Jump to content
InsanelyMac Forum

instant idiot

Members
  • Content count

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About instant idiot

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Geek

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. On my machine, npci=0x3000 is required. Could you post your specs in you signature?
  2. A fresh install. Personally, I recommend using myHack plus a vanilla copy of Install Mac OS X Lion.app to create a bootable USB stick. Use Bronzovka's mach_rc15 kernel with the boot flag arch=i386 (enables 32-bit kernelspace with 64-bit userland for graphics to work properly); it can also be used with arch=x86_64 for full 64-bit mode if desired.
  3. Cette carte a-t-elle toujours le problème "pixel rouge" avec CineBench? C'est interessant que les deux cartes graphiques qui marchent sans problème avec Mountain Lion (Sapphire 5450 et 4670) sont tous deux des cartes Sapphire sans ventilateur... Que est-ce qu'il y a avec ces cartes Sapphire?? Does this card still have the "red pixel" error with CineBench? It's interesting that the two graphics cards that work fine with Mountain Lion (Sapphire 5450 and 4670) are both fanless Sapphire graphics cards... What is it with these Sapphire cards??
  4. D-Link has teamed up with Apple to develop a line of companion routers! http://www.dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/connect/routers
  5. It's way faster to boot than Andy's kernel that I had been using, but the graphical glitches persist. sysctl -A kern hw machdep: dmesg: One thing I've been wondering: since it's easily discoverable by the system that the processor is not Intel (notably machdep.cpu.vendor: AuthenticAMD)), would it be beneficial to have the kernel report all Intel values there?
  6. Hi Andy! Unfortunately, I don't think I see any difference (with a 6570) from before: still little artifacts everywhere, Cinebench gives the "red pixel error", and OpenGL apps have a lot of black squares and have a lot of missing characters in their text. Interestingly, unlike everyone else, I have not seen any artifacts whatsoever in Launchpad so far. I am, however, seeing lots of black lines in Firefox, flickering/disappearing Dock, and disappearing file names in Finder.
  7. I still hold it is true; see below. In raw bandwidth, the new Mac Pro offers 15 GBps over its six Thunderbolt 2 ports and an additional 2.5 GBps via its four USB 3.0 ports, making a total of 17.5 GBps of user-available bandwidth, all of which must be used outside the computer. The mid 2012 Mac Pro offers 12 GBps of raw bandwidth with one PCI Express 2.0 x16 and two PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots, 2.3 GPbs via 5 USB 2.0 ports, 3.1 GBps via four FireWire 800 ports, and 1.1 GBps via four SATA II ports, coming to a total of 18.5 GBps, 13.1 GPbs of which can be utilized without external equipment. And, saying that one can connect 36 high-end devices is, in my opinion, a bit misleading. Six Thunderbolt 2 ports give 15 GBps. 15 GPps divided by 36 devices is .417 GBps per device, so 36 devices, all fighting for bandwidth, would get a maximum of 417 MBps per device. This daisy-chaining feature is akin to the way ISPs sell their services: everyone can have their advertised bandwidth as long as everybody doesn't try to download at the same time. Now, it's also akin to ISPs in that it'll almost always work just fine, after all, when's the last time you were maxing out 36 SATA III SSDs all at the same time? About the graphics, maxed now won't be maxed in five years. There's a fair chance the mid 2012 Mac Pro will work just fine with OS X "2018" and whatever the current highest of the high end GPU is, whereas the new Mac Pro will do the same minus the GPU. Of course, if, as 3.14r2 said, Apple releases a GPU upgrade kit for the new Mac Pro, then this is probably a moot point. Yessir; that image pretty much says why I don't like the lack of internal expandability!
  8. The beginning of this paragraph states "[n]o, it won't be more expandable, just more upgradable and user-serviceable," but the end of it says ". . . thanks to the TB2 ports, is more expandable (again, not upgradable or user-serviceable) than any other. . . ." I'm not quite sure on which side of the fence you are. I don't much doubt that it will be popular among Apple users who "don't really care about user-serviceability and won't feel the need to upgrade graphics." There are a lot of those. I do doubt severely that it will be popular among people as me who like to fit everything inside their computer case, upgrade bits of it here and there, etc. As long as you are acknowledging that they are them and we are us, so to speak, then I find that argument plausible if not probable. I find it improbable that such a particularly high number of professional users, regardless of their budget, are going to accept and/or like the lack of internal expandability, upgradability as a good thing that is magically fixed by Thunderbolt. I think the new Mac Pro will be great for people who like out of the box hardware and software, but then that's Apple's speciality. What I don't think is there are very many people who both need such a powerful machine as a Mac Pro and will not demand for expandable and upgradable hardware.
  9. I have been following this discussion somewhat, and I would just like to point out my own personal opinion. I don't think the issue Rampage Dev is bringing up really has much to do with CUDA in a broader sense; moreover, the issue is simply with the potential of the new Mac Pro in regard to expandability, internal or external. Nearly all fairly recent desktop PCs and, it's true, all the old Mac Pros have the potential to use a PCI Express 2.0 GPU (or anything else that might happen to call for a theoretical maximum of 8 GBps bandwidth), whereas the new Mac Pro has no such potential. Suppose I buy the new Mac Pro for goodness-knows-what-price (Let's just say it's a significant investment) "later this year." Now suppose I have used this system happily for four years, it's a bit outdated, but the only components that are really limiting me are the GPUs. Suppose there's a GPU, perfectly content to use a PCI Express 2.0 slot, available that would be just the upgrade that would bring my Mac Pro back to life. However, the very best my Mac Pro can do for expansion is via its Thunderbolt port, 2.5 GBps, and suppose that speed would horribly cripple this hypothetical GPU. Now isn't that a sad picture? I could have invested all that money into a Hackintosh or, heck, even one of the older Mac Pros, and it would still be more expandable than this fancy black cylinder, and, most importantly, it would still fit my needs for a few more years at least. Notwithstanding all that, I much prefer having a big box that holds all my GPUs, HDDs, and any other expansion cards than having a small black cylinder, a mess of external HDDs, another box to hold expansion cards, and so on and so forth. Just so y'all know, I've never owned an Apple product and don't intend to for the foreseeable future, so I'm just stating what I think about the new Mac Pro's usability as a computer in general. Specifically, and in conclusion, the new Mac Pro does not really meet my standards for use as a desktop computer, whereas everything I've seen and heard about the "old" Mac Pro makes it look like a machine with which I'd be happy if it weren't for the price. There's my two cents; sorry if it looks more like ten. And after saying all that, really, if the new Mac Pro is just the machine for you, who am I to say otherwise?
  10. I now have a HIS ATI Radeon HD 6570 (0x10026759), and, of course, it artifacts just like all the others. Nothing new here.
  11. I just tried rc15 with a Pentium D on 10.7.0; instant reboot! Should I update to a different version?
  12. instant idiot

    AMD APU mountain lion support

    But QE/CI doesn't work in safe mode. Or do you mean you were able to boot without safe mode before and QE/CI worked then? I'm curious because I somehow thought QE/CI doesn't work with APUs (But it would be awesome if it does!).
  13. instant idiot

    AMD APU mountain lion support

    Do you actually have QE/CI working?
  14. That's too bad, but at least now we know that SMCpingDaemon probably isn't useful with ATI graphics.
×