Jump to content

New Mac Pro hackintosh comparable build?

mac pro hackintosh

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1
Courage2000

Courage2000

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Newbies
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Hello!

 

1. The new Mac Pro is official out for 3000-4000 USD!

Intel Xeon E5 with 4-6 core...

 

2. OS X 10.9 is out and is free.

 

I cannot find any comparable hackintosh build!

Is there one? Can I have a link, please?



#2
bcc9

bcc9

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Coders
  • 1,278 posts
  • Gender:Male

I cannot find any comparable hackintosh build!
Is there one? Can I have a link, please?

Looks like the tricky part is going to be replicating the graphics card and thunderbolt ports. The new macpros list amd firepro d300 & d500 for graphics, yet there are no specs for such graphics cards. Speculation based on performance specs is that these are like amd firepro W7000 and W9000 cards. d300/d500 may be mac exclusive. It might be possible to use the W series cards and make them behave like the d300/d500, with firmware hacking and or efi hacking. I don't think any such work can begin until the hardware ships.

#3
Courage2000

Courage2000

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Newbies
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

I was asking in terms of similar power vs $$$, as 3000-4000 USD means 3000-4000 EUR full price in Europe...

+ an example of working Hackintosh configuration.



#4
bcc9

bcc9

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Coders
  • 1,278 posts
  • Gender:Male

I was asking in terms of similar power vs $$$, as 3000-4000 USD means 3000-4000 EUR full price in Europe...
+ an example of working Hackintosh configuration.

To really make such a comparison, I think you need to find a current generation workstation class graphics card that works under osx (nvidia quadro or ati firepro).

The quadro k5000 for the mac goes for $1799...

#5
Courage2000

Courage2000

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Newbies
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

After some late night computing, I've made a healthy hackintosh configuration that sees good for the money ;)

 

Intel Core i7 4770 3.4GHz box

16 Gb RAM

MB Gigabyte GA-Z87MX-D3H

etc

 

All in 1100 EUR ± 1550$ ;)

 

I'll "donate" my iMac 24" 2009 to my daughter.

I hate the impossibility of upgrades. I understand in the case of Laptops, but for desktops...



#6
bcc9

bcc9

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Coders
  • 1,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
Ok, that's in line with what everyone has been doing for their haswell desktop hackintoshes (myself included). Hardly a macpro however. More like a haswell imac with a consumer desktop cpu instead of mobile.
Looks like this thread should be deleted since you aren't actually discussing mac pro hardware.

#7
Courage2000

Courage2000

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Newbies
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

The problem is that I want a mac pro similar hackintosh, but after looking at the processor price and possibly other components (graphic), I'm not really convinced for the moment that a similar system will be 50% cheaper than the original!

Anyway, I really believe that this would be a hot topic very soon!



#8
Nubira

Nubira

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
I would look at used mac pros probably they will drop in price. They are still very good mashines and depending on what you wanna do some say you only gain like 1% when it comes to stuff like 3d rendering with the new mac pro. The closest I believe you can get to a mac pro is probably with aos motherboard from quo computers. Its still more like an imac but you can install hardware cause its a desktop. And yes once you flash the bios you actually can upgrade without anything breaking but sound. I have one it took forever before they shipped it to me so if you buy one dont blame me lol it still might be the same and Im not the only one that had to wait for months.

http://m.youtube.com...ature=c4-feed-u here is a video somebody in the process of installing and he say the same

#9
bcc9

bcc9

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Coders
  • 1,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
The quo motherboards are last-gen ivy bridge, not current gen haswell, so IMO that would be a bad choice for a starting point if you're trying to make a 2013 mac pro-like hackintosh.

If you don't care about pro graphics, then the solution is easier, as you can just focus on building a z87 based hackintosh with the highest performance CPU you can afford. There are plenty of existing threads with users doing just that.

#10
theconnactic

theconnactic

    Stubborn AMD user

  • Local Moderators
  • 2,918 posts
  • Gender:Male

My two cents:

 

ASUS Rampage IV Extreme LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB ...

 

Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0 ...

 

Amazon.com: EVGA GeForce GTX780 3GB GDDR5 384bit, Dual ...

 

You must add RAM/Storage/Etc to your own criteria. Before you put all this together, go ask RampageDev for help: rampagedev | A great WordPress.com site

 

All the best!



#11
valiant

valiant

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male

Hello!

 

1. The new Mac Pro is official out for 3000-4000 USD!

Intel Xeon E5 with 4-6 core...

 

2. OS X 10.9 is out and is free.

 

I cannot find any comparable hackintosh build!

Is there one? Can I have a link, please?

There is no comparable build.

 

Right now there is no combination of mono, cpu, ram and gpu that will match the new Mac Pro. I'm talking comparing oranges to oranges, not comparing some jumped up i7 single CPU against dual Xeons.

 

I had this discussion over at MacRumours: http://forums.macrum...68#post18326668

 

The summary came down to this: 

 

IF you could get everything working together (right now you probably can't), a 3rd party commodity hardware build comparable to an entry-level Mac Pro would cost over $3,700 without case, power supply, or cooling, and it would not have Thunderbolt, never mind Thunderbolt 2.

