jonisign Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Confirm clean installation on X99 Yosemite 10.10.5 without patching kernel. That's really awesome to hear. What CPU are you using? Does power management/sleep work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Once I tried it and yes a little late to work the screen but woke up normally. 5820Κ Do you need the Legacy IOPCIFamily and ACPIPlatform kexts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 IOPCIFamily is load and AppleACPIPlatform too.. but vanilla never use something else. The only kext to use is Fakesmc nullcpu and vodoosync for better performance and networks. Do you still need nullcpu now that there is native support for the CPU in the kernel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usal Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 There is now x99 native support in the 10.10.5 kernel? Is a 100% supported x99 hackintosh now possible? Would an ASUS x99 Deluxe be a good motherboard to choose for this project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 There is now x99 native support in the 10.10.5 kernel? Is a 100% supported x99 hackintosh now possible? Would an ASUS x99 Deluxe be a good motherboard to choose for this project? It seems like it! For Core i7's you'll still need to load legacy IOPCIFamily and AppleACPIPlatform kexts. For 4, 6, and 12 core Xeon E5's v3 it seems like everything will work natively. And yes, the Asus x99 deluxe seems fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I confirm that an unpatched kernel works on a x99 system under 10.10.5. Just reinstalled the vanilla kernel, restarted and… it works! Asus X99 Deluxe w/ i7 i5820K CPU. Now will try remove some kexts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsusFreak Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I confirm that an unpatched kernel works on a x99 system under 10.10.5. Just reinstalled the vanilla kernel, restarted and… it works! Asus X99 Deluxe w/ i7 i5820K CPU. Now will try remove some kexts. Because the patched kernel is still in cache Fresh install of Yos and El Cap today using Clover r3269... El Cap installed fine with no patch or Clover HaswellE patch, Yos needed the HaswellE patch to complete the install... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Because the patched kernel is still in cache Fresh install of Yos and El Cap today using Clover r3269... El Cap installed fine with no patch or Clover HaswellE patch, Yos needed the HaswellE patch to complete the install... No, I rebuilt cache and repaired permissions with Kext Wizard before restarting. I removed VoodooTSCSync.kext, also rebuilding cache and repairing permissions before restart, and there is no difference in performance under GeekBench. It is even slightly better without. Will try to remove other kexts… Removing NullCPU drops the performances a lot… No speedstep though, so this is not the explanation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsusFreak Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Can't take cpu steps The truth is on EL_Capitan works better. Keep us informed - we have identical motherboards.. Thanks Really? El Cap is fine, even sleep works but performance sucks compared to Yos... At least with Yos you can get PM somewhat working. (no sleep) Yos, no OC/CPU default: El Cap, no OC/CPU default: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 No, I rebuilt cache and repaired permissions with Kext Wizard before restarting. I removed VoodooTSCSync.kext, also rebuilding cache and repairing permissions before restart, and there is no difference in performance under GeekBench. It is even slightly better without. Will try to remove other kexts… Removing NullCPU drops the performances a lot… No speedstep though, so this is not the explanation. @bOLEMO, are you saying that if you remove NullCPU you now get speedstep? So update the 10.10.5 combo update and restart? no kernel patch? Anything else? Installing 10.10.5 Combo on my otherwise working (see above) 5960X system. Just FYI, other E5-26xx V3 CPUs have not needed a kernel patch since like 10.10.2 or so. The i7's do, and so does the E5-2697 V3. Edit: Good call Stinga. My 5960X systems starts up without a kernel patch in place under 10.10.5. I still have the Legacy IOPCIFamily and ACPIPlatform. Don't suppose you have found any way to get rid of those two legacy kexts, have you? My Xeon V3's don't need them if they are 4,6, or 12-core CPUs. Again the 14-core E5-2697 V3 needs it though ;( Are you using NullCPUPowerManagement with your E5-26xx V3 CPUs? In the cases where you don't need to use the legacy kexts, does speed step/sleep/wake now work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 @bOLEMO, are you saying that if you remove NullCPU you now get speedstep? Are you using NullCPUPowerManagement with your E5-26xx V3 CPUs? In the cases where you don't need to use the legacy kexts, does speed step/sleep/wake now work? No, it did not. However, I am able now with NullCPU… to get speedstep, or a kind of, with only x12 and x28. I forced the C1, C2, C4 and C6 states in the bios, and I am not using drop SSDT in Chameleon, but Generate + Enable states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 No, it did not. However, I am able now with NullCPU… to get speedstep, or a kind of, with only x12 and x28. I forced the C1, C2, C4 and C6 states in the bios, and I am not using drop SSDT in Chameleon, but Generate + Enable states. Interesting–– are you able to get sleep/wake with NullCPU? I'm assuming without NullCPU you get sleep/wake, but are stuck at the max clock frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Interesting–– are you able to get sleep/wake with NullCPU? I'm assuming without NullCPU you get sleep/wake, but are stuck at the max clock frequency. Sleep wake worked sometimes with NullCPU, sometimes not… I did not try lately. For the speedstep, the settings in chameleon are not doing anything… drop ssdt or not, custom ssdt or not, enable C and P states or not, I always have 2 states: x28 and x12, with a 166.6 CPU Strap and 168 MHz bclk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Sleep wake worked sometimes with NullCPU, sometimes not… I did not try lately. For the speedstep, the settings in chameleon are not doing anything… drop ssdt or not, custom ssdt or not, enable C and P states or not, I always have 2 states: x28 and x12, with a 166.6 CPU Strap and 168 MHz bclk. Okay thanks! That is helpful–– I'll try playing around with different things to see what conditions allow sleep/wake to work. 168 MHz bclk sounds high, do you have any problems with PCI-e timing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Okay thanks! That is helpful–– I'll try playing around with different things to see what conditions allow sleep/wake to work. 168 MHz bclk sounds high, do you have any problems