270-WS-W555 DSDT native power management modifications

[maleorderbride]

Thanks! I tried that SleepEnabler, but still have problems.

 

I will set the BIOS back to default and then make only the prescribed changes and see if that helps.

 

Also, I finally bothered to hook speakers up and there is no audio, even though the audio symbol appears in the top right, AppleHDA.kext is running, and all the outputs/inputs appear in System Preferences->Audio.

 

I tried with DSDT edits, then with HDAEnabler, but both have the same results.

 

Has anyone gotten the onboard audio to work with any method?

[d00d]

Thanks! I tried that SleepEnabler, but still have problems.

 

I will set the BIOS back to default and then make only the prescribed changes and see if that helps.

 

Also, I finally bothered to hook speakers up and there is no audio, even though the audio symbol appears in the top right, AppleHDA.kext is running, and all the outputs/inputs appear in System Preferences->Audio.

 

I tried with DSDT edits, then with HDAEnabler, but both have the same results.

 

Has anyone gotten the onboard audio to work with any method?

Try SleepEnabler.kext without NullCPUPowerManagement.kext, sleep also works for me this way.

 

Update;

Sleep works without SleepEnabler.kext too.

Looks like MaLd0n's shutdown fix fixes sleep as well.

 

Update;

MaLd0n's shutdown fix doesn't fix sleep.

Sleep was already working.

[maleorderbride]

Try SleepEnabler.kext without NullCPUPowerManagement.kext, sleep also works for me this way.

 

Update;

Sleep works without SleepEnabler.kext too.

Looks like MaLd0n's shutdown fix fixes sleep as well.

 

 

Yep, working over here as well! Somewhere in the BIOS I must have changed one too many values. Sleep/wake is working normally. Thanks for noticing d00d!

 

The only thing left is the onboard ethernet, onboard audio, and getting TyMCEDriver to not hang. The audio can be made to show up as loaded with standard ALC889 kexts/DSDT edits, but it still does not actually produce any audio.

 

Do you have any idea why that is d00d? Any guides that I might be able to read to attempt a fix?

 

The ethernet looks like it would take an entire port job, a la Lnx2Mac, which seems a bit much since no one but EVGA uses this chip.

 

I assume I can just modify a Disabler.kext to get TymCEDriver to not load, which seems better than just deleting it and then forgetting to do so again after I update to 10.6.7. Looking into that now.

 

edit:

There does still seem to be a problem with sleep above ~166BCLK. When I am overclocking past 166BCLk the system sleeps, then wakes up, but never posts the video again.

 

edit2:

god, sleep sometimes works and sometimes does not regardless of the BCLK. I also got a few KPs on bootup. I am starting to think I have a hardware problem. Here goes some more tests =/

[d00d]

Yep, working over here as well! Somewhere in the BIOS I must have changed one too many values. Sleep/wake is working normally. Thanks for noticing d00d!

 

The only thing left is the onboard ethernet, onboard audio, and getting TyMCEDriver to not hang. The audio can be made to show up as loaded with standard ALC889 kexts/DSDT edits, but it still does not actually produce any audio.

 

Do you have any idea why that is d00d? Any guides that I might be able to read to attempt a fix?

 

The ethernet looks like it would take an entire port job, a la Lnx2Mac, which seems a bit much since no one but EVGA uses this chip.

 

I assume I can just modify a Disabler.kext to get TymCEDriver to not load, which seems better than just deleting it and then forgetting to do so again after I update to 10.6.7. Looking into that now.

 

edit:

There does still seem to be a problem with sleep above ~166BCLK. When I am overclocking past 166BCLk the system sleeps, then wakes up, but never posts the video again.

 

edit2:

god, sleep sometimes works and sometimes does not regardless of the BCLK. I also got a few KPs on bootup. I am starting to think I have a hardware problem. Here goes some more tests =/

Mine sleeps at 180 BCLK, but I haven't tested higher.

This depends on your overclock voltages, they must be stable.

 

I couldn't get the on board audio to show in Sound with MaLd0n's DSDT HDEF section, so I had to use the HDAEnabler.kext from ALC889_AppleHDA_199f12.zip.

 

The original AppleHDA needed to be binary patched for the ALC889;

% sudo -s

Password:

# sudo perl -pi -e 's|\x85\x08\xec\x10|\x89\x08\xec\x10|g' /System/Library/Extensions/AppleHDA.kext/Contents/MacOS/AppleHDA

 

The ALC889.kext from Legacy_ALCxxx.zip was also used.

This can also be done by editing the Info.plist files in the AppleHDAHardwareConfigDriver.kext and AppleHDAPlatformDriver.kext PlugIns, or using the AppleHDA.kext that includes these edits from ALC889_AppleHDA_199f12.zip.

 

However, none of the outputs work.

 

I got these kexts from tmongkol's topic;

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=140941

[d00d]

I got audio out (green) working using VoodooHDA.kext.2.7.2-10.6.zip;

http://code.google.com/p/voodoohda/downloads/list

 

No DSDT edit or modification to AppleHDA.kext is required.

[d00d]

Added to note 1;

 

Universal binary Disabler.kext (32 and 64bit) to disable AppleTyMCEDriver.kext from loading: Disabler.kext.zip

[d00d]

I got AppleTyMCEDriver.kext to load when I changed from triple channel mode (all 12 memory slots full) to dual channel mode (8 memory slots full, with slots 5 and 6 empty in each bank).

So I'm down from 24GB memory to 16GB, and if I want more memory I'll have to buy 4GB DIMMs.

[maleorderbride]

Wow! Great. I never would have thought of trying that. Luckily I have all 4GB DIMMs and only 6 ATM!. Thanks for your continuous fiddling with this board

 

As far as I am concerned this thing is perfect now.

[Tutor1]

Thanks, and those are some good numbers!

Any recommendations on the settings to be used for stable overclocking?

 

 

d00d, I finally figured out that I had to take two tests to post any more because I am a newbie. Here are the picts. But first - a test for other newbie visitors.

 

If you read d00d's posts very carefully, you'll see that he teaches us that less is more. Using conventional wisdom, is a system with lower clocked GHz chips faster than a system with the same number of chips and cores, but higher clocked?

 

In other words, which of the following 12 core systems is fastest at running OSX benchmarks under Geekbench2 and Cinebench 11.5:

 

1) a 2.930 GHz system,

 

2) a 2.550 GHz system,

 

3) a 2.325 GHz system or

 

4) a 2.230 GHz system?

 

I know that there are some "depends." But if you've got d00d's messages correct, then you'll be on the right track for overclocking (I really mean "underclocking") Westmere's and Nehalem's. If you want a faster mac, then underclock it after you've done as d00d suggests in post #1. If you want an ever faster mac, then underclock it some more. Serious underclockers seek a turbo boost payday. My present 24/7 underclocking achievement is a 12 core 2.230 system that pays me back with a turbo boost ratio of CCCCDD (i.e., 12-12-12-12, 13-13). "So what!", you may say. Since my two processors are the xeon x5680 that run natively at 3.33 GHz and at a x27 top [and most importantly to remember - constant] ratio, whatever number my CPU frequency is (such as 160) gets multiplied by 27 to determine my maximum turbo boost speed. At a CPU frequency of 160, my maximum turbo boost speed is 4.320 GHz (160*27). I can lower the CPU Multiplier setting from its stock maximum of 25 [on my x5680s] (the other 2 digits adding to 27 are there for standard turbo boost) to 13 or 17 or 15 or even 14 [or any other number less than 24 but greater than 12]. The order in which I've listed the CPU multipliers in the previous sentence are starting with the best for my system. Odd numbers yield best results - at least on my system; so your mileage may vary. The maximum turbo boost speed (4.320 GHz) remains the same so long as the CPU frequency (BCLK) setting isn't changed. But as I take that CPU Multiplier lower (dousing a little more BCLK on it as I go lower), my system remains cool and I can use less Vcore. This increases the chances that I'll get all of the available turbo boost when needed. Overall, it also does not put as much stress on my CPUs all of the time. C-states, T-states and all other energy and power management/savers are activated. CPU core temps range from 26 to 33 degrees C while just word processing or surfing this forum to 55 to 64 degrees C when rendering in Cinema 4d. This is how to speed up your system, while prolonging its life and holding on a little longer to that cash your power company wishes you would spend for energy.

 

Show me a faster OSX system (those i7-2600/2400 scores that appear and are routinely removed from and by Geekbench and my posted Geekbench scores, such as the 37837, 37393, etc. don't count) and you will have shown yourself someone else who is a follower of d00d's teachings. Check out the picts below for proof of the truth of d00d's philosophy. To truly get the point, check out the picts in reverse order. On the ostensibly slowest setting, the Geekbench2 score is 33% faster and the Cinebench 11.5 score is 39% faster than on a 2.93 GHz 12-core system. If you use Cinema 4d, a 39% speedup in rendering performance is nothing to sneeze at. Again, thanks d00d for graciously sharing your advice and helping me to get internal audio working. You've truly earned the title "InsanelyMac Sage".

 

 

P.S. For you dual booters, this is how an underclocked 2.534 GHz setting (2.33 GHz juiced up thru E-Leet with additional BCLK and voltage) stacks up in Windows 7 on Wprime:

 

1) 5th fastest Xeon x5680 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

2) 5th fastest Xeon x5680 AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

3) 10th fastest Intel Xeon 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

4) 10th fastest Intel Xeon AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

5) 10th fastest Intel 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

6) 10th fastest All 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

7) 10th fastest Intel AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

8) 15th fastest Xeon x5680 AnyCore AnyCooled Worldwide

9) 15th fastest Xeon x5680 12x AnyCooled Worldwide

10) 22nd fastest Intel Xeon 12x AnyCooled Worldwide

11) 22nd fastest All AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

12) 23rd fastest Intel Xeon 12x _Worldwide

13) 23rd fastest Intel 12x AnyCooled Worldwide

14) 28th fastest Intel Anycore AnyCooled Worldwide

15) 37th fastest Intel AnyCore_Worldwide

16) 49th fastest All AnyCore AnyCooled Worldwide

 

1) 2nd fastest Xeon X5680 12x H20 Cooled North America

2) 2nd fastest Xeon X5680 AnyCore H20 Cooled North America

3) 5th fastest All 12x H20 Cooled North America

4) 5th fastest Intel Xeon AnyCore H20 Cooled North America

5) 5th fastest Intel 12x H20 Cooled North America

6) 5th fastest Intel Xeon 12x H20 Cooled North America

7) 8th fastest Xeon X5680 12x AnyCooled North America

8) 8th fastest Xeon X5680 AnyCore AnyCooled North America

9) 11th fastest All 12x AnyCooled North America

10) 12th fastest Intel Xeon 12x AnyCooled North America

11) 12th fastest Intel 12x AnyCooled North America

12) 12th fastest Intel Xeon 12x AnyCooled North America

13) 12th fastest All AnyCore H20 Cooled North America

14) 14th fastest Intel AnyCore AnyCooled North America

15) 23rd fastest All AnyCore AnyCooled North America

16) 23rd fastest Intel 12x AnyCooled North America

 

Geekbench 2.1.12 for Windows x86 (64-bit) yields a score of 27,775 and Cinebench 11.5 yields scores of 76 fps and 20.49 for the xCPU. So you see that following d00d's teachings also makes for a not too shabby Windows dual boot system.

Wow! Great. I never would have thought of trying that. Luckily I have all 4GB DIMMs and only 6 ATM!. Thanks for your continuous fiddling with this board

 

As far as I am concerned this thing is perfect now.

 

 

Is there another Cal Aggie in the house? Do you have an EVGA SR-2? It's a great mobo. However, the same thing can be done with i7-920 & i7-980X systems. I've done it using d00d's quidelines published elsewhere on this forum.

[d00d]

Wow! Great. I never would have thought of trying that. Luckily I have all 4GB DIMMs and only 6 ATM!. Thanks for your continuous fiddling with this board

 

As far as I am concerned this thing is perfect now.

Do you have sleep problems in dual channel mode?

Mine wouldn't wake from sleep, so I went back to triple channel mode and the AppleTyMCEDriver disabler.

 

Another problem is that the Parallels (5 and 6) and VMware Fusion (2 and 3 in both 32 and 64bit boot) applications use 100% CPU (or 200% when configured for two CPUs) and lock up after the EVGA wakes from sleep.

This happens after an image is started or resumed, and wasn't an issue with the Gigabyte.

 

d00d, I finally figured out that I had to take two tests to post any more because I am a newbie. Here are the picts. But first - a test for other newbie visitors.

 

If you read d00d's posts very carefully, you'll see that he teaches us that less is more. Using conventional wisdom, is a system with lower clocked GHz chips faster than a system with the same number of chips and cores, but higher clocked?

 

In other words, which of the following 12 core systems is fastest at running OSX benchmarks under Geekbench2 and Cinebench 11.5:

 

1) a 2.930 GHz system,

 

2) a 2.550 GHz system,

 

3) a 2.325 GHz system or

 

4) a 2.230 GHz system?

 

I know that there are some "depends." But if you've got d00d's messages correct, then you'll be on the right track for overclocking (I really mean "underclocking") Westmere's and Nehalem's. If you want a faster mac, then underclock it after you've done as d00d suggests in post #1. If you want an ever faster mac, then underclock it some more. Serious underclockers seek a turbo boost payday. My present 24/7 underclocking achievement is a 12 core 2.230 system that pays me back with a turbo boost ratio of CCCCDD (i.e., 12-12-12-12, 13-13). "So what!", you may say. Since my two processors are the xeon x5680 that run natively at 3.33 GHz and at a x27 top [and most importantly to remember - constant] ratio, whatever number my CPU frequency is (such as 160) gets multiplied by 27 to determine my maximum turbo boost speed. At a CPU frequency of 160, my maximum turbo boost speed is 4.320 GHz (160*27). I can lower the CPU Multiplier setting from its stock maximum of 25 [on my x5680s] (the other 2 digits adding to 27 are there for standard turbo boost) to 13 or 17 or 15 or even 14 [or any other number less than 24 but greater than 12]. The order in which I've listed the CPU multipliers in the previous sentence are starting with the best for my system. Odd numbers yield best results - at least on my system; so your mileage may vary. The maximum turbo boost speed (4.320 GHz) remains the same so long as the CPU frequency (BCLK) setting isn't changed. But as I take that CPU Multiplier lower (dousing a little more BCLK on it as I go lower), my system remains cool and I can use less Vcore. This increases the chances that I'll get all of the available turbo boost when needed. Overall, it also does not put as much stress on my CPUs all of the time. C-states, T-states and all other energy and power management/savers are activated. CPU core temps range from 26 to 33 degrees C while just word processing or surfing this forum to 55 to 64 degrees C when rendering in Cinema 4d. This is how to speed up your system, while prolonging its life and holding on a little longer to that cash your power company wishes you would spend for energy.

 

Show me a faster OSX system (those i7-2600/2400 scores that appear and are routinely removed from and by Geekbench and my posted Geekbench scores, such as the 37837, 37393, etc. don't count) and you will have shown yourself someone else who is a follower of d00d's teachings. Check out the picts below for proof of the truth of d00d's philosophy. To truly get the point, check out the picts in reverse order. On the ostensibly slowest setting, the Geekbench2 score is 33% faster and the Cinebench 11.5 score is 39% faster than on a 2.93 GHz 12-core system. If you use Cinema 4d, a 39% speedup in rendering performance is nothing to sneeze at. Again, thanks d00d for graciously sharing your advice and helping me to get internal audio working. You've truly earned the title "InsanelyMac Sage".

 

P.S. For you dual booters, this is how an underclocked 2.534 GHz setting (2.33 GHz juiced up thru E-Leet with additional BCLK and voltage) stacks up in Windows 7 on Wprime:

 

1) 5th fastest Xeon x5680 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

2) 5th fastest Xeon x5680 AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

3) 10th fastest Intel Xeon 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

4) 10th fastest Intel Xeon AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

5) 10th fastest Intel 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

6) 10th fastest All 12x H20 Cooled Worldwide

7) 10th fastest Intel AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

8) 15th fastest Xeon x5680 AnyCore AnyCooled Worldwide

9) 15th fastest Xeon x5680 12x AnyCooled Worldwide

10) 22nd fastest Intel Xeon 12x AnyCooled Worldwide

11) 22nd fastest All AnyCore H20 Cooled Worldwide

12) 23rd fastest Intel Xeon 12x _Worldwide

13) 23rd fastest Intel 12x AnyCooled Worldwide

14) 28th fastest Intel Anycore AnyCooled Worldwide

15) 37th fastest Intel AnyCore_Worldwide

16) 49th fastest All AnyCore AnyCooled Worldwide

 

1) 2nd fastest Xeon X5680 12x H20 Cooled North America

2) 2nd fastest Xeon X5680 AnyCore H20 Cooled North America

3) 5th fastest All 12x H20 Cooled North America

4) 5th fastest Intel Xeon AnyCore H20 Cooled North America

5) 5th fastest Intel 12x H20 Cooled North America

6) 5th fastest Intel Xeon 12x H20 Cooled North America

7) 8th fastest Xeon X5680 12x AnyCooled North America

8) 8th fastest Xeon X5680 AnyCore AnyCooled North America

9) 11th fastest All 12x AnyCooled North America

10) 12th fastest Intel Xeon 12x AnyCooled North America

11) 12th fastest Intel 12x AnyCooled North America

12) 12th fastest Intel Xeon 12x AnyCooled North America

13) 12th fastest All AnyCore H20 Cooled North America

14) 14th fastest Intel AnyCore AnyCooled North America

15) 23rd fastest All AnyCore AnyCooled North America

16) 23rd fastest Intel 12x AnyCooled North America

 

Geekbench 2.1.12 for Windows x86 (64-bit) yields a score of 27,775 and Cinebench 11.5 yields scores of 76 fps and 20.49 for the xCPU. So you see that following d00d's teachings also makes for a not too shabby Windows dual boot system.

 

Is there another Cal Aggie in the house? Do you have an EVGA SR-2? It's a great mobo. However, the same thing can be done with i7-920 & i7-980X systems. I've done it using d00d's quidelines published elsewhere on this forum.

Thanks for this, I have my system plugged into a UPS that reads out wattage, so I'll be testing if this will bring down the current ~255 W.

[kdtt]

I got AppleTyMCEDriver.kext to load when I changed from triple channel mode (all 12 memory slots full) to dual channel mode (8 memory slots full, with slots 5 and 6 empty in each bank).

So I'm down from 24GB memory to 16GB, and if I want more memory I'll have to buy 4GB DIMMs.

Do you know whether Real Macpros use triple channel mode? if Macpros doen't support triple channel mode,then the problem is i guess evga boards doesn't let mac os decide channel mode and insists triple channel mode. is there anything related to that in dsdt or other acpi tables that you can fix

[d00d]

Do you know whether Real Macpros use triple channel mode? if Macpros doen't support triple channel mode,then the problem is i guess evga boards doesn't let mac os decide channel mode and insists triple channel mode. is there anything related to that in dsdt or other acpi tables that you can fix

The Nehalem Apple hardware MacPro[4|5],1 and Xserve3,1 can be configured with memory in dual or triple channel mode.

A dual CPU MacPro drops from triple to dual when going from 6 DIMMs to 8, presumably because triple is either 6, 12 or 18.

My single CPU Gigabyte MacPro4,1 was able to load the kext in triple channel mode, so I'm assuming it's something related to the EVGA BIOS.

This may be able to be fixed via DSDT or other method.

[kdtt]

As you might know already, Probably all evga x58 boards have problems in native power management since bios 44. when i installed lion previews i found that i don't have kernel panic when i boot without power management.kext and then install it. When you restart, you have kernel cache without power management kext.But during boot process you see cpupowermanagement initialization complete and after boot ,you'll see all the kexts are loaded.But you have to change the kernel cache before restart again with the kernel cache that is made without powermanagement.kext. if we could change the order of kextloadin that is client.kext before management.kext ,then maybe we can have native speedstep. i don't have any skill for that,but do you think it's possible?

[d00d]

As you might know already, Probably all evga x58 boards have problems in native power management since bios 44. when i installed lion previews i found that i don't have kernel panic when i boot without power management.kext and then install it. When you restart, you have kernel cache without power management kext.But during boot process you see cpupowermanagement initialization complete and after boot ,you'll see all the kexts are loaded.But you have to change the kernel cache before restart again with the kernel cache that is made without powermanagement.kext. if we could change the order of kextloadin that is client.kext before management.kext ,then maybe we can have native speedstep. i don't have any skill for that,but do you think it's possible?

Yes, I've read threads about the BIOS change with some EVGA MBs.

The SR-2 EVGA MB boots with NPM, but as you say, the client loads after.

AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient's IOResourceMatch is IOBSD, so it waits for IOBSD to become available.

AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement waits for IOKit, so which one loads first is dependent on it's respective IOResourceMatch.

 

EVGA SR-2 MB;

Apr 4 07:34:29 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 222233

Apr 4 07:34:29 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: initialization complete

Apr 4 07:34:29 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient: ready

 

Gigabyte EX58 MB (log from 2009);

Sep 21 12:36:34 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient: ready

Sep 21 12:36:38 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 1112

Sep 21 12:36:38 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: initialization complete

[kdtt]

Yes, I've read threads about the BIOS change with some EVGA MBs.

The SR-2 EVGA MB boots with NPM, but as you say, the client loads after.

AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient's IOResourceMatch is IOBSD, so it waits for IOBSD to become available.

AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement waits for IOKit, so which one loads first is dependent on it's respective IOResourceMatch.

 

EVGA SR-2 MB;

Apr 4 07:34:29 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 222233

Apr 4 07:34:29 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: initialization complete

Apr 4 07:34:29 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient: ready

 

Gigabyte EX58 MB (log from 2009);

Sep 21 12:36:34 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient: ready

Sep 21 12:36:38 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 1112

Sep 21 12:36:38 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: initialization complete

Thank you for your replies even though it's not related to SR-2 mobo. I read about nullcpu at this link,http://tgwbd.org/darwin/boot.html .I don't know about the tech stuff at all, but what if i put ioprobescore=100 in infoplist of client.kext.it's different .one is iobsd and the other is iokit.

[d00d]

Thank you for your replies even though it's not related to SR-2 mobo. I read about nullcpu at this link,http://tgwbd.org/darwin/boot.html .I don't know about the tech stuff at all, but what if i put ioprobescore=100 in infoplist of client.kext.it's different .one is iobsd and the other is iokit.

When I wrote NPM I meant Native Power Management, not NullCPUPowerManagement.

IOProbeScore is for two kexts with the same IOMatchCategory name, the one with the highest number loads instead of the one that's lower.

Are you saying that adding an IOProbeScore to AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient makes it load sooner?

[kdtt]

When I wrote NPM I meant Native Power Management, not NullCPUPowerManagement.

IOProbeScore is for two kexts with the same IOMatchCategory name, the one with the highest number loads instead of the one that's lower.

Are you saying that adding an IOProbeScore to AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient makes it load sooner?

I understood correctly what npm meant.but maybe i wrote something wrong.what i tried to say was, after reading the web page about null and ioprobescore, i thought maybe it'll work if i put ioprobescore in infoplist of client.kext .but i wasn't sure because management.kext and client.kext is two different kexts. so i was asking about that .

[kdtt]

I tried Appleintelcpupowermanagementclient.kext with modified info.plist a few times,but it seems not working at all.

new boot loaders for lion support kext folder,they say. if that function works properly,maybe i could boot without panic.

[maleorderbride]

Do you have sleep problems in dual channel mode?

Mine wouldn't wake from sleep, so I went back to triple channel mode and the AppleTyMCEDriver disabler.

Another problem is that the Parallels (5 and 6) and VMware Fusion (2 and 3 in both 32 and 64bit boot) applications use 100% CPU and slow way down after the EVGA wakes from sleep.

This happens after an image is started or resumed, and wasn't an issue with the Gigabyte.

 

Thanks for this, I have my system plugged into a UPS that reads out wattage, so I'll be testing if this will bring down the current ~255 W.

 

Well, I actually have sleep problems already. I disabled sleep and set the model to 3,1 to avoid having to update my IntelGraphicsPowerManagement and remove TyMCEDriver. Now that I can put my RAM in dual-channel I just set it back to 5,1 and still leave sleep disabled.

 

I might build a second one for a friend and see if perhaps it was just my overclock or some hardware that doesn't cause other problems. The computer is completely stable though and has been for months.

 

I dont use VMWare or Paralells--I just dual boot.

[Tutor1]

d00d,

 

As always less is more, making one of the world's slowest 12-core machines one of the fastest. Here are my some of my underclocking results for my 24-7 settings of:

 

1. No changes in Signal Tweaks yet.

 

2. No changes in Memory Configuration yet.

 

3. Frequency/Voltage Control

 

Both CPU's - Without VDroop

 

CPU 0 Vcore boot - 1.2750

CPU 0 Vcore eventual - 1.3000

CPU 1 Vcore boot - 1.2675

CPU 1 Vcore eventual - 1.2875

 

CPU VTT both boot - 1.325

CPU VTT both eventual - 1.350

 

CPU 0 DIMM Vcore - 1.65

CPU 1 DIMM Vcore - 1.66

IOH 1.35

 

Everything else at default or auto for now.

 

 

4. Frequency/Voltage Control

No Dummy O.C.

Target CPU - 2.17

CPU Freq. - 167

PCIE Freq. - 103

CPU Multi - 13

QPI - 4.8

Memory Freq. - 1066

 

Everything else at default or auto for now.

 

 

5. CPU Configuration

 

Everything is Enabled and/or set to Auto, including the newly exposed C1E, except MaxCPUID which is disabled.

 

All else is as you have advised, except that I have moved the MB and all other internals to a easily modified Antec Twelve Hundred case. There are now only 17 internal fans in this puppy, including all the Antec 1200 standard fans and others on various PCIE cards, the CPU cooling systems and the ones I added over the PWM for CPU 0 and the side panel. It's blazing hot in the southern US this summer, so my System temps are in the mid to low 40's C. and cores are in the mid 30's when at idle and range from 45 to 68 when running benchmarks and rendering but quickly drop into the mid to high 30's throughout. But when booting with -v I see that my turbo boosting pay day is DDDDEE. In other words when there is no turbo boost its a 12 core 2.171 GHz cowardly lion; however when I need it to roar, it musters up its core to {Correction - for each CPU} (1) 4.344.4 GHz, 4.344.4 GHz, 4.344.4 GHz, and 4.344.4 GHz, or (2) 4.512 GHz and 4,512 GHz, depending on the environment and the prey. {Addition - So essentially some cores more than double their speed, yielding benching scores about 40% faster than the top-of-the-line mid-2010 machine, for comparably about 80% of the cost and at reasonable voltages.} Below are pics of underclockings' 24-7 yield on the second day of our hot summer.

 

 

 

[d00d]

Thanks Tutor1.

I see you updated to 10.6.8 to get the following line in System Profiler;

Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Xeon

Do you also see only four places instead of six in kernel.log?

Here's what I get;

Jun 23 20:25:56 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 0000

[d00d]

Adding the following to com.apple.Boot.plist apparently brings back CStates, as I again see lower CPU temperatures in Temperature Monitor, and lower wattage in my UPS display;

<key>GenerateCStates</key>

<string>yes</string>

 

CSTInfo has been renamed to AICPMVers in ioreg at IOService:/AppleACPIPlatformExpert/CPU0@0/AppleACPICPU/ACPI_SMC_PlatformPlugin as of 10.6.8.

 

Looks like we had a warning about the missing CStates last month;

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php...p;#entry1685041

 

As for the missing turbo multipliers seen in kernel.log, looking in ioreg at IOService:/AppleACPIPlatformExpert/CPU0@0/AppleACPICPU/ACPI_SMC_PlatformPlugin I still see 10 values in the PState's PerformanceStateArray, so the message may be only cosmetic and not functional.

 

10.7.0 Update:

GenerateCStates doesn't need to be set anymore to have CStates.

[Tutor1]

Thanks Tutor1.

I see you updated to 10.6.8 to get the following line in System Profiler;

Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Xeon

Do you also see only four places instead of six in kernel.log?

Here's what I get;

Jun 23 20:25:56 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 0000

 

d00d,

 

I'm running 10.6.7.

 

I get six places in kernel.log: Apr 16 00:33:48 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios DDDDEE

[Tutor1]

What follows is the only way I know that one can achieve the benefits that I've expounded on from underclocking: I began each of my Gigabyte systems by installing Digital Dreamer's distros, following his every instruction for the version of Snow leopard that I had at that time. See, for example, http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index. ... pic=185097. Then, I learned about d00d and what he had achieved in improving his systems' performance. So I then made all, not some, of the non-DSDT changes that his guide suggests and downloaded his DSDT.zip that was appropriate for my CPU. After unzipping it, I took the DSDT.dsl file and placed it within the Debug folder within the DSDT_Patcher folder within the ~extra folder within the HackInstaller folder within the Run2MakeHackintoshMacHD folder from Digital Dreamer. Then I ran DD's RUN_HACKINSTALLER.command terminal script, and when prompted entered my system password, selected the drive for installation and ran (by entering the no. 7) Run DSDT Patcher. I then exited the script by entering the no. 20 and returned to the Debug folder and copied my newly minted DSDT.aml file and dropped it in my Extras folder then rebooted. The rest is as I've stated earlier, which is partly based on what I read on posts by Sam Oslo (who had achieved a Geekbench 2 CPU score of 27+ on the EVGA SR-2 mobo with some unusually behaving chips) and Movieman (both on yet another forum - Xstreme systems) about BCLK sweet spots). I followed this same path for my EVGA SR 2, except that I followed all, not some, of d00d's guide for that mobo, even changing my version of Chameleon to the exact version d00d recommends. I used the same process to convert my DSDT.dsl file to my working DSDT.aml file. Any deviation from this path may not yield all/any of the benefits that I have described.

[Tutor1]

Thanks Tutor1.

I see you updated to 10.6.8 to get the following line in System Profiler;

Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Xeon

Do you also see only four places instead of six in kernel.log?

Here's what I get;

Jun 23 20:25:56 localhost kernel[0]: AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 0000

 

I tried 10.6.8 and BEYOND, but both screwed up my underclocking advantages; so I reverted to 10.6.7 on another HD. For me, "AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement: Turbo Ratios 0000" had negative results. This is the edge I got back (1) by downgrading to 10.6.7 on another hard drive so that underclocking ability is fully restored and (2) by increasing the eventual Vcore (to 3.50 for CPU0 and to 3.25 for CPU1) and the BCLK to 182, yielding a maximum turbo boost of 4.914 GHz.