 

The question is not "why is the Mac Pro so expensive", it's more "how do they make it so cheap?"



#12
Rampage Dev

Rampage Dev

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Local Moderators
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male

There is no comparable build.

 

Right now there is no combination of mono, cpu, ram and gpu that will match the new Mac Pro. I'm talking comparing oranges to oranges, not comparing some jumped up i7 single CPU against dual Xeons.

 

I had this discussion over at MacRumours: http://forums.macrum...68#post18326668

 

The summary came down to this: 

 

IF you could get everything working together (right now you probably can't), a 3rd party commodity hardware build comparable to an entry-level Mac Pro would cost over $3,700 without case, power supply, or cooling, and it would not have Thunderbolt, never mind Thunderbolt 2.

 

The question is not "why is the Mac Pro so expensive", it's more "how do they make it so cheap?"

 

hahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

 

What BS. 2K you can have the same thing just without TB. What a joke. 



#13
valiant

valiant

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male

hahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

 

What BS. 2K you can have the same thing just without TB. What a joke. 

That turns out not to be the case. For instance, dual AMD GPUs like the W7000 come to $1300 by themselves. You really can't "have the same thing" for 2k. But you can have something different, that's not a Mac Pro level hackintosh.



#14
Long Cat

Long Cat

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

It all depends on what you look at.

 

Yeah, the graphics on the new Mac Pro are impressive, but CPU performance sucks for the money you're paying - as does storage, ram, IO (only 4 USB ports, excessive reliance on TB) and IMO, the octopus like external expansion design is questionable.

 

Considering the value of the components, yeah, the price isn't unreasonable (in the US that is, NOT in Australia where it most definitely IS). My biggest problem is that they could have built a better Mac Pro using different components for a lot less.

 

This would be a mac-pro I'd buy.

 

4, 6 core i7 or 8, 12, 16 core Dual Xeon

16, 32, 64GB Non-ECC Ram

256/512GB PCI-e Storage + 2/3TB HDD (Fusion Drive)

1 (Optional 2) of the current GPUs in any configuration

A proper box with PCI-e internal expansion

x8 USB3, x2 HDMI, x2 DP, x2 TB, x2 Ethernet, Sound

Wifi + Bluetooth

 

It'd still be expensive, but, like all of our hacks, it would give bang for your buck in ALL areas, not just graphics.



#15
Rampage Dev

Rampage Dev

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Local Moderators
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male

That turns out not to be the case. For instance, dual AMD GPUs like the W7000 come to $1300 by themselves. You really can't "have the same thing" for 2k. But you can have something different, that's not a Mac Pro level hackintosh.

 

You can get the same speed out of the different GPUs. :)

 

And if you actually care about render times you will be going with CUDA. Look at the new CUDA 6.0 spec as it now will use all your ram as part of the GPU when rendering and working with your files. Thus if you have 64 GB of ram like I do I will have a total of 61 GB of ram (application set to 6 GB) of rendering goodness. 



#16
valiant

valiant

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male

This would be a mac-pro I'd buy.

 

4, 6 core i7 or 8, 12, 16 core Dual Xeon

16, 32, 64GB Non-ECC Ram

256/512GB PCI-e Storage + 2/3TB HDD (Fusion Drive)

1 (Optional 2) of the current GPUs in any configuration

A proper box with PCI-e internal expansion

x8 USB3, x2 HDMI, x2 DP, x2 TB, x2 Ethernet, Sound

Wifi + Bluetooth

 

It'd still be expensive, but, like all of our hacks, it would give bang for your buck in ALL areas, not just graphics.

That's a nice sounding build and you can pretty much do it today for yourself, for around $2.5-3k.

 

But that build doesn't move the state of the art forward at all. It's just a bunch of commodity parts in a beige box. You might as well config it from Dell.

 

Apple is not about to have their flagship computer mistaken for something Dell could put together. Even the shape of the "box" is a big fat middle finger to the rest of the computer hardware manufacturers, telling them everyone else will have to play catch-up.

 

And Apple is famous for taking the first step. First to get rid of the 5.25" floppy and standardize on the 3.5". First to get rid of the floppy altogether and standardize on the optical drive. First to get rid of the optical drive and standardize on the 'net. And now, first to get rid of the annoying legacy ports, including their own FireWire, and standardize on Thunderbolt. Look at your build above: you wanted x8 USB3, x2 HDMI, x2 DP, x2 TB, x2 Ethernet, Sound - that's 17 ports, counting audio as just one. The Mac Pro has 13 ports, but 6 of them are Thunderbolt, which is the equivalent of 36 ports with daisy chaining. Less ports, but even more expandability.

 

But Apple isn't targeting you and I: people trying to save money by building a hackintosh. They're making a premium product for professionals who need the best for their work. And they're willing to bet nearly everyone else will be well enough served by a well-spec'd iMac or MacBook.



#17
Long Cat

Long Cat

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

I'm not here to save money. With the amount I put into my hack I could've had a brand new 2010 Mac Pro. I'm here because I enjoy messing around with stuff and doing it myself... but that's a separate issue.

 

But you're right, most people will be well served with a MPB or an iMac. And that's where Apple should (rightly so, and as it does) focus its innovative efforts - along with tablets and phones.

 

On the other hand, professionals just want to get a job done. They don't really care if the case and the fans look like they might be 'innovative' in some way. What they want is the best hardware and the easiest setup their money can buy. They don't want to get in their shiny new Mac Pro only to find out that they need to wait an extra week for adapters to arrive just because it doesn't have enough HDMI ports to connect up all their monitors. I mean, at this point, how many TB devices does the average professional really have... and how many cheap USB sticks or $300 Samsung HDMI monitors do they have.

 

As desktops become more and more niche, IMO Apple should take what Dell is doing and package it it a better way, just like they were doing with the old Mac Pros. The current desktop form factor has been proven to work and the world's moving on... time for innovation was years ago, now we just need better and better hardware on the inside.



#18
valiant

valiant

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male

I mean, at this point, how many TB devices does the average professional really have... and how many cheap USB sticks or $300 Samsung HDMI monitors do they have.

Somehow I think the professionals that Apple is targeting with the Pro don't have a lot of $300 Samsung monitors.

 

$3000 colour-calibrated fast-response high-contrast specialty monitors for editing like these http://www.adkvideoe...ng.com/Pmon.cfm, on the other hand, I would think quite a few. And they have DisplayPort as well as HDMI - no adapter required with Thunderbolt. Plus the pros are all waiting for 4k monitors now anyway, and guess what? Now that the cheapest editing rig that can run 3 x 4k monitors is only $3000 you can bet every 4k monitor that hits the market is going to have Thunderbolt.

 

As desktops become more and more niche, IMO Apple should take what Dell is doing and package it it a better way, just like they were doing with the old Mac Pros. The current desktop form factor has been proven to work and the world's moving on... time for innovation was years ago, now we just need better and better hardware on the inside.

The time for innovation is past? Tell that to the company that introduced the iMac all-in-one, derided at the time as bubblegum. Tell that to the company that introduced a smart phone without a hard keyboard, derided at the time as being unusable. Tell that to the company that introduced the iPad, derided at the time for being too expensive. And now tell that to the company that put a menacing black oversized soda can on your desk that has the best hardware performance outside of a cluster of mainframes, derided for not looking enough like an over-designed Dell.

 

No, sir. I don't think the time for innovation was years ago. Or more accurately, I think it was years ago, it is now, and it will be tomorrow. I'm enjoying the ride, and I look forward to seeing what Apple (and its competitors) comes up with next. In the meantime, the Mac Pro is going to force everyone to reconsider what a professional computer should be. And maybe what it should be is deconstructed, with storage on the outside.

 

And until mobos start shipping with Thunderbolt 2 and support for dual Xeon CPUs, hobbyists are not going to be able to build rigs that compete.



#19
Long Cat

Long Cat

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

I think you took my remarks about innovation a little too broadly. The time for professional desktop form-factor innovation has passed - that was 10 years ago. Now, all the innovation should be going into things like phones, tablets, ultra portables, displays and professional grade hardware - which it is.

 

And yeah, you don't need much better than a $300 Samsung for most CAD work, maybe a little better for video editing and photography ($6-700)... you'd be surprised. 4K is still very bleeding edge, until recently, the best you could do was 2560x1600. Ask yourself this, how many people today who own a Mac Pro have a $3000 monitor?

 

And just can't agree with that last statement. Hacks currently and for the foreseeable future will hold the highest graphics and CPU benchmarks for OS X by a big margin. And if someone really wants to hook up 3x 4K displays, they'll find a way, trust me.



#20
Rampage Dev

Rampage Dev

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Local Moderators
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male

If anyone here thinks that building a hackintosh is a good way to save money then they are misguided. I know that many people start with hacks looking to save money but what you should be looking at is a way to build a better system then what Apple can provide. Look at the SR-2 for example. With a proper OC with the correct CPUs you can see a geek bench north of 35000 points and 96 GB of ram. And considering you could have had this back in 2009... 

 

Or look at other systems that support 128 GB of ram or more. 512 GB of ram is the norm now on high end pro machines. People forget how the first Intel Mac Pro set the bar for pro systems in Ram and CPU support. More ram and more CPU power is what real pro need. For example many plugins do not support CUDA and there is no standard or planed standard to run plugins on OpenCL at this time so those plugins need CPU power to run. A single CPU system will never do what a pro user needs it to do. The new Mac Pro will see a lot of users hitting CPU bottlenecks before they could ever use the power that the GPUs have. The new Mac Pro is for users who think they are pros but could use a iMac for all there needs. 

 

I deal with $10000+ hacks almost every day and a few north of $20000 every few months. This shows that pros need more power and flexibility then what the new Mac Pro is or ever will be. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mac pro, hackintosh

  Topic Stats Last Post Info

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