person is smart enough to even attempt to build a hackintosh, they would know a little bit about components/hardware etc. they would be aware that any xeon server grade CPU would FLOG some ****** quad core core 2 duo....
my personal opinion is that people like boasting and showing what they have. i know i have talked about my hackintosh here, comparing it to various macs... its the reason why we have built it, to STAND IN as a basic mac that can do basic tasks. my hackintosh has been built as a folding machine and a ripping/torrent/video converting machine.. yes i could have done everything on winblows but osx is my niche and its where i feel most comfortable.
to the people that use their hackintosh's as their "master" machine, good on you! i wouldnt personally do it, basically because it is not stable. i have machine crashes quite constantly compared to a real mac, i have no idea why.. it just does. i do nothing more nor less than i would on my weaker, older CD MBP.
from what i understand, with some of the newer versions of osx86 and whatnot you can do software updates, which is awsome. but i dont see what the big deal is about being a few updates behind? my MBP is still on 10.5.2!!
unlockia; in reference to your
"It's cheap monetarily, but you DON'T get support/Applecare/updates or the joy of owning a quality piece of hardware."
quote...
if you can build a hackintosh and work through all the problems, you can figure out what you need to fix it if something is wrong, applecare pfft, and the updates are meh to me. the 'quality peice of hardware' your referring to is pretty much the case, because EVERYTHING else can be copied down to the tee. you can get the same CPU, same RAM, same GPU, same everything.. hell you can even get the same OS!!
so yea... thats my opinion.
The strange thing is: Why doesn't that show up in the benchmarks?
When I built my hackintosh about 8 months ago I had a problem with safari crashing fairly often, but otherwise the machine was rock solid. As it turned out, Safari eventually became more stable, so it was probably due to bugs in Safari or the OS that got fixed along the way. I'm running the newest kernel and all updates. The machine is rock solid, and I have the impression that's more the rule than the exception.
I wouldn't use the hackintosh in a business (where downtime is expensive), but as a home machine it just works
Way ahead of you on that. BTW, you shouldn't end sentences with prepositions Mr. Know-It-All.