A Thread for "Mac Pro Switchers" (June 2012 Exodus Edition)

[HolyHandGrenade]

I've just begun exploring the possibilities with Hackintosh and my immediate impression is: while people SAY it's easy enough to build a good Hackintosh Tower that is comparable in performance to a Mac Pro (and slightly less expensive), I am seriously doubting it. I need your advice and I'm sure 100 other people this summer will come in here looking for same. Hopefully they find this thread and comment.

 

Observations / Questions

 

 

1. In all the Parts wikis and Tony's site and the rest, I don't see Xeon motherboards anywhere. I also do not see among the popular configurations, dual socket motherboards from Intel. I realize Intel is not a "Requirement" but as much as possible I would like to use the same types of "core parts" found in a Mac Pro. Then when it comes to things like USB 3, SATA III SSD, etc I'll use whatever people have the best luck with.

 

How difficult is it to find Xeon E5 CPU and motherboard parts that will work with this process? If I'm going to go to the trouble to build and maintain one of these things, I'm not going to shoot for a less powerful machine than what Apple sells. I'm going to shoot for equally or more powerful, as would many others I think. I am not averse to i7 parts but they have to be high end (around 3GHz) and either a single 6 core machine or a dual 4 or 6 core machine.

 

2. How common is it that once you choose your "baseline system" (let's say 10.7.3), that you can get it to work and just "stay put" for a long period of time? Some of the New User info suggests this is only a "hobby", sort of inferring you shouldn't expect things to work well much of the time. Is that the case or are there more serious Hackintosh setups where you can, with a couple days effort, set up a powerful, stable machine that you can use for production purposes?

 

I don't always need the latest OS updates but I want to know that once I pick my baseline I can set it up and leave it untouched for several months, so I can get work done.

 

3. Given my hardware goals, am I better offer getting a pre-built tower from HP or Dell and installing the Hackintosh firmware and whatnot? I do not need Windows and in fact hope to avoid it. So maybe that means some of the things that cause problems for others will simplify my would-be setup and make it more stable?

 

4. Are there any sites out there who specialize in building "Mac Pro like" Hackintoshes, in terms of the advice they give and parts wikis? I haven't found one yet. Most sites (like this one) seem to take a more generalist approach, which I can understand.

[Hackintosh2000]

In all the Parts wikis and Tony's site and the rest, I don't see Xeon motherboards anywhere. I also do not see among the popular configurations, dual socket motherboards from Intel. I realize Intel is not a "Requirement" but as much as possible I would like to use the same types of "core parts" found in a Mac Pro.

 

What do you need a Xeon for? I have never seen a Xeon in someone's home. Hackintoshing is a hobbiest thing. Hobbiest in the PC world never need Xeon processors. People that are real speed demons just overclock and water cool i7s. That is a cheaper route and there is plenty of support for that. Do NOT use a Xeon in your first hackintosh build.

 

Frankly with hackintoshing you don't want to blaze any new trails. If you are building from scratch find a MoBo that is well supported (ie DSDT and Kexts). Don't wander off and get something like a Xeon.

 

How common is it that once you choose your "baseline system" (let's say 10.7.3), that you can get it to work and just "stay put" for a long period of time? Some of the New User info suggests this is only a "hobby", sort of inferring you shouldn't expect things to work well much of the time. Is that the case or are there more serious Hackintosh setups where you can, with a couple days effort, set up a powerful, stable machine that you can use for production purposes?

 

If you pick the right parts (ie nonXeon) you should be fine. I have an Asus CG5290 that I bought on sale years ago and it works just fine. I upgraded it from 10.6.3 all the way through 10.7.3 with no problems what so ever. On some versions over the last year I've had the occasional Kernel Panic. But they were cured with a reboot and then I didn't see any for a long time. I've built a couple of websites with by hackintosh. It works fine.

 

Given my hardware goals, am I better offer getting a pre-built tower from HP or Dell and installing the Hackintosh firmware and whatnot? I do not need Windows and in fact hope to avoid it. So maybe that means some of the things that cause problems for others will simplify my would-be setup and make it more stable?

 

You have a lot to learn. What you suggested is exactly the WRONG route to take. If you get a Dell or an HP there is no telling what motherboard you are going to get. The motherboard is key. If you get the right motherboard your task becomes a lot easier. Focus on the motherboard. Find a motherboard that is well supported (DSDT and Kexts) and fits your needs. Once you find that then find a graphics card that meets your needs and is supported. People like me that just installed OS X on whatever random computer we had lying around are very lucky. That is not the way to go if you have a choice.

