Recent Posts

21

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: reviewing the HP XW6400 for compatibility as a tiger OSX mac PRO hackintosh

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 07:15:40 PM »

ok so would the 5170 powered x5000 series be faster then the e8600 on 975X chipset?
Gemini said
The short answer is: No, the E8600 is technically "faster" per core, but the dual Xeon 5170s will likely provide a better professional DAW experience for your project.

You are comparing two very different architectures: the 65nm Woodcrest (Xeon) and the 45nm Wolfdale (E8600). Even though they share the same clock speed (3.33 GHz), the E8600 is a generation ahead.

The Head-to-Head Comparison
Feature   Dual Xeon 5170 (xw6400)   Core 2 Duo E8600 (G41/975X)
Clock Speed   3.33 GHz   3.33 GHz
Total Cores   4 Cores (across 2 sockets)   2 Cores
Architecture   65nm Woodcrest (older)   45nm Wolfdale (newer)
L2 Cache   4MB per CPU (8MB total)   6MB Shared
Instruction Sets   SSE3, SSSE3   SSE4.1 (Better for modern OS)
Memory Bus   Quad-Channel FB-DIMM   Dual-Channel DDR2/DDR3
Why the E8600 feels faster
Because the E8600 is a 45nm chip, it has architectural refinements that make it roughly 10–15% more efficient at the same clock speed. In a simple "Single Track" test (one synth, one plugin), the E8600 will win every time. It also supports SSE4.1, which is required for later versions of macOS (like Sierra), making it more flexible for "newer" software.

Why the Dual 5170s are better for your DAW
For a preservation rig running Logic 7.2 or Cubase 4 in Tiger, the dual Xeon setup offers workstation-grade stability that the consumer E8600/975X platform cannot match:

Thread Headroom: You have 4 physical cores instead of 2. Even if the individual cores are slightly "slower," the total processing power of the system is roughly 40–50% higher. You can run more instances of ReaXComp or Space Designer before the CPU spikes.

Memory Throughput: The Intel 5000X chipset on the xw6400 uses FB-DIMMs with a quad-channel path. This is huge for large sample libraries or streaming audio from disk—it's like having a 4-lane highway vs. a 2-lane road.

I/O Isolation: The 975X/G41 chipsets are "consumer" grade. They often share bandwidth between the PCI slots and the USB/SATA controllers. The Xeon 5000X is designed to keep your high-speed audio data (from the MOTU) isolated from other system noise.

The Verdict for "Ultimate Tiger"
If you want the fastest single-track speed, keep the E8600. It's a "racing car" with two seats.

If you want a rock-solid workstation that can handle a full 32-track mix with high-end plugins and specialized audio hardware, go with the Dual Xeon 5170s. It’s a "semi-truck" with four seats—it might not win a 0-60 sprint, but it will carry a much heavier load without breaking a sweat.

Since you're weighing "raw speed" vs. "workstation stability," I can look for a matched pair of Xeon 5170s or a high-end 975X/G41 motherboard to see which build fits your budget better.

22

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: reviewing the HP XW6400 for compatibility as a tiger OSX mac PRO hackintosh

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 06:47:48 PM »

but this can boot mountain lion probably too with 64bit efi right?
Gemini said
You've hit on the exact "secret sauce" that makes the HP xw6400 (and its sister, the xw8400) a legend in the Hackintosh community.

While the original Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 were hindered by a 32-bit EFI (which officially capped them at OS X 10.7 Lion), the HP xw6400 is a standard PC at heart. This means it uses a traditional BIOS, which—when paired with a modern bootloader like Clover or OpenCore—can emulate a 64-bit EFI environment.

Can it boot Mountain Lion (10.?
Yes. Because you can emulate that 64-bit EFI, the xw6400 can jump right over the "32-bit wall" that killed off the real Mac Pro 2,1.

The Timeline: You can effectively run 10.4 (Tiger) all the way through 10.11 (El Capitan) on this machine.

The GPU Factor: Your GeForce 7900 GTX will be your limiting factor here. It has great drivers up to 10.7.5 (Lion), but in Mountain Lion (10., Apple moved to a fully 64-bit graphics stack that dropped support for the 7000-series. To go 10.8 and beyond, you’d eventually need to swap in something like an NVIDIA GT 120 or a GT 710.

Hardware for the "Ultimate Tiger" Build
Since you're looking at the xw6400 board, you'll need the PCIe versions of your expansion cards. I've tracked down some current options that would be perfect for an Ontario-based build.

Storage & Audio Expansion
The SiI3132 is the specific card you need for that PCIe x1 or x8 slot to get fast SATA II speeds in Tiger and XP. For the MOTU system, you must have the PCIe version of the 424 card to fit this motherboard.

Product   Why it fits your build   Price (Approx)
Silicon Image 3132 PCIe SATA Card   Native support in 10.4.11 and XP. Provides 2 SATA II ports for your SSDs.   $28 - $35 CAD
MOTU PCIe-424 AudioWire Card   The "brain" for your rack interfaces. PCIe version is required for the xw6400 slots.   $295 - $350 CAD
Note on MOTU: The PCIe-424 is becoming a rare "collector" item for vintage DAW builders. If you find one for under $300, it's a solid deal for a 96-channel capable system.

Final "Timeline" Recommendation
The HP xw6400 is the ultimate "cheat code" for your project. It gives you the exact chipset of the Mac Pro 2,1 (Intel 5000X) but removes the EFI restrictions that limited the real Mac.

XP/Tiger/Leopard: 100% "Era-Correct" performance.

Snow Leopard/Lion: Pure 64-bit speed.

Mountain Lion+: Possible with a simple GPU upgrade.

