Turn a "new" Sapphire RX580 PULSE into the "Mac Edition" card

Dr. Stealth

macrumors 6502a
Sep 14, 2004
812
718
SoCal-Surf City USA
GPU: Sapphire RX 580 Nitro+ 8GB
Part Number (Original): 113-1E3660U-O51

Here is my work....

Any help?

Very interesting post. I had no idea manipulating the checksum was even possible. Your post makes it perfectly clear. Thanks for your time putting this together.
 
Last edited:

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
A lot of this goes right over my head, but bottom line, will this give you boot screens or just get the card recognised and working?
I think it's a bit more than purely cosmetic in 10.13.2. This let the OS give the card a correct framebuffer personality, which can avoid some strange issue.

However, since all these “part number things” are at OS level, which means this mod won’t give any boot screen. Not even close to that.

Not sure what Apple will do in the future (I mean base on this part number), but at this moment, in terms of funcstions or performance, you can treat this simply cosmetic.
 
Last edited:

leVel

macrumors regular
Jul 24, 2008
119
168
No sure, but since jhero already proved that "comma" (2C) can be change to "space" (20) safely. I will treat this is "known good method".

That time stamp also looks like can be change, but it's a "unknown method" at this moment. Of course, it will be great if you can test it.

Anyway, after you edit the ROM, just before you flash it, can you double check if your ROM image is still 262,144 bytes? I am still thinking why your 1st try won't work (except you may pick the wrong FF).
Ok, I tried flashing both ROM images using both methods. After editing they were 262,144 bytes. So no issue there.

The ROM image made by replacing the FF bit at the end failed again. ATIWinFlash says something about “bios image not found” when trying to flash the GPU. I will try replacing an FF bit in another location this evening and report back.

The other ROM image made by altering the year worked flawlessly.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
Ok, I tried flashing both ROM images using both methods. After editing they were 262,144 bytes. So no issue there.

The ROM image made by replacing the FF bit at the end failed again. ATIWinFlash says something about “bios image not found” when trying to flash the GPU. I will try replacing an FF bit in another location this evening and report back.

The other ROM image made by altering the year worked flawlessly.
Thanks for the effort and report. I will amand the original post accordingly and alert the other try not to touch those FF.

I am not at home right now, can’t open your ROM to have a look. If you want to test the FF method again. Can you try to change the FF in at the end of the 1st 128k? That’s should be the BIOS part. The 2nd 128k should be the UEFI part. May be we can’t touch that.

[doublepost=1516699465][/doublepost]
It appears that several images are not showing up in the original post, as seen by the "[IMG']" tag.
May be you read the post when I was editing it. Can you read all the screen captures now?
 
Last edited:

Squuiid

macrumors 68000
Oct 31, 2006
1,546
800
May be you read the post when I was editing it. Can you read all the screen captures now?
Nope, I'm seeing the same thing unfortunately and they've been like that since you initially posted actually. There are 3 of them.

mr1.png

mr2.png
 
Last edited:

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
Ok, I tried flashing both ROM images using both methods. After editing they were 262,144 bytes. So no issue there.

The ROM image made by replacing the FF bit at the end failed again. ATIWinFlash says something about “bios image not found” when trying to flash the GPU. I will try replacing an FF bit in another location this evening and report back.

The other ROM image made by altering the year worked flawlessly.
If you have time (and don't mind), can you test if change this FF byte can work?
Screen Shot 2018-01-24 at 00.02.40.jpg
 

leVel

macrumors regular
Jul 24, 2008
119
168
Ok, I tried flashing both ROM images using both methods. After editing they were 262,144 bytes. So no issue there.

The ROM image made by replacing the FF bit at the end failed again. ATIWinFlash says something about “bios image not found” when trying to flash the GPU. I will try replacing an FF bit in another location this evening and report back.

The other ROM image made by altering the year worked flawlessly.
I can confirm that replacing FF anywhere in the BIOS does not work. ATI gives me this error every time.
If you have time (and don't mind), can you test if change this FF byte can work?
View attachment 748095
I just left town on business and won't be able to try for a week or so. Will give this a shot when i'm back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790

jhero

macrumors 6502
Jan 10, 2005
352
8
Not near an Apple Store
Thanks, will give this a shot later.

Would it be better to change the numbers in the timestamp towards the top instead of removing the ","?
No sure, but since jhero already proved that "comma" (2C) can be change to "space" (20) safely. I will treat this is "known good method".

That time stamp also looks like can be change, but it's a "unknown method" at this moment. Of course, it will be great if you can test it.