 

Are there any sites out there who specialize in building "Mac Pro like" Hackintoshes, in terms of the advice they give and parts wikis? I haven't found one yet. Most sites (like this one) seem to take a more generalist approach, which I can understand.

 

This and similar places are probably your best bet. You just have to search through the collective knowledge and see what has worked for other people. Keep it simple, be open minded, and flexible. Don't go into this with preconceived ideas like, "I want an Xeon." Go with the flow. If some CPU is not supported yet don't buy it. It's better to lag a little and get stuff that works.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Alessandro17
http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=275942

[PoloBear]

On Socket 1366 the Xeons were usually better processors to overclock.... I have a rock solid GA-x58 ud5 with a air-cooled Xeon 3520 running at 4 GHz and performing better than my MacPro 3,1. Basically it is the 2009 Macpro at a fraction of the cost. Sleep, Lan, Sound everything works. Machine makes 9000 Geekbench points.

 

Today you can either go cheap with a z77 board and i7 2600k or 3770k, you will get 13000 up to 16000 Geekbench points for about 750 Euro.

But if you really need the CPU power and the cores you have to add 350 for a Socket 2011 and a six core CPU. This gets you over clocked to about 21000 Points.

 

And no, I am not a fan of Geekbench, but it is easy and fast to compare the results to real macs. And yes, I own all of the machines I am writing about....

[Zaap]

We see this ever so often in the Hackintosh world, people taking the MacPro comparison a little too literally and in the meantime missing the whole point of a Hackintosh in the first place. Getting caught up with processor brand names (Xeon sounds so cool, doesn't it? That must make it faster/better than everything else automagically!) is part of missing the point.

 

First things to understand: most of the MacPros sold are not the $4,000+ dual six core Xeon models, rather its the single $2,400 quad core model. But you'll notice that whenever this little debate comes up, stats and prices start to slide around all over the place and almost inevitably someone arguing from the Apple-hardware side will mix up the entry level $2,400 type MacPro with the stats of the $4k plus model, with the inference "See! You can't build a dual Xeon Hackintosh for less than a MacPro!"

 

Well of course you can't! Nor can you buy one from Apple at the entry level price either.

 

Second thing to understand: most people, including a lot of working pros, not just people that {censored} around with computers and tally up stats they never use, don't actually NEED a dual processor workstation with sever hardare (Xeons, ECC RAM). For people that just use a computer for average use, wasting $4k+ on a system is insane. One can build 4 or 5 decent Hacintoshes for that amount of money.

 

Third: the whole point of Hackintoshing isn't to out-do Apple's top of the line dual CPU MacPro. It's not to remake what Apple already makes. It's to make what Apple DOESN'T make: a decent full-sized, non-All-in-one tower PC that runs OSX, for a pricetag well less than the entry level MacPro, let alone the high end MacPro.

 

I do video editing for a living- a high end task that requires a very capable machine, and even I don't actually need dual 6 core Xeons to get my work done quickly. I don't need a 4k+ machine for that. (Sure, it would be NICE, but it's not a requirement).

 

So my current machine -a decent Sandybridge system- cost me $800. That's with a 2600k, 16GB of DDR3, a better graphic card than I'd get with ANY MacPro (Radeon 6870 1GB DDR5) an SSD boot drive, etc.

 

It blazes through my video editing tasks much faster than the 2010 model single CPU MacPro I have at work. (And by the way, there isn't a newer model) That machine's older Xeon doesn't best a more modern 2600k CPU for the tasks I do. What people fail to understand is Xeons and ECC server memory are actually slightly slower than their desktop counterparts due to the redundant microcode they use. They are built for workstation/server stability more than speed. So just because the name Xeon sounds really cool- it doesn't do squat to actually get anything done faster for me, and it does even less for my wallet.

 

Now of course the dual Xeon 12 core MacPro would beat the heck out of my Sandybridge, but then we're talking a 4k+ system vs. $800. I would sure hope you'd get more speed once you spend FIVE TIMES the amount on your hardware!

 

So put things in perspective. I spent FIVE TIMES less on my system than one I don't really need. I spent exactly around THREE TIMES less than the entry level MacPro that won't actually do my work any faster, in fact, just a slight bit slower due to the lesser graphics, slower RAM/older CPU.

 

I could build 3 of the same machine and pit all 3 of them against the entry MacPro, or FIVE of my machines against the dual CPU MacPro! If we were talking about a small movie production or system, you're damned straight I'd rather have redundant machines splitting the workload, than one supposedly 'better' machine that'd get tied down during tasks like rendering.

 

As for the whole stability thing: this has been hashed over a million times. My original Hackintosh that I built in 2008 ran Leopard 10.5.1 to start with. I swapped the motherboard and CPU once since 2008, upgraded to more RAM, etc. but that machine ran every single version of OSX from 10.5.1 to 10.7.3 FLAWLESSLY. In all that time, it was never once out of commission. I edited hundreds of hours of footage on it. Stability was never a problem.

 

I don't even understand the question about it 'staying put' for long periods of time. Most people who have been building and using Hackintoshes know that this is rarely if ever a problem. If you have say, 10.7.3 running stable on your Hack, and you never touch Software Update, it'll stay running 10.7.3 perfectly forever. The only thing that would change that is somehow your kexts or system files getting corrupted- but that'd be the same thing on any 'real' Mac. So long as your harddrive maintains data integrity, then an installed stable system isn't suddenly going to become unstable for no reason. I'm not really even sure what would cause that to happen.

 

Updates are where problems can come in, not 'not updating'. New updates can sometimes introduce incompatible kext files (drivers) that your Hack depends on to run. Sometimes a kernel change can be an issue until there's a workaround. Most of us who've come to rely on our Hacks know this, expect it, and always are cautious about updates. I never run an untested update on my main system partitions, I always test them on a backup partition. In all the updates since 10.5.1, there haven't been but a handful that were crucial to me. IE: I'm currently running 10.7.3 and there's absolutely NOTHING that 10.7.4 will add to my machine that makes it worth jumping through hoops to update to.

 

The only one I can recall that made an actual difference to anything, was 10.6.6 which I believe introduced the Apple App Store.

 

So anyway, building and using a Hackintosh is all about understanding the pros and cons. The pros are clearly price and virtually unlimited hardware choice. I can choose from a wide range of graphic cards as well. I don't need to spend at least $2,400 just to have the advantages of a full tower machine.

 

Far from just emulating building a MacPro, I can build cheap task-built Macs with most of these advantages, and an extremely low price. (My own record is a $300 mini-Mac that we use as a kitchen PC).

 

The cons are that system Updates can be a hassle sometimes, and upgrading a full version of OSX can be a PITA. But once you have a stable OS, you're generally good to go.

 

Also, one can't just use ANY hardware. The people having the most trouble with Hackintoshes are those that just buy any old motherboard and expect it to work. (Exactly the problem, as stated, if you just buy some machine from Dell or HP or whoever.) Not only won't the motherboards likely be hackable, but the graphic cards won't either. This is also generally the problem with most PC laptops and Hackintoshing. If you really want good results, you MUST choose compatible parts and follow a good guide. There's no shortage of either, so people that fux this up mainly have only themselves to blame.

 

One last thing: If one really WANTS to, you CAN actually build a dual Xeon Hackintosh, there are several known dual CPU motherboards that work. It's generally not all that cost-effective though, as the final pricetag will probably end up close to or even more than the 4k you'll spend getting a dual CPU machine from Apple. Again, I'd say most people don't even really need a machine with such hardware, it's mainly just for bragging rights if you're spending anywhere near 4k on a Hackintosh.

[HolyHandGrenade]

Thanks for the responses. They are more or less what I expected.

 

Sounds like the short answer is: "no, it is not easy to build a Hackintosh that is configured similarly to a mid-range Mac Pro (i.e. similar Intel board and CPU surrounded by comparable parts from other makers)." When I say "Hackintosh", I am using a more broad definition to include any type of Mac that a person might want to "copy", not just "the easiest way to put together a functioning Mac". And this most definitely would NOT be a hobbyist machine if I bothered to do it. It would be a work machine. A money earner. That's what Mac Pros are for most of us. People pay the money they do because the performance is the best Apple offers. Well... it was about two year ago.

 

Cost: the reason I would consider this route is not that I don't want to spend $4000. It's that I don't want to spend $4000 on outdated {censored}. If I'm going to put thousands into a computer, I want the best technology available for that money so the investment will last a long time. That's the beauty of Mac Pros: they usually last me 4-5 years before I need a new one to keep up with the software requirements.

 

To be clear: I've been using Macs for over 20 years (probably as long as some of you have been alive). I am not a computer noob. I often swap out hard drives, fans, RAM, etc without any problems and I understand what all those things do and how they work together. So I'm not some guy with time to kill, hankerin' to find the very fastest processor for the sake of saying I have it. I don't necessarily have to have a Xeon part (and if they're less compatible / reliable in this context I wouldn't bother) but I do at a minimum need high-end, 4-6 core i7 chips and boards that are intel-certified and design to work with same. I need that board to have a certain amount of bandwidth and connectivity, and expandability.

 

In short: I know exactly what I need; that's why I asked about Xeon (as examples of high end parts used in Mac Pros). Yesterday's Apple announcement takes a lot of the edge off of Monday's Mac Pro fiasco so I'm not as worried about it now, but pretty clearly the Hackintosh set up is not one that is meant for stable production machines.

 

There also seems to be this vibe of "what Hackintosh is about". I don't understand this. It is about whatever the end user wants it to be about. Don't steer someone away from more expensive hardware because "this is just a hobby and not what it's about". Just say "no those types of components don't work well for home-built Macs", or "they will work fine but you won't save any money". I'm mostly trying to understand the technical barriers to building the type of machine I need, and whether or not it would be worth the hassle.

[Zaap]

Pretty much you're a classic example of the mindset I touched on. You just want to rant about MacPros and 'Xeons' and 'high end' hardware and other things, without hearing anything that's being said.

 

Seen it all before. At the heart of it, it's simple: you're someone that feels threatened because my $800 machine rivals what you wasted $4,000 on. The truth is, just to babble on the internet, check a few emails, and be a shill for Apple, you didn't even need to spend $800. A $150 used emachine would suit you.

 

I'm all for helping people that are serious about Hackintoshes. Don't have time for the wankers going "I know all about what you've been doing for years, even though I've never done it! Mac Pro! Xeon! Blahhh!"

 

Go buy a MacPro then. For you, a Hackintosh is merely a hobby, because you don't approach things willing to learn anything, rather you form a preconcieved notion based on FUD, and then react to everything accordingly. That's not the type that should even attempt something like a Hack, it requires paying attention, learning a few things, and not acting like a know-it-all-prick ranting about Xeons and such.

 

Don't presume to tell others that "it's just a hobby" when you don't have a clue what anyone else does with their computer. Your pretense to be asking a question because you actually want an answer- but really you're just here to {censored} on about the MacPro- Just proves you're a noob with a chip on your shoulder. Personally, I don't have much time for that, so have a nice time with whatever hardware you waste your money on, but don't waste my time with it.

[HolyHandGrenade]

A) PoloBear: Thank you for the information and constructive response.

 

 

B ) Zaap: now that I understand you're a troll I'll be looking for the ole ignore button. Congratulations though; you got two long posts out of me and lots of attention, which is what you need. I hope you feel whole now. Or you could just stop trolling and get a life. It's hard work but in the end I think you'll find it worthwhile.

 

 

Pretty much you're a classic example of the mindset I touched on. You just want to rant about MacPros and 'Xeons' and 'high end' hardware and other things, without hearing anything that's being said.

 

Seen it all before. At the heart of it, it's simple: you're someone that feels threatened because my $800 machine rivals what you wasted $4,000 on. The truth is, just to babble on the internet, check a few emails, and be a shill for Apple, you didn't even need to spend $800. A $150 used emachine would suit you.

 

I'm all for helping people that are serious about Hackintoshes. Don't have time for the wankers going "I know all about what you've been doing for years, even though I've never done it! Mac Pro! Xeon! Blahhh!"

 

Go buy a MacPro then. For you, a Hackintosh is merely a hobby, because you don't approach things willing to learn anything, rather you form a preconcieved notion based on FUD, and then react to everything accordingly. That's not the type that should even attempt something like a Hack, it requires paying attention, learning a few things, and not acting like a know-it-all-prick ranting about Xeons and such.

 

Don't presume to tell others that "it's just a hobby" when you don't have a clue what anyone else does with their computer. Your pretense to be asking a question because you actually want an answer- but really you're just here to {censored} on about the MacPro- Just proves you're a noob with a chip on your shoulder. Personally, I don't have much time for that, so have a nice time with whatever hardware you waste your money on, but don't waste my time with it.