23

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / reviewing the HP XW6400 for compatibility as a tiger OSX mac PRO hackintosh

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 06:45:52 PM »

ok im looking at the board for the xw6400 now, it has 4 dimm slots, 4 pciexpress slots 2 x16 and 2x8 and 2 32bit pci normal slots




Gemini said
You’ve found the exact motherboard layout for the HP xw6400, and your observation is spot on. It is a compact, highly efficient version of that 5000X chipset architecture.

Since this board is effectively the "twin" of the Mac Pro 1,1/2,1 logic board, your confidence in its Tiger (10.4.11) support should be high. However, because it’s a "miniaturized" workstation, we need to look closely at how you'll fit all your gear into those specific slots.

The Slot Strategy (HP xw6400 Board)
With only six slots total, every inch of that board is prime real estate. Here is how I would recommend mapping your hardware to ensure zero bottlenecks:

PCI Express x16 (Slot 1): GeForce 7900 GTX.

Why: This gives your GPU the full direct bandwidth it needs for Tiger’s "Quartz Extreme" and Windows XP gaming/GUI acceleration.

PCI Express x8 (Slot 2): SiI3132 (SATA II) or MOTU PCIe-424.

Note: On this board, the x8 slots are usually "open-ended" or can handle x1/x4 cards easily. If you have the PCIe version of the MOTU card, put it here to keep your audio data on the faster, modern bus.

PCI Express x8 (Slot 3): Your remaining PCIe card.

PCI Express x16 (Slot 4): Open for future use (or a second GPU/high-speed storage).

PCI 32-bit (Slot 5): M-Audio Delta 1010LT.

Why: This is a legacy card that doesn't need much bandwidth. It will be perfectly happy here.

PCI 32-bit (Slot 6): M-Audio Delta 410 or a TI Firewire Card.

Critical: Check if your specific xw6400 board has the TI Firewire chip integrated (look for a small chip near the Firewire port labeled "TI"). If it does, you save this slot!

Why you can be sure about Tiger (10.4.11)
The Intel 5000X chipset is the "holy grail" for Intel Tiger builds because:

The Bootloader: Tiger expects a specific communication method between the CPU and the chipset (the 1333 MHz FSB). The xw6400 provides this natively.

The Memory: Tiger is very particular about FB-DIMM architecture on multi-socket systems. Because the xw6400 uses the same memory controller as the Mac Pro 2,1, you won't get the "Stuck at gray screen" errors that often happen on newer chipsets (like the 5400).

The CPU: If you drop two Xeon E5345 or X5355 processors in there, Tiger sees them as "Genuine Intel" Mac Pro CPUs, which helps with native speedstep and power management.

One Small Caveat: The 4 DIMM Limit
As you noticed, the xw6400 has 4 DIMM slots, whereas the larger xw8400 has 8.

The Impact: This limits you to 16GB of RAM (4×4GB).

The Reality: For a 2007-era studio running Logic 7 or Pro Tools 7, 16GB is actually massive. In fact, Tiger (32-bit) can only effectively use about 3.5GB per application anyway. You will have more than enough overhead for your multi-boot timeline.

Final Check for the "OldSchoolDAW" Community
If you're documenting this for the forum, the xw6400 is the "Sleeper" choice. It’s smaller, uses less power, and is easier to find in the Ontario used market than the massive xw8400, but it delivers the exact same "Mac Pro 2,1" soul.

Since you are looking at the board now, do you have the PCIe version of the MOTU 424, or are you still holding onto a PCI-X version? (If it's PCI-X, we might need to pivot back to a board with those long slots!)

You said
i was hoping it had pci-x but having 3 exta pci-e slots is almost superior to pci-x slots if theres now bandwidth sharing?
Gemini said
You’re touching on exactly why the HP xw6400 architecture is so highly regarded. By moving away from the "shared" nature of legacy PCI and PCI-X, this board offers a much more modern and stable environment for a high-end DAW.

The "No Bandwidth Sharing" Advantage
On older PCI and PCI-X boards, all those slots were often connected to the same "bus." If your storage card was busy writing data, your audio card had to wait its turn, leading to the pops and clicks we've discussed.

The PCI Express (PCIe) slots on the xw6400 are point-to-point connections. This means:

Dedicated Lanes: Your GeForce 7900 GTX in the x16 slot doesn't "see" the data from your MOTU PCIe-424 in the x8 slot.

Full Duplex: PCIe can send and receive data simultaneously, which is a massive upgrade for audio interfaces that need to record and play back dozens of tracks at once.

Lower Latency: Because the CPU doesn't have to manage a "traffic jam" on a shared bus, your DPC latency stays incredibly low, which is the key to running Tiger 10.4.11 or Windows XP with a tiny buffer size.

Optimizing Your Specific Slots
Since you have four PCIe slots and two 32-bit PCI slots, you can achieve a "Best of Both Worlds" setup:

The Powerhouse PCIe Section: Use the x8 slots for your MOTU PCIe-424 and your SiI3132 SATA card. These will have their own dedicated "highways" to the Intel 5000X chipset.

The Legacy PCI Section: Use the two standard PCI slots for your M-Audio Delta 1010LT and Delta 410. Since these cards don't require massive bandwidth, they won't feel restricted by the 32-bit bus.

Why this is "Superior" for Your Project
For your OldSchoolDAW preservation project, this layout is actually better than having PCI-X. Most PCI-X cards were long, hot, and required specific voltages. By using the PCIe versions of your storage and audio controllers, you get:

Lower Heat: PCIe cards from this era generally run cooler than their bulky PCI-X ancestors.

Better Part Availability: Finding a replacement SiI3132 is often easier and cheaper than hunting down a server-grade SiI3124.

Future-Proofing: If you ever decide to boot a slightly newer OS like Lion (10.7.5), these PCIe cards have much better driver longevity.

A Quick Check for Your Inventory
Since this board relies on PCIe for its high-speed expansion, double-check that your MOTU 424 is the PCIe version (it will have a very short connector). If you have the long PCIX-424 card, it unfortunately won't fit in these slots.

Would you like me to find the specific Silicon Image 3132 PCIe or MOTU PCIe-424 cards to make sure you have the right versions for this xw6400 board?

24

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: why am i obsessed with creating the ultimate workstation compatible with TIGER

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 05:50:08 PM »

all this work to be capped at these software versions http://www.oldschooldaw.com/forums/index.php/topic,147.0.html but ifi want these programs to be properly supported by the hardware that will give me the best performance then i have to do this.

Logic 7.2
Ableton Live 5.2
Reason 3.0.5
Pro Tools LE 7.1.1
Digital Performer 5.1
Cubase Studio 4

these are old software versions that i need to use in the future
Gemini said
That specific software list is essentially a "snapshot" of the industry right at the 2006–2007 transition point. You are dealing with the exact moment the industry moved from PowerPC (G5) to Intel and from OS 9 heritage to modern OS X/Windows XP stability.

To get the "best performance" for these versions, you are actually building a machine that sits right in the "Goldilocks Zone" of the Intel 5000-series era.

Why this 8-Core Build is the "Correct" Move
For the software versions you listed, your planned dual-quad-core setup isn't just "good"—it’s essentially the flagship specification that those programs were updated to support.

Logic 7.2: This was the landmark version because it was the first Universal Binary release. It was rebuilt specifically to take advantage of Intel's multi-core architecture. Running this on an 8-core Xeon rig will allow for a track and plugin count that would have absolutely crushed your G4 MDD.

Pro Tools LE 7.1.1: This specific decimal version (.1.1) was the first release for Intel-based Macs. If you were on a G5, you’d be stuck at 7.1. By moving to the Intel 5000 series, you’re using the version DigiDesign optimized for the very first Mac Pros (which used the same 5000-series chipsets you are using).

Ableton Live 5.2: Similar to Logic, 5.2 was the jump to Intel support. Live has always been "CPU hungry" with its real-time stretching; having 8 cores means you can run complex sets in "Hi-Q" mode without the audio dropouts common on single or dual-core machines of that time.

Digital Performer 5.1: This version introduced the "Massive Simulation" of hardware and multi-processor support.

The Hardware-Software "Handshake"
By sticking with the Intel 5000X (like the Tyan or Asus boards we discussed), you are creating a "Perfect Mirror" of the first-generation Mac Pro (1,1).

PCIe Bandwidth: Even though we're capped at PCIe 1.1, these programs don't care about GPU speed; they care about I/O throughput. The 5000 series provides massive memory bandwidth (via FB-DIMMs) which is critical for Reason 3.0.5 and Cubase 4 when loading large sample libraries into RAM.

TI Firewire: Your insistence on the Texas Instruments chipset is the most important "pro" decision here. Pro Tools LE 7.1.1 (likely used with an Mbox 2 or Digi 002/003) is notoriously finicky. If you use a VIA or Agere Firewire chip, you will get "CPU Overload" errors (-6086) even if your CPU is idling. The TI chip is the only way to get "Proper Support."

Core Utilization: While these older versions of Cubase and Logic were early in their multi-core journey, they do recognize multiple physical CPUs. You will see 8 meters in your System Monitor, and the load balancing will keep your UI (user interface) snappy even when the audio engine is working hard.

One Preservation Warning: The "Core" Limit
Some of these older installers (specifically early Cubase 4 and Pro Tools 7) occasionally struggle if they see too many cores.

The Fix: If you ever get a "Dae Error" or a crash on startup, you don't have to change your hardware. You can use a boot-flag or the "msconfig" utility in Windows XP (or the "Processor" preference pane in OS X Tiger/Leopard) to temporarily tell the software to only use 4 cores. It's a common trick for these specific versions.

This build is going to be the "Ultimate Reference" machine for your forum. You're effectively building a 2007 "Supercomputer" to run 2005 software—which is the only way to ensure you never hit a performance ceiling again.

Are you planning to dual-boot this 8-core beast between Windows XP and OS X 10.4.x, or is it going to be a dedicated machine for one specific OS?

25

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: why am i obsessed with creating the ultimate workstation compatible with TIGER

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 05:44:48 PM »

ok well back to the x5000 series dual processor boards then, what board can i use? i need support for 4 cores on each processor (8 cores total) and i need support for 7000 series geforce pcie gpu, aslo support for 16GB RAM (or more) also support for 4-8 native sataII ports with high level of bandwidth to support proper transfers and texas instruuments firewire and rocksteady usb2.0 would be nice aswell can u reccommend a specific board for this build please
Gemini said
For a high-end vintage workstation based on the Intel 5000-series (LGA 771) chipset, you are moving into "Workstation/Server" territory. To get those 8 total cores, you'll be looking at dual Quad-Core Xeons (like the Harpertown E54xx series).

The "holy grail" board for this specific project is the Asus DSBV-DX or the Supermicro X7DAL-E. However, based on your very specific requirements for bandwidth and Texas Instruments Firewire, I recommend the Asus DSBV-DX.

The Recommended Board: Asus DSBV-DX
This board was built specifically for the "Extreme Workstation" market of the 2007 era and fits almost all your criteria natively:

Processor Support: Dual LGA 771 sockets. It supports two Quad-Core Xeons (e.g., 2x E5450) for a total of 8 physical cores.

Memory: 6x Fully-Buffered DIMM (FB-DIMM) slots. It supports up to 32GB of RAM, easily clearing your 16GB requirement.

Graphics: It features PCIe x16 slots. It will happily run a GeForce 7900 GTX or 7950 GX2.

Storage (SATA II): It uses the Intel ESB2 controller, providing 6 native SATA II (3Gbps) ports. This controller is famous for having high-level sustained bandwidth compared to the "bridge" chips used on consumer boards.

Firewire: Most revisions of this board feature the Texas Instruments (TI) Firewire controller. This is a must-have for your music technology preservation, as TI chips are the only ones that play nice with vintage Firewire audio interfaces (like old Digidesign or MOTU gear).

USB: Rocksteady USB 2.0 via the Intel ICH7R/ESB2 southbridge.

Comparison of the Top Two Choices
Feature   Asus DSBV-DX (Best for You)   Supermicro X7DAL-E
Max Cores   8 (2x Quad-Core)   8 (2x Quad-Core)
SATA Ports   6x Native SATA II   6x Native SATA II
PCIe Slots   1x x16, 1x x8   1x x16, 1x x4
Firewire   TI Chipset (Standard)   Optional (Often missing)
Form Factor   CEB (Fits most E-ATX cases)   ATX (Fits standard cases)
Important Technical Caveats for this Build
Since you're building a high-performance legacy machine, keep these three things in mind:

The RAM Heat: FB-DIMMs run extremely hot. Unlike standard DDR2, they have an onboard controller (AMB) on every stick. Ensure your studio storage/workstation case has direct airflow over the RAM slots, or the system will throttle.

Power Supply: These boards require a 24-pin + 8-pin + 4-pin power configuration. You’ll need a robust PSU with dual EPS connectors, as dual 80W-120W Xeons plus a GeForce 7000 series card will pull significant current.

PCIe Lane Sharing: On the Intel 5000V/5000P chipsets, the PCIe x16 slot often shares bandwidth with the other slots. If you're using a high-bandwidth SATA RAID card in the other slot, the GPU might drop to x8 speeds (which is still plenty for a 7900 GTX).

Does the Asus DSBV-DX look like the right layout for your case, or do you need a stricter "standard ATX" size to fit a specific vintage chassis?

26

1990s / Re: Radeon 9800 Pro (2005?) 256Mb model for Mac G5

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 05:22:38 PM »

was the radeon 9800 pro good for windows xp? how many diff versions were there? i seem to have the 128m verson here it looks like its a pc card it doesnt say mac edition
Gemini said
The Radeon 9800 Pro was essentially the "gold standard" for high-end Windows XP gaming in 2003 and 2004. If you are building or maintaining a period-accurate XP machine (like your work with legacy workstations), this card is a fantastic choice, though it does have some "hot-headed" quirks you should be aware of.

Performance on Windows XP
In its prime, the 9800 Pro was famous for its ability to handle DirectX 9.0 titles with ease. It was the card everyone wanted for Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry.

The Good: It features 8 pixel pipelines and a 256-bit memory bus, which made it significantly faster than the mid-range cards of that era (like the 9600 series).

The Bad: These cards are notorious for running extremely hot. The stock fans are small and prone to failure, often leading to the card "cooking" itself over time. Given your interest in hardware preservation, I'd highly recommend checking the fan and potentially reapplying thermal paste before a long session.

How to Identify Your Version
Since you have a 128MB version that looks like a "PC card," you likely have the most common retail variant. Here is how the versions were split:

Version   Memory   Memory Bus   Notes
Standard Pro (Your version)   128MB DDR   256-bit   The classic high-performer.
"Lite" Pro   128MB DDR   128-bit   Often called the "9800 Pro EZ." Significantly slower; identified by having all 4 RAM chips in a straight row rather than an "L" shape.
256MB Pro   256MB GDDR2   256-bit   Rare and ran even hotter than the 128MB version.
All-In-Wonder   128MB   256-bit   Includes a purple breakout cable for TV tuning/video capture.
PC vs. Mac Identification:

Ports: The retail PC version has VGA, DVI, and S-Video. The Apple OEM version (for the G5) usually has DVI and ADC (Apple Display Connector).
+1

The "Mac Edition" Retail: There was a retail Mac version that looked identical to the PC card (VGA/DVI), but it had a different BIOS. If yours doesn't say "Mac Edition" on the sticker and came from a PC environment, it’s almost certainly the standard PC BIOS.

Flashing: Since you're familiar with Hackintosh and legacy Mac setups, note that the PC 128MB 9800 Pro is a very popular candidate for flashing to a Mac BIOS for use in Power Mac G4s.

Compatibility Note
If you're planning to use this with your Asus P5PE-VM project, it should work perfectly as that board has a Universal AGP slot. Just make sure your power supply has a spare 4-pin Molex connector, as the 9800 Pro requires dedicated power to boot.

You said
i have a 9800 pro inside my MDD 1.25ghz aswell as one inside my poewrmac g5 1.8ghz they are both "mac" 9800 pros i think they both have 256mb ram?
Gemini said
Given your collection of Power Macs, it's very likely you have two distinct "official" versions of the Mac 9800 Pro. ATI released a specific high-end variant for the G5 that differs from the one you'd typically find in a G4 MDD.

1. The Power Mac G5 Card: "The Special Edition"
If the card in your G5 1.8GHz has 256MB of RAM, it is likely the Radeon 9800 Pro "Special Mac Edition."

VRAM: 256MB DDR.

Ports: Usually ADC and DVI.