Anyway, after you edit the ROM, just before you flash it, can you double check if your ROM image is still 262,144 bytes? I am still thinking why your 1st try won't work (except you may pick the wrong FF).
I'd also like to add that I did also try changing the timestamp at the top of the ROM to some other date and time. Although it successfully flashed, I did notice quite a lot of tearing happening in Windows. I did not feel comfortable with this and so I did the change to 31 30 30 31 2D 32 30 31 30 20 (1001-2010 ) and tearing was no longer present. After about 3 days of use, I've encountered 0 issues with my alteration method. As per h9826790's recommendation, do not change any FF byte as that will more than likely result in a failed flashing attempt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790

bsbeamer

macrumors 68040
Sep 19, 2012
3,593
1,903
Curious if these cards are JUST being used in 5,1 machines or if there is anyone trying to use in an eGPU enclosure as well. Been tempted with some of the (possible) acceleration options with AMD for video and considering adding one to my system or replacing my NVIDIA GTX 1080 if it would speed up hardware encode/decode.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
Curious if these cards are JUST being used in 5,1 machines or if there is anyone trying to use in an eGPU enclosure as well. Been tempted with some of the (possible) acceleration options with AMD for video and considering adding one to my system or replacing my NVIDIA GTX 1080 if it would speed up hardware encode/decode.
This card is actually used in the Apple eGPU development kit.

Anyway, it won’t speed up encoding / decoding (in macOS). At least not at this moment. If in Windows, your 1080 already provide those function.
 

bsbeamer

macrumors 68040
Sep 19, 2012
3,593
1,903
The lack of encoding/decoding is the most unfortunate part of macOS at the moment (for my work). Been evaluating options. Nothing that's too attractive for my workflow.

Does this RX580 "hack" work with the Apple eGPU dev kit?
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
The lack of encoding/decoding is the most unfortunate part of macOS at the moment (for my work). Been evaluating options. Nothing that's too attractive for my workflow.

Does this RX580 "hack" work with the Apple eGPU dev kit?
It’s the other way around. We “hack” the card to simulate it’s the APPLE dev kit eGPU RX580.

There was some info in the Hackintosh community about how to activate the hardware decode in MacOS. But I didn’t see anyone try that on cMP yet.

Vega’s hardware decode / encode is activates on the iMac Pro, but not on cMP yet as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: itdk92 and bsbeamer

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
Instead of doing this mod why don't you just flash the 113-4E353BU-O4E BIOS to the new Pulse RX 580 8GB? It can be downloaded here: https://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios/191713/sapphire-rx580-8192-170324
Because mod the original ROM is always better in compatibility. And simply equally risk about bricking the card.

That ROM is good, auto detect the VRAM, and support both Samsung and Hynix. I have this ROM in my backup collection as well.

IMO, if can mod the original one, better do the mod. But if can't handle it, or only want something "ready to flash", then this ROM is the way to go (AFTER confirmed the card is using Samsung or Hynix VRAM)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoltm and Squuiid

Squuiid

macrumors 68000
Oct 31, 2006
1,546
800
This is the BIOS on my card. VRAM is Micron, not Samsung or Hynix as previous versions of this card use.
https://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios/198216/198216
Part # 113-1E3870U-O49

And here are the changes to make it work:

OLD:
113-1E3870U-O49
31 31 33 2D 31 45 33 38 37 30 55 2D 4F 34 39

NEW:
113-4E353BU-O4E
31 31 33 2D 34 45 33 35 33 42 55 2D 4F 34 45

DIFFERENCE:

34 + 35 + 33 + 42 + 45 = 123

123 - 31 - 38 - 37 - 30 - 39 = 1A

So we need to pick a number large enough to ensure we get a usable character when subtracting 1A. Here's some help:
https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/hex-to-ascii.html

The C in the (C) section prior to the year is 43

Edits1.PNG

So, 43 - 1A = 29
29 is a ')'

Edits.PNG


A huge thank you to h9826790 for making this excellent guide!
 
Last edited:

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2015
1,804
1,406
Portland, Ore.
No need to do this anymore with 10.13.4! The following cards are now correctly identified!

-Radeon RX 580
-Radeon Pro WX 7100
-Radeon Pro WX 5100
-Radeon RX 570
-Radeon RX 480
-Radeon RX 470
-Radeon Pro WX 4100
-Radeon RX 460
-Radeon RX 560
-Radeon RX 550
-Radeon Pro WX 9100
-Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
-Radeon RX Vega 64
-Radeon RX Vega 56
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Original poster
Apr 3, 2014
13,977
6,594
Hong Kong
No need to do this anymore with 10.13.4! The following cards are now correctly identified!

-Radeon RX 580
-Radeon Pro WX 7100
-Radeon Pro WX 5100
-Radeon RX 570
-Radeon RX 480
-Radeon RX 470
-Radeon Pro WX 4100
-Radeon RX 460
-Radeon RX 560
-Radeon RX 550
-Radeon Pro WX 9100
-Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
-Radeon RX Vega 64
-Radeon RX Vega 56
So, the Polaris and Vega now has "full" native support?
 
  • Like
Reactions: theitsage

bsbeamer

macrumors 68040
Sep 19, 2012
3,593
1,903
Thanks for the update! If anyone can unlock hardware encode/decode with these AMD cards, I may have to start running one in my system. Wonder if we'll see official support in the 10.13.4 release, or if it'll be delayed until a later version. Will have to check some of the eGPU forums to see their reports.
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2015
1,804
1,406
Portland, Ore.
Thanks for the update! If anyone can unlock hardware encode/decode with these AMD cards, I may have to start running one in my system. Wonder if we'll see official support in the 10.13.4 release, or if it'll be delayed until a later version. Will have to check some of the eGPU forums to see their reports.
10.13.4 beta 1 was released today.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.