 

 

The fact that you take the opposite position of everything I said and re-direct at me (that I'm using it for production purposes vs. you saying I need a $150 machine for email) proves that point. Let me put you in your place and state my peace one last time, then I'll be on my way. I thought these forums were moderated. Apparently not.

 

1) I'm not ranting about anything. I use a certain kind of Mac for WORK... and have been using them for many years. And so now, because it's somewhat unclear what Apple is going, I am INVESTIGATING whether or not it is PRACTICAL to attempt to build a Mac that has SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS to the Macs I've owned recently and know WORK FOR ME. Why would I not attempt to build something that is similar, if I know that works?

 

You think your $800 machine performs just as well as workstation class hardware... good for you. I'm happy for you. That's not what I asked. I didn't ask "Do you guys think that this whole Mac Pro thing is just a ripoff and that your configuration is just as good?" Read and comprehend.

 

2) There is a difference between someone saying "I am not a noob and understand how to work inside computers and what the parts do, and which parts are expensive, -- BUT-- I've never built a machine from scratch, so is it possible to do it starting with these baseline parts?"... and someone saying "I know what I'm doing, even though I've never done it before." Can you appreciate the difference? Probably not.

 

3) It was someone from THIS FORUM (and in fact I've seen it in other threads) who suggest "Hackintosh is a hobby", not me. As I said I'm not here as a hobbyist. I don't have time for hobbies right now. I am trying to understand the complexity, cost and time requirements of configuring a professional "Hackintosh" workstation... for work purposes. I don't give a {censored} what kind of computer anyone else has and I don't evaluate people based on their computer hardware. I do however evaluate them on their behavior, which is maybe something you ought to pay more attention to rather than attempting to categorize everyone in here in terms of how they react to computer parts. Again, you're either trolling on the hobby point, or not reading. In either case you're wasting both of our time. Which also makes you a hypocrite since you decided to call me out for that.

 

If my "using Macs for 20 years" comment was off-putting that wasn't my intention. Just clearing the air before a bunch of people start trying to explain to me what a motherboard is, how hard drives work, etc.

[int13h]

A tiny bit of critical thinking would have saved you a lot of hassle. The short answer to your original post for all the other people who may be looking into this is yes, utilizing consumer level hardware, with some overclocking creativity, will allow you to approach the benchmarks of top of the line workstation systems, however you will be taking on risk in the area's of stability, application specific performance, and maintainability.

 

1) No it's not practical at all. This should be extremely obvious, you are building a machine for work and you are relying on user contributed kernel patches and extensions. That alone should set off all kinds of alarm bells. If you are relying on someone to write you a driver, patch or trying to find out some obscure problem in your hardware you are relying on their schedule, their abilities, and the fact that they have access to exactly the same hardware as you do. The more obscure you make your hardware requirements, the less likely anyone else will have something similar and the less likely it will be updated on a regular kind of basis.

 

2) You come off as arrogant and condescending in every one of your posts, congrats.

"

I've been using Macs for over 20 years (probably as long as some of you have been alive)."

"

Can you appreciate the difference? Probably not."

 

3) Your statement of your goals is irreconcilable with the idea of a "hackintosh" in the first place. Anyone who does any real mission critical work with their workstation is going to want proper manufacturer support for their equipment. When people build hackintosh systems they are taking on the entirety of the responsibility of system support and maintenance themselves. They are trading the upfront cost of a new Apple system in essence instead for the hours they will spend configuring, building, repairing, maintaining and dealing with instability that comes from owning a non apple MacOS computer. It's laughable to think anyone who wants to utilize their system for "work purposes" would want to go through this.

[Zaap]

Just for the record - to benefit people that may read this thread, which is all I care about, not some blowhard stroking his ego and barely-desguised Apple fanboi bias- the original question posed was answered. Building some wanna-be copy of a MacPro using Xeon CPU and server-grade hardware IS possible, and fairly easy to accomplish. It's rarely cost-effective as the MacPro is actually a good deal for what it offers. (IE: You can't even get the two 6 core CPUs in the dual MP for the same cost as the entire MP from Apple.) If you need an actual MacPro, get a MacPro.

 

Beyond that, it's rarely necessarily, as most people, even working pros, don't actually require the dual MP performance, and the single MP performance can easily be surpassed by consumer hardware. (The current single processor MP as of this writing isn't all that hot of a machine, despite any hype otherwise by people blinded by CPU product names and 'server hardware' and such.)

 

Someone who desires a Hackintosh to do critcal work with can do so with excellent results- I have for the past 4 years now with no regrets. Every day I'm thankful I didn't waste more money on a MacPro which now would be outdated and much slower than my current hardware.

 

It's misleading though to suggest in every case that one constantly has to deal with system support and maintenance, instability, or rely on hacked and patched drivers. . For the record- this doesn't have to be the experience at all if you stick with tried and tested hardware. The goal is to be as native as possible, if not 100% native, and you can easily achieve this by using hardware that has full support.

 

One has to understand that actual Mac hardware isn't anything all that special. Apple doesn't make any of it themselves- they use commissioned motherboards from Foxconn, chipsets and CPU from Intel, graphics from ATI, nVidia or Intel, etc. etc. All the crucial components like audio, networking, I/O and such are all third party. The best Hackintoshes simply have the right combination of the exact same components Apple uses, and therefore for which drivers already exist. So one doesn't need to rely solely on the OSx86 community for support with these since native support exists, rather just for information on how best to set things up.

 

If a person wants to build a Hack for work, they need to understand this. Right now, if one wants to build an IvyBridge system for example, then yes, you're going to be relying on community support, because Apple has only just started to build in native support, as most current Macs aren't yet IvyBridge. But one can easily build a Sandybridge system where every component has a natively supported driver. (Eventually, IvyBridge will have this too).

 

If you're the type that typically has never relied heavily on tech support for your computers, you can read and follow instructions, aren't a know-it-all wanker, and doesn't run to Geek Squad or Apple Care every time something needs to be figured out, then you can easily build and maintain a Hackintosh and use it for critical work. If you're the type that can't fathom cracking a case, has a bias toward DIY because you believe the magic Apple fairies watch over the same hardware branded by someone else, and break out in a sweat without being under a full warranty by whoever made your computer (and definitely if you're a shill for one box-maker or another) then you should stay far, far away from Hackintoshing.

[pirloui]

I'm with Zaap on this, one can perfectly do heavy work on a Hackintosh as long as one can take care of it. I do mostly 3D modeling and rendering (product design) for a living, and have been full time on a Hackintosh for years. Currently on a overclocked i7. And if it's a pissing contect my olders Mac files are from 1989, IIcx, not that it has anything to say.

 

Xeons are great for workstations where you're ready to pay double for 0,1% more uptime, or have cash to pay for all those cores.

[DJenkins]

 

1. In all the Parts wikis and Tony's site and the rest, I don't see Xeon motherboards anywhere. I also do not see among the popular configurations, dual socket motherboards from Intel.

 

They do exist, there are a couple of amazing examples out there. Across various forums there's a guy called Tutor, lightninhopkins and PunkNugget to name a few.

 

Unfotunately I imagine a lot of the guys who are using machines like this in production situations don't spend much time talking on forums about it, which is why you've had trouble finding info on it.

 

After reading this thread (and where it went of track) I might try and add a few things from my own perspective. The reason people are interested in 12/16 core hackintoshes is because:

 

- Apple don't currently offer anything at any price which compares to the performance you can acheive by building a custom machine. Some people aren't looking to just match the performance of a Mac Pro... they want to exceed it. Of course there are i7 builds that can match or exceed some of the current Mac Pros, but some of us are power hungry and want to go further!

 

- People in my industry using 3D and video production/animation software are creating complex render heavy jobs that used to require a dedicated server/render farm to churn through. It's now realistic for this to be acheived with a single machine.

 

- I did consider building two completely seperate 6 core i7 machines and distributing the rendering between the two machines, however not all the software I use supports this.

 

- There are people (myself included) who would be more than happy to give Apple their money if they had a comparable product for sale. Performance is the key here, not so much price. Unfortuantely it's possible that reliability and your patience may take a hit here. This is for the user to decide when taking on the project.

 

Disclaimer:

It might be a bit premature for me to be jumping in on all of this because my machine is not completely finished yet. Although I have an understanding of the process, I wanted the end result to reach its full potential. That's why I'm working closely with someone locally who has a lot more experience and is building it for me. There are probably a lot of hackintosh enthusiasts out there who don't agree with the way I'm going about it, but for me I need to identify where my time is best spent. It didn't seem logical for me to spend weeks on end figuring out something I will most likely only do once in my life. I'm not an expert in physically building these machines but I do know their capabilities and the various requirements people have very well.

 

These machines aren't for everyone, but that doesn't mean there is no demand at all.