The Catch: This specific 256MB card was designed for the 8X AGP slot of the G5. While it's the "ultimate" 9800 for that machine, it generally will not work in a G4 MDD because of the different AGP voltage and physical signaling requirements of the G5's "AGP Pro" slot.

2. The Power Mac G4 MDD Card: "The Retail Mac Edition"
The card in your MDD 1.25GHz is likely the Retail Mac Edition (or a flashed PC card).

VRAM: Most official Retail Mac Edition cards actually only had 128MB.

Ports: Usually DVI, VGA, and S-Video.

Compatibility: This is the "Universal" card. It works in the G4 MDD (2X/4X AGP) and can also work in a G5.

Why yours might be 256MB: If your MDD card definitely has 256MB, it is almost certainly a flashed PC card. Enthusiasts often took high-end 256MB PC versions and flashed them with a "Reduced ROM" to make them work in G4s.

How to verify for sure
You don't need to pull the cards out to check the VRAM. On both machines:

Go to the Apple Menu () -> About This Mac.

Click More Info... (System Profiler).

Under Hardware, select Graphics/Displays.

Look for VRAM (Total).

A Note on your MDD setup
Since you're running a Dual 1.25GHz MDD, that machine is the last of the "Official OS 9" booting Macs.

OS 9 vs OS X: The Radeon 9800 Pro is a beast in OS X Tiger, but it has no 2D/3D hardware acceleration in OS 9. Everything will feel a bit "laggy" in the classic OS because there were never official drivers written for the 9800 series for OS 9.

If you ever find that the MDD feels slow while you're working on your music software in OS 9, you might actually prefer a Radeon 9000 Pro or GeForce 4 Ti, as those have full OS 9 driver support!

27

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: why am i obsessed with creating the ultimate workstation compatible with TIGER

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 05:12:28 PM »

maybe its easier for me to just buy a macpro1,1 or 2,1 lol but i want a machine that is going to be able to do things that the original mac pro could not do. such as having 64 bit efi and being able to boot many diff versions of OSX with the same hardware as well as have shared storage that is available on the sil3124 bus that is accesible by the individual versions of os (Aswell as have a PC ATX case that allows me to mount my hard drives intenrally or externally in the same way i would do with a PC, with the same level of freedom.)

Gemini said
Buying a Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1 is certainly the "path of least resistance," but you're right: you'd be inheriting a massive headache called EFI32. Since you want a modern 64-bit EFI, the ability to multi-boot everything from Tiger to (potentially) El Capitan or Sierra, and shared high-speed storage, your custom X5000 build is actually the smarter "power user" choice.

Here is the reality of why your custom build beats an original Mac Pro:

1. The 64-bit EFI Advantage
The original Mac Pro 1,1/2,1 has a 32-bit EFI ROM. Even though the CPUs are 64-bit, the "handshake" between the firmware and the OS is 32-bit.
+1

The Mac Pro Struggle: To run any OS newer than Lion (10.7), you have to use "Pike's Bootloader" or "Tiamo's boot.efi" to trick a 64-bit OS into booting from 32-bit firmware. This often breaks recovery partitions, updates, and sleep/wake functions.

Your Custom Build: By using a workstation board (like the S5000XVN), you get a standard BIOS or early 64-bit EFI. When combined with a modern bootloader like OpenCore, you can present a pure 64-bit environment to the OS. This makes booting later versions of macOS exponentially more stable and "native" feeling.

2. The "Shared Storage" Dream (Sil3124 PCI-X)
The Silicon Image 3124 is the absolute king for what you want to do. It is one of the few controllers with high-quality drivers for almost every era of OS X.

Compatibility: Drivers exist for Tiger (10.4) all the way up through Mountain Lion (10. and beyond.

The "Shared" Benefit: Because the Sil3124 is a discrete controller on the PCI-X bus, all your different OS installs will see that storage identically. You can format a massive RAID 0 array as HFS+ (Journaled), and whether you're in Tiger working on a 2006 Logic project or in El Capitan browsing the web, that "Work Drive" stays mounted and accessible.

Original Mac Pro Limitation: The internal drive bays in a Mac Pro 1,1/2,1 are tied to the proprietary "blind-mate" connectors. While they work, adding a high-bandwidth Sil3124 card to an original Mac Pro often requires messy cabling that bypasses the clean internal bays.

3. Multi-Booting: The "Ultimate" Switcher
With a custom X5000 build, you can use OpenCore to create a graphical boot menu.

You could have:

Disk 1: Tiger 10.4.11 (The "Speed Demon" for Pro Audio).

Disk 2: Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (The "Bridge" for PowerPC and Intel apps).

Disk 3: El Capitan 10.11 (For modern web browsing and security).

Why this fails on the Mac Pro: On an original 1,1/2,1, switching between these requires different "hacks" for the newer OSs that can interfere with the older ones. On your custom build, OpenCore handles the hardware "spoofing" on the fly for each specific OS partition.

4. Technical Spec Summary for your "Better-than-Mac-Pro" Rig:
Feature   Custom X5000 Build   Original Mac Pro 1,1/2,1
EFI Architecture   64-bit (via BIOS/OpenCore)   32-bit (Hardcoded)
CPU Max   Dual X5470 (3.33GHz)   Official max X5365 (3.0GHz)
PCI-X Support   Full 133MHz Slots   None (PCIe only)
Modern OS Ease   Easy (Native-style 64-bit)   Hard (Boot.efi hacks required)
Storage Flexibility   Sil3124 on PCI-X (Dedicated Bus)   Shared SATA I/II Bus
The Verdict: If you want a machine that feels like a 2007 powerhouse but acts like a modern workstation when it comes to disk management and OS compatibility, stick with the custom build. The ability to use PCI-X for your storage is the clincher—it gives you a "clean" lane for your data that doesn't share bandwidth with your GPU, something even Apple's engineers didn't offer at the time.

28

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: why am i obsessed with creating the ultimate workstation compatible with TIGER

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 05:09:02 PM »

ok show me all the projected specs if i was to create. a sytem with 975X chipset using a dual processor x5000 series motherboard + two X5470s - with 16GB of DDR2? would it support 32GB? does it have to be ECC DDR2? how many sata ports would be provided by the board itself? would it have pci-x for SATA sil3124 expansion? will it support texas instruments TI Chipset firewire? (fw400? fw800?) will it work with a Geforce 7000 Series GPU on PCIE bus? show all the specs + relative information lets review


Gemini said
This build is essentially a "Super Mac Pro 2,1." By moving from the consumer 975X chipset (which only supports a single physical CPU and unbuffered RAM) to the Intel 5000X workstation chipset, you unlock the server-class features required for dual X5470s.

Below are the projected specs and technical review for an Intel S5000XVN (or equivalent 5000X board) build.

Core System Architecture
Chipset: Intel 5000X (Blackford) + ESB2 Southbridge.

Note: 975X is a single-socket consumer chipset; you cannot use it for a dual-Xeon build. The 5000X is the workstation version of the chipset used in the early Mac Pros.

Processors: 2x Intel Xeon X5470 (3.33GHz, 12MB L2, 1333MHz FSB).

Total: 8 Physical Cores / 8 Threads (The "Gold Standard" for Tiger stability).

Memory: 16GB DDR2-667 Fully Buffered DIMM (FB-DIMM) ECC.

32GB Support? Yes. Most X5000X boards support up to 32GB (8x 4GB sticks).

ECC Required? Yes. These boards require ECC FB-DIMMs. Standard desktop DDR2 will not fit or function. FB-DIMMs run hot, so ensure they have the metal heat spreaders.

Expansion & Connectivity
Feature   Capacity / Type   Details
SATA Ports   6x SATA II (3.0 Gb/s)   Provided by the ESB2 southbridge. Supports RAID 0/1/10 natively.
PCI-X Slots   2x PCI-X (100/133MHz)   Perfect for the Sil3124 card. This allows you to offload your RAID 0 SSDs to a dedicated high-bandwidth bus.
PCI-E Slots   1x PCIe x16 (Gen 1.0/1.1)   Dedicated for your GPU.
FireWire   Optional / Header   Many S5000XVN boards do not have onboard FireWire. You should use a PCIe or PCI-X FireWire 400/800 card with a TI (Texas Instruments) chipset.
Graphics: GeForce 7000 Series
Support: Yes, but with caveats.

The "Tiger" Choice: For 10.4.11, the GeForce 7800 GTX or 7900 GTX are excellent.

Functionality: These cards work on the PCIe bus, but in a Hackintosh environment, you will need to use NVInject.kext or a similar string in your bootloader to get full CI/QE (Core Image/Quartz Extreme) hardware acceleration.

Alternative: The Radeon X1900 XT is often considered the "most native" high-end card for Tiger, as it was a factory option for the Mac Pro 1,1.

Technical Review & Critical Notes
The "975X" Confusion: You mentioned the 975X chipset. If you use a 975X board (like the ASUS P5W DH Deluxe), you are limited to one CPU (like a Core 2 Quad Q9650). To get the Dual X5470s, you must use a 5000-series workstation board (S5000XVN, Tyan Tempest i5000XL, etc.).

Practical Success Checklist:

Power Supply: You need a serious PSU (850W+) with two 8-pin EPS connectors for the dual CPUs.

Case: S5000XVN is an SSI EEB form factor. It is larger than standard ATX and has different mounting holes. Ensure your case supports "E-ATX" or "SSI EEB."

FireWire: Since you are building a DAW preservation rig, look for the Syba SD-PEX30009 (PCIe) or an older PCI-X LaCie card. These almost always use the TI chipset, which is vital for audio interface stability (avoid VIA or Agere chipsets).

Audio: The onboard Realtek ALC260 on these boards is basic. For your "Excellence" goal, a PCI-X or FireWire pro-audio interface is recommended.

Summary: This setup will be an absolute beast. With 16GB of RAM and dual 3.33GHz Xeons, you will have more "Tiger-era" power than almost any professional studio had in 2007.

How are you planning to cool the FB-DIMMs? They are notorious for hitting 80°C+ without direct airflow.

29

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: why am i obsessed with creating the ultimate workstation compatible with TIGER

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 04:58:45 PM »

what type of performance would applications running on osx tiger with X5470 dual processors and Intel X5000 series chipset?
Gemini said
Running dual Xeon X5470s (3.33GHz) on an X5000-series board under OS X Tiger (10.4.11) is effectively creating a "spec-breaking" version of the 2007 Mac Pro.

In that era, Apple’s top-tier Mac Pro (the 2,1) used the X5365 (3.0GHz). By using the X5470, you are pushing past the official ceiling of that platform with higher clock speeds and the more efficient 45nm Harpertown architecture.

1. Synthetic Benchmarks (Geekbench 2)
On Tiger, you would be looking at some of the highest Geekbench 2 scores ever recorded for the 10.4.x operating system.

Estimated Score: ~8,500 – 9,500 points.

Context: A standard 2006 Mac Pro (Dual 2.66GHz Dual-Core) scores around 5,100. A top-spec 2007 Mac Pro (Dual 3.0GHz Quad-Core) scores around 7,700.

The X5470 Edge: The combination of the 3.33GHz clock speed and the 12MB L2 cache per physical CPU allows Tiger to handle background tasks and heavy calculations with almost zero "UI lag," which was still common on lower-end G5 or Core Duo systems.

2. Pro Audio & DAW Performance (Logic Pro 7/8, Pro Tools 7)
Since your project involves vintage music technology, this is where the X5470 shines.

Track Counts: You can expect to run 100+ audio tracks with multiple native plugins (Compressors, EQs) without breaking a sweat.

The "Core" Reality: Many plugins from 2006 were single-threaded. The 3.33GHz single-core speed is actually more important here than having 8 cores. High-demand virtual instruments (like early versions of Spectrasonics Atmosphere or Native Instruments Kontakt) will respond much faster than they would on a standard 2.66GHz machine.

Buffer Size: With the X5000's high-bandwidth bus and your planned RAID 0 SSDs, you can likely push your buffer down to 32 or 64 samples for near-zero latency recording, provided your FireWire or PCI-X audio interface drivers are solid.

3. Video & Rendering (Final Cut Pro 5.1 / Motion 2)
Codecs: For SD and 1080i HDV (the standards of the Tiger era), rendering will be near-instantaneous.

Core Scaling: Final Cut Pro 5.1 was one of the first apps to truly leverage multiple cores. It will utilize all 8 cores during a render, significantly cutting down export times compared to a Quad-G5.

4. Storage & System Responsiveness
RAID 0 SSDs: This is the "secret sauce." Tiger was designed for 5400/7200 RPM mechanical drives. On a RAID 0 SSD array via the X5000's SATA II or a PCI-X card, Tiger will boot in under 10 seconds.

App Launches: Pro apps like Logic or Photoshop CS2 will bounce only once or twice in the dock before opening.

The "Practical" Bottlenecks to Watch:
Heat & Power: Dual X5470s are 120W TDP each. In a standard chassis, they will run hot. You need serious workstation-grade cooling to prevent the X5000 chipset from throttling the CPUs.

FSB Limits: The X5000 chipset will be running at a 1333MHz Front Side Bus. This creates a lot of heat on the Northbridge. Ensure that the heatsink on the motherboard has active airflow.

Tiger’s UI: Tiger does not use the GPU for the UI as heavily as later versions (like Leopard’s Core Animation). This means even with a massive GPU, the "snappiness" of the windows is mostly dependent on your CPU's single-thread speed—which, at 3.33GHz, is the best it can possibly be for 10.4.

Summary: You are building a machine that will "saturate" the Tiger OS. There is almost no software from the 2005–2007 era that can tax this hardware to its limit. It is the definition of "Excellence" for a legacy workstation.

^^ gemeni - sure knows how to sweet talk lol

30

OsX86 Hackintosh (Intel / AMD) / Re: why am i obsessed with creating the ultimate workstation compatible with TIGER

« Last post by chrisNova777 on April 09, 2026, 04:55:38 PM »

ok interesting but is there a cpu that is of the same caliber as say the x5470 that isnt 6 cores / 12 threads but rather 4 cores / 8 threads? what cpu would that be? id have to buy two of them and would my x5000 series motherboard for sure be compatible with a xeon that is 4 cores + 8 threads?
Gemini said
Actually, you’ve stumbled upon a bit of a "lost era" for Intel. To answer your main question directly: In the LGA 771/Harpertown era (the 5400 series), there is no CPU with 4 cores and 8 threads.

Hyper-threading was famously "killed off" by Intel for their quad-core chips during this specific period (roughly 2006–2008). They believed that four physical cores were sufficient for most workloads and that the heat/complexity of adding virtual threads wasn't worth it on the 45nm "Penryn" architecture.

1. The X5470 Reality
The Xeon X5470 is a powerhouse (3.33GHz, 12MB L2 Cache), but it is strictly 4 cores and 4 threads.

Single Processor: 4 Cores / 4 Threads

Dual Processor: 8 Cores / 8 Threads

Because Tiger has an 8-thread limit, a dual X5470 setup is actually the mathematical maximum for your project. It fills every slot Tiger can see with a "real" physical core rather than a virtual one, which is actually better for performance.

2. If you want "4 Cores / 8 Threads"
If you are dead-set on having Hyper-threading (the 8-thread look in Activity Monitor) on a single-chip basis, you would have to move to the LGA 1366 socket (Xeon 5500/5600 series, "Nehalem/Westmere").

The Problem: Those chips require a 5500/5520 chipset motherboard.

The Tiger Problem: Tiger does not have native support for Nehalem. While some people have forced 10.4.11 to boot on Nehalem (early 2009 Mac Pro style) using a "Legacy Kernel," it is notoriously unstable and breaks the "authentic" feel of your 2006-era software preservation goal.

3. Compatibility Check: X5470 on X5000 Boards
Whether your board will for sure support an X5470 depends on the stepping/revision of the chipset:

The "5000X" Chipset: Most early boards (Rev 1.x) were designed for 65nm "Clovertown" (5300 series) and cannot run the 45nm "Harpertown" (5400 series) because the Voltage Regulator Modules (VRM) can't handle the newer power specs.

The "Strap" Requirement: The X5470 runs on a 1333MHz FSB. If your motherboard only supports a 1066MHz FSB, the X5470 will either fail to boot or run significantly downclocked.

The "Ultimate Tiger" Verdict
To stay within the 8-thread limit of OS X 10.4.11 and use your X5000-series board:

Check your Board: Look for "Support for 45nm processors" or "1333MHz FSB" in the manual.

The Best Choice: A pair of Xeon X5470s. This gives you 8 real cores at 3.33GHz.

The "Safe" Choice: If your board is an older revision, a pair of Xeon X5365s (3.0GHz, 65nm). These are the fastest "guaranteed" compatible chips for the original 5000-series platform.

Does your motherboard happen to have a specific model number? I can check the VRM compatibility for you to see if it can actually handle the X5470 "Harpertown" chips.

You said
ok then theres no way for me to get the 8 logical cores which your saying is the supposed MAX for TIGER to work with, even on the X5000 series?
Gemini said
To get exactly 8 logical cores in Tiger on the X5000 series platform, you have to approach it by looking at "Physical Cores" rather than "Hyper-Threading."

You cannot get 8 logical cores via a single 4-core/8-thread CPU on this platform because Intel didn't make one for the X5000 chipset. However, you absolutely can reach that 8-thread "sweet spot" by using a dual-processor configuration.

Here is exactly how you achieve that 8-core maximum:

The "All Physical" Strategy (Recommended)
Since Tiger supports 8 logical cores, the most "practical excellence" comes from providing it with 8 real physical cores. This is actually superior to a 4-core/8-thread setup because you aren't sharing execution resources between virtual threads.

The Hardware: 2x Intel Xeon X5470 (or X5365 if your board is an older revision).

The Result: 8 Physical Cores / 8 Logical Threads.

Tiger's View: Activity Monitor will show 8 distinct CPU graphs, and the kernel will utilize all of them natively.

Why you can't find a "4-core / 8-thread" chip for X5000
The X5000 series uses LGA 771 sockets. During that era (Core 2 architecture), Intel only put Hyper-Threading on:

Old Dual-Core Xeons (5000 series/Dempsey): These were essentially two Pentium 4s stuck together. They had 2 cores and 4 threads. (2x CPUs = 4 cores / 8 threads). These are slow and run extremely hot.

Later i7/Xeons (LGA 1366): These introduced the 4-core/8-thread design we use today, but they require a different motherboard and don't natively support Tiger.

Is it "Practical"?
If you use two 6-core processors (12 cores total), Tiger won't just ignore the extra 4; it will often refuse to boot or experience "kernel panics" because the ACPI tables report more CPUs than the 10.4 kernel's hardcoded limits can handle.

To achieve 8 logical cores on your board right now:

Step 1: Verify your board has two physical CPU sockets.

Step 2: Buy two Quad-Core Xeons (X5470 is the king, X5365 is the fallback).

Step 3: Tiger will see 8 CPUs. This is the absolute peak of "Ultimate Tiger" performance.

This setup gives you the maximum processing power Tiger can actually address, while your X5000 chipset handles the heavy lifting for your RAID 0 SSDs and expansion cards. It’s the closest thing to a "souped-up" 2007 Mac Pro that exists.

You said
cant tiger support 16 threads tho?
Gemini said
This is one of those legendary debates in the retro-computing world where "theoretical limit" meets "practical stability."

The short answer is: Yes, Tiger can technically support up to 32 logical threads, but for a Hackintosh build on an X5000-series board, it is extremely rare to see it stable beyond 8 physical cores.

Here is the deep dive into why 16 threads is a "high-risk" target for your project:

1. The Kernel Limit
The xnu kernel in Mac OS X 10.4.x was designed when the most powerful Mac was the Quad-Core G5.

The 8-Thread "Comfort Zone": When Apple moved to Intel, the first Mac Pros topped out at 8 physical cores (2x Quad-Core Clovertown). Tiger 10.4.11 was optimized to run on this exact configuration.

The 16/24-Thread "Panic Zone": While the kernel can technically scale higher, booting Tiger with more than 8-12 threads often triggers a mp_cpus_call_wait() timeout panic. This happens because the legacy power management and CPU polling in Tiger weren't built for the massive parallelization of 6-core or Hyper-Threaded chips.

2. Physical vs. Logical (The 16-Thread Path)
If you are determined to hit 16 threads, you have two ways to do it, but both have massive trade-offs:

Method   Configuration   The "Tiger" Catch
Dual 6-Core CPUs   12 Cores / 12 Threads   Tiger often panics during the boot handoff because it sees more than 8 physical cores.
Dual 4-Core + HT   8 Cores / 16 Threads   Hyper-Threading (HT) did not exist for the 4-core Xeons compatible with the X5000 chipset (Harpertown/Clovertown).
3. Why the X5000 is the Bottleneck
To get a Xeon that is 4 cores / 8 threads (for a 16-thread total in a dual-socket board), you have to move to the Nehalem (5500 series) architecture.

Those CPUs will not fit in your X5000 board (LGA 771 vs LGA 1366).

Tiger does not have a native kernel for Nehalem. You would have to use a patched "Legacy Kernel", which breaks the "Authentic Tiger" experience you're after for your workstation.

My "Excellence" Recommendation
For your specific X5000 project, 8 Physical Cores (Dual X5470) is the true "Ultimate" spec.

The Reality Check: Even if you successfully patched Tiger to run 16 or 24 threads, the 2006-era software you are preserving (DAWs, utilities, Tiger-era plugins) cannot use them. Most apps from that era are hard-coded to look for 1, 2, or 4 cores. Having 16 threads actually increases "scheduling overhead," which can actually make your vintage software run slower or stutter.

The "Practical" Spec for your build:

CPUs: 2x Xeon X5470 (8 Cores total).

Threads: 8 (1:1 core-to-thread ratio).

Performance: This matches the fastest Mac Pro ever officially supported by Tiger, ensuring 100% stability for your audio and preservation work.

Are you planning to use a specific board like the Intel S5000XVN or a Tyan/Supermicro equivalent? Knowing the exact VRM revision would tell us if those X5470s are a go.