with PCI-e timing? No, this is fine. I don't have any visible bug. PS: on Windows, I also only have x28 and x12. Must be the mb overriding the OSs power management, or that only x12 and x28 are possible with bclk at 168. I also confirm that without the forced C1, C3 and C6 states on the mb, Mac OS X stays at x28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 No, this is fine. I don't have any visible bug. PS: on Windows, I also only have x28 and x12. Must be the mb overriding the OSs power management, or that only x12 and x28 are possible with bclk at 168. I also confirm that without the forced C1, C3 and C6 states on the mb, Mac OS X stays at x28. Got it, so if you force C1, C2, C4 and C6, then you get x12 and x28 in both windows and OS X. If you force C1, C3, and C6, then you only get x28. What are your settings for C1, C2, C4 and C6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Got it, so if you force C1, C2, C4 and C6, then you get x12 and x28 in both windows and OS X. If you force C1, C3, and C6, then you only get x28. What are your settings for C1, C2, C4 and C6? No, I apologize, H have not been precise. In the Asus X99 Deluxe bios, I force states this way: Enhanced C1 State: ENABLE CPU C3 Report: ENABLE CPU C6 Report: ENABLE Package C State Limit: C6 (Retention) State When all of that is enabled, whatever the config in Chameleon, I have x12 and x28 in both Mac and Win. When it is disabled, Mac is stuck at x28; will have to recheck with Win. Other significant options are: No option to force C2, C4… And C7 is not supported by my CPU i7 5820K. So I misinformed you when I wrote C2 and C4. I have SpeedStep enabled, and Turbo disabled. CPU Strap is 167 MHz, Bclk is 168 MHz, ratio is x28, cache is x24, memory on 2666 MHz. EPU enabled, Vt-d enabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maleorderbride Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Because the patched kernel is still in cache Fresh install of Yos and El Cap today using Clover r3269... El Cap installed fine with no patch or Clover HaswellE patch, Yos needed the HaswellE patch to complete the install... I think snatch is correct. I did a fresh install of 10.10.5 on an i7-5960X (versus the combo update from earlier testing) and I had to patch the kernel. Only the Xeon 6-core and 12-core are running an un-patched kernel. I do not have a Xeon 8-core or 10-core to test with to see if they need patches, but my 14-core Xeon does still need patching. For those of you asking about power management, that is largely a separate issue. Sleep has been possible to get working for quite some time with Yosemite, but it doesn't mean power management is working. You still only get to 12x and max multi at best. You don't have turbo or actual power management. Doesn't look like you ever will in Yosemite. Wait for the next MacPro, just as with X79. The essential message here is that everything is still the same. You can have working sleep if you want, but you have to use VoodooTSCSync. You can take or leave NullCPUPM, but having it seems to improve performance. You can avoid patching the kernel or using legacy kexts with proper CPU choice if you want, but other than convenience there is no real upside. You don't "unlock" new features in the OS that you could not have already gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I think snatch is correct. I did a fresh install of 10.10.5 on an i7-5960X (versus the combo update from earlier testing) and I had to patch the kernel. Only the Xeon 6-core and 12-core are running an un-patched kernel. I do not have a Xeon 8-core or 10-core to test with to see if they need patches, but my 14-core Xeon does still need patching. For those of you asking about power management, that is largely a separate issue. Sleep has been possible to get working for quite some time with Yosemite, but it doesn't mean power management is working. You still only get to 12x and max multi at best. You don't have turbo or actual power management. Doesn't look like you ever will in Yosemite. Wait for the next MacPro, just as with X79. The essential message here is that everything is still the same. You can have working sleep if you want, but you have to use VoodooTSCSync. You can take or leave NullCPUPM, but having it seems to improve performance. You can avoid patching the kernel or using legacy kexts with proper CPU choice if you want, but other than convenience there is no real upside. You don't "unlock" new features in the OS that you could not have already gotten. Thank you for those precisions! I have a i7 5820K so 6 cores, that explains why it works without a patch. Thank you also to explain that VoodooTSCSync is there to bring sleep. I will put it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisign Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Thank you for those precisions! I have a i7 5820K so 6 cores, that explains why it works without a patch. Thank you also to explain that VoodooTSCSync is there to bring sleep. I will put it back. Please report back if you also get consistent sleep with VoodooTSCSync in place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bOLEMO Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Please report back if you also get consistent sleep with VoodooTSCSync in place! It seems to work! I put VoodooTSCSync back, and I forced the computer to sleep yesterday before going to bed. It went into deep sleep. This morning, the computer was awake (something must have woke it up during the night), but it was working! I precise that I had set up the preferences to never have the computer going to sleep by itself, so it is normal that it did not return to sleep after it woke up sometime during the night. Without VoodooTSCSync, it is impossible to wake the computer. So I confirm that for me, VoodooTSCSync is permitting sleep to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fljagd Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 If you want to test, I'm updating my post-install for X99 https://www.dropbox.com/s/53ykjh7jt6wozdw/Post-Installer%20X79-X99.dmg.zip?dl=0Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fljagd Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 If you want to test, I'm updating my post-install for X99 https://www.dropbox.com/s/53ykjh7jt6wozdw/Post-Installer%20X79-X99.dmg.zip?dl=0 Fred Successful installation of Deluxe Asus X99 Cpu 5960x on Yosemite10.10.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maleorderbride Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 What are you overclocked to? 4.5GHz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fljagd Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 What are you overclocked to? 4.5GHz? 4,3GHz And to 4,4 GHz it is the machine of Samtimbaub thank you to him for having used my install Fred 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts