How to build your own iMac Pro [Successful Build/Extended Guide]

[kgp]

I don't understand how lowering the clock speed and voltage of the CPU will do anything useful? Also, how will this make it run hot? I fail to see how this will do anything other than lower performance.

Do benchmarks before and after applying the above settings to show us otherwise.

I indeed forgot to mention in my previous reply that lowering the clock speed, as recently proposed by @warphead, is not a good idea and also in my opinion totally useless. It will just reduce the overall CPU performance.

However, with "CPU core voltage" set to "Auto", the CPU seems to get currently too high voltages (>1.2V) without any OC and simply runs too hot. With a "CPU voltage of roughly 1.12V (without any OC), the CPU temperatures at max. load (e.g. 4.4 Ghz for all cores of the i9-7980XE) lower by roughly 10-15 deg C at equal or even improved overall CPU performance (Cinebench). In my opinion also here ASUS is requested to improve the respective microcodes. You can try to perform the manual cpu core voltage tuning proposed in my guide by yourself and report back your results and findings.

Please note that I believe that the manual voltage tuning is important for the over-all CPU performance and for lowering the over-all cpu core temperatures (which are simply too high). However, I also do not see any direct relation with the LOGIC functionality. Maybe he can further comment on his related hypothesis.

In any case, I would like to ask you, @ppffffpp to write a small chapter that describes SKZ7 and why and how the workaround proposed by @codeguru is able to fix the Skyklake-X bug described in Intels SKZ7 erratum, which seems to be responsible for the observed LOGIC issue. The chapter should also shortly explain, how to exactly apply @codeguru 's workaround to fix the apparent LOGIC issue.

We can subsequently iterate the chapter together and will see where and how I can implement it in my guide.

Would you do me this favour?

Many thanks in advance,

KGP

 

[warphead]

I don't understand how lowering the clock speed and voltage of the CPU will do anything useful? Also, how will this make it run hot? I fail to see how this will do anything other than lower performance.

I do this because the cpu with this unconventional solution permanently runs at the highest clock rate, which is set in the bios that also means that the cpu permanently has a high temperature.

for me a multiplier of 39 and 1v vcore is still in the green range, max 50 c ° under logic with a big project.

it's absolutely not energy efficient that i realize, but the gui runs so absolutely smoothly and no audio overloads drops etc.

show the 2 pictures i run the same logic project on both setttings and you will see the diffrent

I hope you understand what I mean

 

[kgp]

I do this because the cpu with this unconventional solution permanently runs at the highest clock rate, which is set in the bios that also means that the cpu permanently has a high temperature.

for me a multiplier of 39 and 1v vcore is still in the green range, max 50 c ° under logic with a big project.

it's absolutely not energy efficient that i realize, but the gui runs so absolutely smoothly and no audio overloads drops etc.

show the 2 pictures i run the same logic project on both setttings and you will see the diffrent

I hope you understand what I mean

We do understand what you mean.. but.. it is not a good idea to permanently run the CPU under max. load conditions, that's why a sophisticated power management like XCPM has been implemented by Apple, which you simply disable or hamper with your proposed approach. The reduction of the clock speed further results in a significantly reduced over all CPU performance, which is simply not acceptable for people who use their system for number crunching or photo and video editing, etc... As I mentioned before, the world does not only consist of LOGIC and I have to provide a guide, which is applicable for the most general case and provides max. system performance at max. system functionality.

I am rather in favour to study and further investigate the SKZ7 bug workaround proposed by @codeguru, if the latter really is able to solve the related LOGIC issue. Please see my related reply in post #2739.

All the best,

KGP

 

[codeguru]

@kgp, you think the performance problem in Logic is related to the SKZ7 bug, but intel says "this can only happen when both logical processors are on the same physical processor are active". It means, this bug can only happen when hyperthreading is active. Does logic work better when Hyperthreading is turned off? I don't think so.

 

[kgp]

@kgp, you think the performance problem in Logic is related to the SKZ7 bug, but intel says "this can only happen when both logical processors are on the same physical processor are active". It means, this bug can only happen when hyperthreading is active. Does logic work better when Hyperthreading is turned off? I don't think so.

View attachment 301415

In my personal opinion, Hyperthreading is absolutle mandatory. Who wants to work without Hyperthreading nowadays?

I will never turn Hyperthreading off.. why should I? This would strongly affect my overall system performance.

I don’t use Logic. Somebody with Logic can try to disable Hyperthreading and check whether this would really circumvent the SKZ7 Logic issue.

In any case, if the latter is really the case, disabling Hyperthreading is definitely not an acceptable solition and will result in a strongly reduced overall system performance!

Cheers,

KGP

 

[shael]

I'm 99% sure he got mad at a few people who didn't listen to him... Im also fairly certain. Without referencing his post or being him (just trying to help) he said that all the settings need to be set manually. And i asked for clarification on this but never got an answer as it got mixed up in a stupid argument between us.

Hopefully, you can you please help us and expand your "workaround" guide?

I indeed forgot to mention in my previous reply that lowering the clock speed, as recently proposed by @warphead, is not a good idea and also in my opinion totally useless. It will just reduce the overall CPU performance.

However, with "CPU core voltage" set to "Auto", the CPU seems to get currently too high voltages (>1.2V) without any OC and simply runs too hot. With a "CPU voltage of roughly 1.12V (without any OC), the CPU temperatures at max. load (e.g. 4.4 Ghz for all cores of the i9-7980XE) lower by roughly 10-15 deg C at equal or even improved overall CPU performance (Cinebench). In my opinion also here ASUS is requested to improve the respective microcodes. You can try to perform the manual cpu core voltage tuning proposed in my guide by yourself and report back your results and findings.

Please note that I believe that the manual voltage tuning is important for the over-all CPU performance and for lowering the over-all cpu core temperatures (which are simply too high). However, I also do not see any direct relation with the LOGIC functionality. Maybe he can further comment on his related hypothesis.

In any case, I would like to ask you, @ppffffpp to write a small chapter that describes SKZ7 and why and how the workaround proposed by @codeguru is able to fix the Skyklake-X bug described in Intels SKZ7 erratum, which seems to be responsible for the observed LOGIC issue. The chapter should also shortly explain, how to exactly apply @codeguru 's workaround to fix the apparent LOGIC issue.

We can subsequently iterate the chapter together and will see where and how I can implement it in my guide.

Would you do me this favour?

Many thanks in advance,

KGP

 

[kgp]

I'm 99% sure he got mad at a few people who didn't listen to him... Im also fairly certain. Without referencing his post or being him (just trying to help) he said that all the settings need to be set manually. And i asked for clarification on this but never got an answer as it got mixed up in a stupid argument between us.

He is a old and close friend, we work and develop many things together.. We also try to currently solve the Logic issue together. Right now he is delidding his i9-7900X, that's why he did not respond so far here in public.

Thus, I can tell you that your 99% guess that he got mad of people who didn't listen to him is totally wrong.

Everything is completely under control and goes the way it should go. I am in close contact with him and others and what I release concerning the Logic problem and any possible solution is totally in agreement with him and based on our common conclusions and decisions!

We do not need your absurd comments or advises. Let me do my work and investigate the problem in detail. As you have seen, I am also in contact with people who might be able to additionally contribute to a possible workaround and solution. I am indeed listening to their comments, questions and advises..

This is my guide and I will do what ever necessary to cover the needs of ALL people, also of those who are currently affected by the LOGIC problem.

If I get upset, it is because of comments like yours. You develop conspiracies which lack any base. You release comments, classifications, judgements and statements, which are totally out of scope, highly offensive and more than questionable. This is certainly not your responsibility!

You recently joined this thread and do not even provide your Skylake-X/X299 system specs in your profile and signature. I even don't know if you carefully read my guide or the 2744 posts along my thread... Thus man, what do you want and what are you talking about?

In any case you totally overestimate your actual role in this game. Nobody needs your comments or advises. Your personal contributions to this guide and thread have been absolutely zero so far. You are nobody to tell anybody, what he has to do! It is my duty to provide a comprehensive and consistent guide and to distribute further improvements or yet missing solutions and implementations. I will do everything necessary to fulfil this responsibility!

Thus, please keep out of the entire story and don't distribute further conspiracies or misleading conclusions, judgements or off-topic advices.

Any fruitful future technical contribution from your side with "tiger" results or hard facts is however appreciated and welcome.

However, you are nobody to control or organise my thread and guide or to give me advises and instructions. This is totally ridiculous. I know what I do, and I don't need your unqualified statements or instructions. Other people do not need this either!

Concerning your offending statements and classifications, I ask you to think before acting unqualified and emotionally.

If you dislike my decisions and way of working, you are free to leave this thread and to develop an alternative Skylake-X/X299 Desktop guide based on your "tiger" knowledge and experience, which certainly will be appreciated by the respective hackintosh community.

Many thanks for your comprehension,

KGP

 

[shael]

Since my last post got deleted for some reason and more so @kgp I commented a couple pages back asking a question to which the response from kgp was calling me stupid etc etc.... And my question was on calcification with his workaround. Instead of having the question answered I was attacked. To which I responded with an attack....


Sorry for the translation issues. I appreciate ur guide and have never once said anything bad about it ur called u out on anything. I think you are insanely misguided and have possibly mistaken me for someone else in this thread that you were previously mad at. As right from the get go you lost it on me posting 3 paragraphs in an argumentative way toward my question...


Sorry for the confusion.. Just wanted to clear that up I would appreciate the next time for you to not pounce on me as you did and there will no issues. Im letting u and him talk all u want. I'm out

 

[braindeadmac]

Now the words :

1.) He uses a different FakeCPUID than 0x0506E4, i.e. 0x050654 ! The latter FakeCPUID indeed requires the xcpm-

bootstrap patch for system boot and to make XCPM work! However, 0x0506E4 does not require the latter patch at all.
​

2.) Now, when you use the xcpm-bootstrap patch with 0x0506E4, you apparently totally mess an else perfectly working XCPM

configuration, that's why your CPU always runs at max. load, which equals to a system environment without any cpu power management.
​

3.) He requires the xcpm-bootstrap patch to boot and to make xcpm work, whereas you destroy an already working xcpm

configuration by additionally implementing xcpm_bootstrap, which is not required at all.
​

I don't see any improvement or profund base that could come with the else quite dirty and confusing solution you proposed above. Please don't take it bad. It is really not meant in any offensive way.

Apart from xcpm_bootstrap, you propose anyway what I already actually propose in my guide. Thus, nothing really new under the sun....

Have a sound sleep, and nothing for bad my friend.

Cheers,

KGP

Uhhm, using 0x050654 FakeCPUID here without xcpm_bootstrap patch...Maybe this is processor dependent? XCPM works fine.

 

[kgp]

Uhhm, using 0x050654 FakeCPUID here without xcpm_bootstrap patch...Maybe this is processor dependent? XCPM works fine.

Maybe processor dependend. However, I have been told that since 10.13.2, xcpm_bootstrap should also not be required anymore with 0x050654. I guess he has to check on that