Contribute
Register

[GUIDE] Jerivalu’s Build: Fresh 10.11.5, Z170X-UD5 TH, 6700k, Intel HD 530, Thunderbolt, Dual Boot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
950
Motherboard
GIGABYTE Z170X-Gaming 7
CPU
i7-6700K
Graphics
GTX TITAN X
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook
  3. MacBook Air
  4. MacBook Pro
  5. Mac mini
  6. Mac Pro
Classic Mac
  1. Apple
  2. LC
  3. Power Mac
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
It does look mostly like a Finder window. However, the top part that is tabbed looks more like a browser. Perhaps some kind of graphics glitch is somehow blending the two.
Looks like it might be this:
http://totalfinder.binaryage.com

I think with such changes, that you can expect glitches like the grid disappearing (whatever that means...). So problems related to TotalFinder should be taken up with the developer of TotalFinder.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
229
Motherboard
Asus Z370 Strix E
CPU
i7-8700K
Graphics
Vega 64
Mac
  1. MacBook Pro
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
That doesn't look like a Finder window. What OS version are you using? What is wrong with the screenshot besides the fact that only half your screen is shown?

I was using Totalfinder hence the tabs, but there never was an issue with it before, I also tried uninstalling it and nothing.
It just happened all of a sudden after one time after I woke up from sleep which I can't comprehend. Im using 10.11.5, there aren't any problems apart from it not having a grid however it is just a visual annoyance
Any suggestions on what I should do? If it is a graphical glitch wouldn't it be reverted upon uninstallation?

Thanks guys, Rob
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-07-08 at 11.06.19 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-07-08 at 11.06.19 AM.png
    4.5 MB · Views: 145
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
72
Motherboard
GA-Z170X-UD5 TH
CPU
i7 6700k
Graphics
GTX 1070
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook Pro
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
I don't think you're supposed to keep the raised USB port limit patch. With the patch enabled, what are the ports and their addresses listed under the XHCI controller (screen shot)? You should remove that patch and use the uia_exclude boot argument like this:
uia_exclude=HS11;HS12;HS13;HS14;USR1;USR2;SS07;SS08;SS09;SS10;HS02



Plug a mouse into each port to see which are used, then exclude the rest so that only a max of 15 are listed.

I'm using the port map from this earlier post. It is naming the ports and has commented descriptions of their locations.
I appreciate your advice, as I've also read that Apple has limited the number of USB ports to 15. But unless my system starts acting weird I don't really want to drop any of the ports right now ("it ain't broke") - besides, it seems a bit counter-intuitive to inject and map all of them and then have to set a boot option to ignore several of them at the same time.

If there was a more direct method where I could edit a DSDT/SSDT to only implement the ones I need without requiring USBInjectAll.kext (so I could get rid of the patch, kext and SSDT map) then I'd be all for it.

I've included the snap from IORegistryExplorer.app for reference anyway.

cM1GnJL.png
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
950
Motherboard
GIGABYTE Z170X-Gaming 7
CPU
i7-6700K
Graphics
GTX TITAN X
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook
  3. MacBook Air
  4. MacBook Pro
  5. Mac mini
  6. Mac Pro
Classic Mac
  1. Apple
  2. LC
  3. Power Mac
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
I was using Totalfinder hence the tabs, but there never was an issue with it before, I also tried uninstalling it and nothing.
It just happened all of a sudden after one time after I woke up from sleep which I can't comprehend. Im using 10.11.5, there aren't any problems apart from it not having a grid however it is just a visual annoyance
Any suggestions on what I should do? If it is a graphical glitch wouldn't it be reverted upon uninstallation?
That's a nicer screen shot. But you still haven't explained what's wrong with it.

If you're talking about Icon grid spacing then:
Type Command-J to see view options. Change the view to icon view. That causes the Grid Spacing option to appear. Changing that changes the layout of the icons. You can drag icons to place them anywhere. If you drag while holding the command key, then it will align the placement of the icon with the grid.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
950
Motherboard
GIGABYTE Z170X-Gaming 7
CPU
i7-6700K
Graphics
GTX TITAN X
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook
  3. MacBook Air
  4. MacBook Pro
  5. Mac mini
  6. Mac Pro
Classic Mac
  1. Apple
  2. LC
  3. Power Mac
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
I'm using the port map from this earlier post. It is naming the ports and has commented descriptions of their locations.
I appreciate your advice, as I've also read that Apple has limited the number of USB ports to 15. But unless my system starts acting weird I don't really want to drop any of the ports right now ("it ain't broke") - besides, it seems a bit counter-intuitive to inject and map all of them and then have to set a boot option to ignore several of them at the same time.

If there was a more direct method where I could edit a DSDT/SSDT to only implement the ones I need without requiring USBInjectAll.kext (so I could get rid of the patch, kext and SSDT map) then I'd be all for it.

I've included the snap from IORegistryExplorer.app for reference anyway.
I didn't use a patch or SSDT for my USB changes. Just the kext and the exclude options. I don't know if using the patch or SSDT improves anything.

Your screenshot looks as I expected (note: maybe switch to non-HiDPI mode before taking a screen shot so that the screenshot is a quarter of the size). The weird thing that I wanted to point out is that port numbers "1 to 0x1A (26)" which are supposed to fit in the the 3rd digit of the @address string will affect the address digits of the controller (the first two digits) which is "14" so that it now says "15" which no longer matches the address digit of the controller. Also, one of those ports "0x10 (16)" now has an address digit of "0" which is usually for the controller. I don't know if any of that is a problem or if those digits are used for anything (they are called locationID in IORegistry).
 
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
72
Motherboard
GA-Z170X-UD5 TH
CPU
i7 6700k
Graphics
GTX 1070
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook Pro
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
I didn't use a patch or SSDT for my USB changes. Just the kext and the exclude options. I don't know if using the patch or SSDT improves anything.

Your screenshot looks as I expected (note: maybe switch to non-HiDPI mode before taking a screen shot so that the screenshot is a quarter of the size). The weird thing that I wanted to point out is that port numbers "1 to 0x1A (26)" which are supposed to fit in the the 3rd digit of the @address string will affect the address digits of the controller (the first two digits) which is "14" so that it now says "15" which no longer matches the address digit of the controller. Also, one of those ports "0x10 (16)" now has an address digit of "0" which is usually for the controller. I don't know if any of that is a problem or if those digits are used for anything (they are called locationID in IORegistry).

Ok, I am struggling a bit to follow but I can see what you mean - the designated port is affecting the address digits. Is this what you mean by getting them under 15? Because the port can only be specified with one character in hex (in the third character of the address) and so there is literally 15/16 characters to use?

Not sure what you meant by one port having the address digit of 0 - do you mean USR2?

Do you think this is coming from the SSDT I am using? I imagine so, as that seems to be what is setting the ports and labels.

I'd say the author used something like this guide:
http://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/10-11-0-10-11-3-skylake-starter-guide.179221/

Or the original version of the guide by RehabMan for the USBInjectAll.kext which provides templates etc. So the ports have been done right - according to those guides. But what I'm gathering is that they sort of go over the single-character hex limit and start affecting the address?

If that's the case, I guess that's not great... however I haven't had any issues with USB since implementing those three things (port limit patch, USBInjectAll, SSDT).
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
950
Motherboard
GIGABYTE Z170X-Gaming 7
CPU
i7-6700K
Graphics
GTX TITAN X
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook
  3. MacBook Air
  4. MacBook Pro
  5. Mac mini
  6. Mac Pro
Classic Mac
  1. Apple
  2. LC
  3. Power Mac
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
Ok, I am struggling a bit to follow but I can see what you mean - the designated port is affecting the address digits. Is this what you mean by getting them under 15? Because the port can only be specified with one character in hex (in the third character of the address) and so there is literally 15/16 characters to use?
Right. This is the only reason I can think of for Apple to limit the number of ports to 15 - to fit the number 1 to 15 into a hex digit (where 0 is for the controller)

Not sure what you meant by one port having the address digit of 0 - do you mean USR2?
Right. @15000000 might be more weird than @15100000 but I don't know.

Do you think this is coming from the SSDT I am using? I imagine so, as that seems to be what is setting the ports and labels.
The numbers 1 to 1A (26) are just the count of devices which may be in your SSDT (I don't know what your SSDT does). The SSDT should remove ports you don't need, or you should use the uia_exclude boot option to remove some of the ports so that Apple's enumeration of the ports (when it creates the ports in the IORegistry) will count only up to 15 ports.

I'd say the author used something like this guide:
http://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/10-11-0-10-11-3-skylake-starter-guide.179221/

Or the original version of the guide by RehabMan for the USBInjectAll.kext which provides templates etc. So the ports have been done right - according to those guides. But what I'm gathering is that they sort of go over the single-character hex limit and start affecting the address?
Right.

If that's the case, I guess that's not great... however I haven't had any issues with USB since implementing those three things (port limit patch, USBInjectAll, SSDT).
RehabMan does say the follow at https://github.com/RehabMan/OS-X-USB-Inject-All
"Note: Do not plan to use the patch long-term. It could be problematic. If you have more than 15 ports on XHC, you should use FakePCIID_XHCIMux to route the USB2 component of those USB3 ports to EHCI. It is easy to stay under the limit if up to 8-USB2 ports are routed off XHC.
Currently, this kext does not support the latest 100 series boards. It would be easy to add."​

I don't think we know of any problems that would make it "problematic" yet. 100 series boards don't have an EHCI so routing USB2 ports is not an option in that case.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
4
Hi,
I am new at this, planning to build my first hackintosh. I was wondering if it would be OK to use the non-TH (no thunderbolt 3) version of this board. Newegg link:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N83UN2370

It is rev 1.0, which is probably a good thing right? Or would that mean some of the kexts and what not wouldn't work properly? Basically I only want that slot for the displayport, so I don't really see why I should get the thunderbolt version. It seems like the displayport version might be easier to get running.


Thanks for your help!
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
950
Motherboard
GIGABYTE Z170X-Gaming 7
CPU
i7-6700K
Graphics
GTX TITAN X
Mac
  1. iMac
  2. MacBook
  3. MacBook Air
  4. MacBook Pro
  5. Mac mini
  6. Mac Pro
Classic Mac
  1. Apple
  2. LC
  3. Power Mac
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
Hi,
I am new at this, planning to build my first hackintosh. I was wondering if it would be OK to use the non-TH (no thunderbolt 3) version of this board. Newegg link:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N83UN2370
It is rev 1.0, which is probably a good thing right? Or would that mean some of the kexts and what not wouldn't work properly? Basically I only want that slot for the displayport, so I don't really see why I should get the thunderbolt version. It seems like the displayport version might be easier to get running.
Revision doesn't matter. They're all 1.0 anyway so far, so I don't see how you conclude that kexts would be affected.

The Thunderbolt ports have DisplayPort. Just get a USB-C to DisplayPort cable. You could also have some Thunderbolt devices, and put a DisplayPort device at the end of the Thunderbolt chain.

Extra hardware doesn't make it harder to get running. It just means more stuff to check but only if you want to actually use it, otherwise you can leave it alone.

You should actually compare the specs to see what the real differences are and decide what matters to you:
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/comparison/list.aspx?ck=2&pids=5479,5480

- The UD5-TH says it can use 3800 MHz DDR4, but maybe they haven't gotten around to testing that on the UD5 (3466 MHz). Anyway, instead of choosing a high MHz, you might choose a high MHz/$ ratio, or you might choose a high MHz/CAS Latency ratio, or a combination (MHz/CAS)/$ or a multi level choice, first highest MHz/CAS, then MHz among the highest x number of those or the other way around.

- For internal graphics, the UD5-TH has 2 Thunderbolt 3 ports and a HDMI 2.0 port all capable of 4K@60Hz. The UD5 has only 1 DisplayPort (4K@60Hz) and two other less capable outputs (DVD-D and HDMI 1.4 which allow 4K@30Hz).
There are adapters for USB-C and DisplayPort to HDMI-2.0. The USB-C ports have more options since they allow you to use older DisplayPort and newer USB-C adapters.
But maybe you won't use internal graphics, since they are kind of flakey in Mac OS X so far (only one connector might work, and sleep/wake might not work).

- UD5-TH has one Gigabit Ethernet. The UD5 has two, but who needs two ethernet ports?

- UD5-TH has only 3 PCIe x1 slots. UD5 has 4. But will you ever have 4 PCIe x1 devices? I use one for a FireWire card.

- UD5-TH has only 1 M.2 slot. UD5 has 2. Maybe one 512 GB NVMe SSD is enough storage for you? There's plenty of SATA ports for regular SSDs. There are also 1 TB NVMe SSD's. The higher capacity also makes them faster, approaching the limit of the chipset bandwidth to the CPU.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7762/samsung-sm961-1tb-2-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index.html

- UD5-TH has 2 fewer SATA ports. UD5 has an ASMedia controller for 2 additional ports. But I think you don't need that many SATA ports. There should be enough ports for a couple 6TB drives.

- UD5-TH has Thunderbolt 3 x 2. UD5 has a Thunderbolt add in card connector. You can add Thunderbolt 3 and Thunderbolt 2 devices (docks and drives and displays).

- USB port layout differs between UD5-TH and UD5. That number doesn't matter since there's always more ports than you need. They will require different USB fixes though.

- UD5-TH has 4 fan headers. UD5 has 3. But who needs more than 3?

- UD5-TH doesn't have an ECO or OC button, but who uses those?

- The prices are different. But not so much that it should matter.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
4
Revision doesn't matter. They're all 1.0 anyway so far, so I don't see how you conclude that kexts would be affected.

Thanks for helping me clear this up and hooking me up with all of this other information. I'm probably going to go for the UD5 at this point because I don't really see myself using thunderbolt any time soon, and I want the extra M.2 slot.

- The UD5-TH says it can use 3800 MHz DDR4, but maybe they haven't gotten around to testing that on the UD5 (3466 MHz). Anyway, instead of choosing a high MHz, you might choose a high MHz/$ ratio, or you might choose a high MHz/CAS Latency ratio, or a combination $/(MHz/CAS).

I'm honestly not too worried about this, I'm just trying to build something that can power a 4k display, dual boot, run games with good fps and decent graphics, and do some programming / photo editing on. It also seems pretty likely that they are pretty similar boards.

I was also wondering, you mentioned NVMe, do you think I would see a noticeable performance increase with that? They cost about 90% more than the SATA III ones I'm looking at for the same space:

SAMSUNG 850 EVO M.2 250GB SATA III 3-D Vertical Internal SSD Single Unit Version MZ-N5E250BW, one for windows and one for osx.

I was also going to get this graphics card, based on some speculation that they go well with this motherboard in terms of compatibility, and that its on sale:

EVGA GeForce GTX 960 02G-P4-2966-KR 2GB SSC GAMING w/ACX 2.0+, Whisper Silent Cooling Graphics Card

And one of these processors: Intel Core i5-6500 (no overclocking saves about 50 bucks, or 1/5th the cost of the i5-6500k).

So would you think NVMe would be a reasonable upgrade with that setup?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top