Jump to content

Geekbench show MacPro5,1 while real Mac show "Mac Pro (Mid 2010)?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
solarein

solarein

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, MA

I didn't use his SMBios, either. For those of you that don't know, the SMBios version in it says his domain name. Obviously the sole reason for that is to promote his website via Geekbench. It also brands your model name in Geekbench as "Hackintosh" instead of a real mac model... Screw that.


Hmmm...my smbios matches that of a real mid 2010 Mac Pro, however Geekbench still recognizes it as a "MacPro5,1" rather than a "Mac Pro (mid 2010)". I think in order for Geekbench to recognize the machine as a geniune Mac Pro the specs will have to match too. My computer has a Core i7 rather than a Xeon so that probably rules it out.

Edited by eep357, 13 December 2012 - 05:24 AM.
Posts moved to this new topic as prior was unrelated


#2
iDarwin

iDarwin

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States of America
  • Interests:All things Apple, Windows programming, video editing and design, music production, djaying, PC g...
The SMBios plist file is fully editable, so just remove Tony's information. Leaving that field empty won't do any harm (to my knowledge).

#3
LatinMcG

LatinMcG

    Insanely digesting DSDT

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa, Florida
just so u guys know.. forum etiquette is to not hijack a threads original poster issue... u can create a new and link to it if its a complex issue.

#4
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
Agree LatinMcG, but since the off topic can be settled in 1 line, I will do so:
Mid 2010 Mac Pro=MacPro 5,1(same thing, both genuine, different app choose different way to display it)

And to all who have been shunned by Tmac, be it due to the language you speak, type of processor you have, or how many email address you own, we welcome ye with open arms :santa:

#5
solarein

solarein

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, MA

Agree LatinMcG, but since the off topic can be settled in 1 line, I will do so:
Mid 2010 Mac Pro=MacPro 5,1(same thing, both genuine, different app choose different way to display it)

And to all who have been shunned by Tmac, be it due to the language you speak, type of processor you have, or how many email address you own, we welcome ye with open arms :santa:


I know they are the same. The point is, Geekbench treats them as two different models. Real Macs are recognized as Mac Pro (mid 2010), hackintoshes are recognized as MacPro5,1.

http://browser.prima...Pro (Mid 2010)"
http://browser.prima...del:"MacPro5,1"

By the way, looking at that list of hackintoshes, a great number of them carry the tonymacx86 BIOS identifier. I guess their plan is working.

#6
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
OK, this interest's me, I'm making a new topic and will move this post and the others about to it.



And with that bit of house cleaning out of the way...I took a look at activity monitor to see what files/folders it had open and also sampled the process to do the same, nothing stood out as a 2nd possible location it's getting info from, so the question remains, is this a DSDT issue or is Geekbench also looking somewhere else? Is it the same when using iMac or any other DSDT's? I have a Xserve DSDT laying around somewhere I can dig and see what it thinks about that?

Edited by eep357, 13 December 2012 - 05:34 AM.
Final post moved from http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/278907-permanently-banned-from-tonymacx86/page__st__20


#7
solarein

solarein

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, MA
Thanks for moving this to its own topic. I too was hoping to discuss this some more and felt bad for posting it in the original topic.

I think Geekbench is doing some parsing on the processor specs of the machines. For example they have benchmarks by processor model here:

http://browser.prima...ssor-benchmarks

But my Core i7 950 doesn't show up in that list, possibly because it's overclocked and not at its original 3.07GHz. I think what Geekbench is doing is restricting the benchmarks that are listed under each processor to only those that exactly match some criteria.

I think it may also be doing something similar for the Mac models. It seems to know the exact models of each of the Macs it keeps track of. For Mac Pro (mid 2010) it knows there's a 4 core, 6 core, 8 core, and 12 core model. So I think it may be matching up the Mac models based not only on the system identifiers but also the processor specs. So a MacPro5,1 with Intel Xeon W3565 is correctly identified as a "Mac Pro (mid 2010) 4 core" while a MacPro5,1 with a Core i7 is identified as a generic "MacPro5,1".

To lend some support to my theory, here's a list of MacPro5,1's with Xeon W3565 that are not being identified as Mac Pro (mid 2010).

http://browser.prima... platform:"Mac"

If my theory is correct, these should've been identified as Mac Pro (mid 2010) but they are not. However, I noticed that each of them is running Geekbench 2.1.x, while those being identified as Mac Pro (mid 2010) are running Geekbench 2.3.x-2.4. So my theory could still be correct if somewhere after Geekbench 2.1.x there's been a change that allowed real Macs to be correctly identified with their models and years based on processor specs.

#8
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
I had a similar thought, and you even answered my next question "what if a real mac user upgraded their CPU to a non-standard model?" This is also why I was curious about iMac and others as they're not all xeon's, but alas x58 never appeared in any mac and socket 1366 only as xeon in MacPro 4,1 and 5,1. This again makes me curious to go search for my xserve one since it's not a common platform. And from what you've seen is this more just a x58 thing?

#9
solarein

solarein

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, MA
It seems to happen with LGA1155-based systems as well. For example, here's 27-inch iMac (mid 2011) versus iMac12,2

http://browser.prima...inch mid 2011)"
http://browser.prima...odel:"imac12,2"

You can see that the latter list is made up of mostly hackintoshes with non-standard (that is, not one that Apple sells) CPUs.

I suspect that if a real iMac user upgraded his or her CPU to one that Apple doesn't sell, that model will be identified as iMac12,2, and if a hackintosh user has a Core i7 2600 that model will be identified as a 27-inch iMac (mid 2011) as long as the rest of the system identifiers also line up. The latter hypothesis can be verified if one goes through the first list I linked to and see if any systems on there have BIOS strings that may indicate it's a hackintosh. Unfortunately that list is way too long to go through and I don't see any way to filter by BIOS string.

Something else that's interesting is that if you have a real iMac12,2 running Windows, Geekbench will identify it as an "Apple Inc. iMac12,2" (note the addition of "Apple Inc." to the model name used with hackintoshes.)

http://browser.prima...tform:"windows"

In this case, though, the processor specs and system identifiers exactly match real iMac12,2s running OS X. But it could be that Geekbench simply doesn't translate these machines into "27-inch iMac (mid-2011)" simply because they are running Windows.

#10
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
Very interesting indeed. Thankfully this seems to confirm more that it's just Geekbench, but hey why not strive for perfection?

So....xServe.. Not a good choice of smbios for x58. With that being the only difference:
Attached File  About This Mac.jpg   48.01KB   59 downloadsAttached File  Untitled2.jpg   127.35KB   68 downloads
vs
Attached File  About This Xserve.jpg   44.95KB   57 downloadsAttached File  Untitled.jpg   126.22KB   38 downloads

And epic fail at making Geekbench show xServe (Early 2008) as the model too :(

#11
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
So after doing a little playing around with About this Mac and System Profiler strings, adding CPU sub model amongst othersAttached File  About This Macm.jpg   27.28KB   9 downloads
it occurred to me Geekbench already had i7-920 when nothing else did. Then stepping info too, so it must be calling CPUID direct and not getting all its info from the OS. Opened it in hex editor and sure enough it does, so if it does infact use processor info as a basis of "real" vs "hack", you'd have to spoof it somehow. It could also be a if, then, else thing where if it's not in a certain file location it will move to next option to get system info, which would explain the bootcamp vs osx on real mac difference. There's at least a few different places this info could be gotten in OSX's file system I'll dig into as time permits. I would think maybe CPUID were mandatory for it to run low level instructions on the benches, but if so, don't think the xserve bench wouldn't have been so low just by changing a smbios.

#12
solarein

solarein

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, MA
Hmm...is it possible that while running the Xserve DSDT the CPU power states are not being set correctly? Is there a way to reliably get the CPU multiplier and core utilization while running Geekbench?

#13
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
Like iStat4?
Attached File  Screen Shot 2012-12-14 at 5.56.36 AM.jpg   56.92KB   30 downloads
Also history graphs CPU activity, but it doesn't work on xServe, just yellow caution triangles in the menubar, probably not a mac model on their supported list. Still I'm not a big fan of changing smbios too often as it creates different profiles in all preferences files and screws up local dns discovery. Small annoyances but still.

#14
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
OK, so after playing around with different stuff like this:
Attached File  About This Hack.jpg   27.66KB   13 downloadsAttached File  prohack.jpg   47.48KB   15 downloads
nothing affected GeekBench, until I changed the Model in smbios from MacPro5,1 to MacPro (Mid 2010), Geekbench then listed my Mac model as "Hackintosh". So my only conclusion then would be, that right now, it must at least have it's doubts that it's a hack.

#15
solarein

solarein

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, MA
Ah, great discovery! Although I offer a different explanation. Geekbench maintains a Mac benchmarks page with all the Mac models listed. It must care about making sure that only real Macs are on those lists (or, failing that, making sure that only self-claimed Macs with the processors that that model is supposed to have is on that list). This presents a problem for computers whose self-identification string exactly matches the model numbers that Geekbench assigns to these Mac models. So their solution: just rename them Hackintosh. For all the machines that do not exactly match the post-translation Mac model names, including those that use the pre-translation Mac model names, like MacPro5,1 etc., Geekbench doesn't care because those model names are not used for the real Macs, due to the way Geekbench translates real Macs' model names into something like "Mac Pro (mid-2010)", so it leaves those model names alone, rather than changing them to Hackintosh.

#16
eep357

eep357

    Triple Platinum

  • Supervisors
  • 2,527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dark Side of The Wall
  • Interests:things and stuff
Well, try changing your MacModel in smbios to something like DellPro and see if it goes to hackintosh or that. I have it blocked with Little Snitch so any database checking would need to be local.

#17
Frank Nitty

Frank Nitty

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Town
  • Interests:iHustle
I've been having the same issue too where 'Hackintosh' appears as the model on my Snow Leopard partition of my Mac when pulling my Geekbench results. {censored} tmac

#18
Frank Nitty

Frank Nitty

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rock Town
  • Interests:iHustle
I finally realized that I needed to use Champlist to create a new valid SMBios.plist and I set it to MacPro5,1 since it was originally set to MacPro 4,1. When I rebooted the machine, it shown a dialog box with a Mac Pro image and a message next to it that said something on the lines of "all of the memory modules are in the sockets" or to that effect. When I ran Geekbench, it finally said MacPro5,1 as the model. I also included the original smbios.plist that caused the Hackintosh model problem as an attachment if anyone wants to take a look at it.

Attached Files







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy