Progress with Threadripper 3970x

Grover

New member
May 2, 2020
2
1
3
From what I've read, it seems as though the Ryzen Threadripper 3970x is still not supported, but they say that work is in progress. Does anyone know how close it is, or how much progress has been made? Also, I see downloadable AMD Kernal files which allow macOS to boot on AMD CPUs, but I didn't see Catalina listed. Will there be an update for that, or is one even needed? (A couple of months ago I got a Threadripper 3970x, and I just bought a supported AMD GPU, so I'm itching to try it with macOS Catalina on it.)
 

Shaneee

Administrator
Staff member
Mar 13, 2020
433
160
142
28
Scotland
amd-osx.com
There's not been much progress. Algrey doesn't have a CPU do to any testing on and without that we'd require someone who is able to do in depth debugging in order to work on the issues with it. We aren't 100% sure why current patches don't work. We don't use custom kernels anymore, we now patch the kernel on boot with OpenCore.
To keep best updated you'd be best joining the Discord server. There's an invite link in the navigation bar at the top of the forum.
 

Grover

New member
May 2, 2020
2
1
3
I may be able to help if you can point me to things I should be doing. I am not a hackintosh expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I am a programmer and have a certain level of general technical acumen. But with guided testing and troubleshooting, I may be able to lend a hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aluveitie

Jaraheel

New member
May 3, 2020
5
1
3
There's not been much progress. Algrey doesn't have a CPU do to any testing on and without that we'd require someone who is able to do in depth debugging in order to work on the issues with it. We aren't 100% sure why current patches don't work. We don't use custom kernels anymore, we now patch the kernel on boot with OpenCore.
To keep best updated you'd be best joining the Discord server. There's an invite link in the navigation bar at the top of the forum.
I may be able to help too. And similar to what @Grover said, I have very little systems programming experience so I would need detailed instructions as to what to do.
 

tvmnick

New member
May 3, 2020
1
0
1
I have the 3970x and two AMD VII GFX cards. How far is ther progress in trying to get this working, is anything in the betas to help?
 

Scooby-Chan

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 23, 2020
2
0
1
New Zealand
Algrey has attempted to troubleshoot but without having the system on hand or someone that knows what they are doing its gonna be at a stand still for a while
 

Allubz

New member
May 4, 2020
10
3
3
If any of you lives in Europe or preferably the Netherlands we may be able to sort obtaining the hardware.

Otherwise I'm more than willing, like others, to troubleshoot patches and problems. I understand it's unpractical not to have a physical system at hand, and communicating with someone who isn't able to troubleshoot in-depth themselves, but if anyone (especially Algrey) wishes to get in contact, I'm willing to help out either way.

PS: From macOS86.it I understood from fabiosun that there has been collaboration going in-depth and the results aren't great yet. I believe in the quality of your researches, so I'll refrain from asking and hope for a solution in the future :)
 
Last edited:

writerinserepeat

Donator
Donator
May 15, 2020
2
0
1
Belgium
Nice to see this gaining more attention. I've been slogging along on the EPYC Rome side since February, using the latest OpenCore builds. VM installs work fine, but my goal is a true bare metal install. Progress is slow but there are breakthroughs here and there, thanks in no small part to additional features being built into OpenCore.

Fortunately, I can now hook up a serial cable to the SuperMicro motherboard and capture kernel panic logs during attempted installations. My project may not help the TRX40-based Threadripper side of things, since EPYC is SoC, but there may be some overlapping issues that might be resolved. Succeed or fail, it's an interesting side project to try and run MacOS on a bare metal EPYC system.
 

fabiosun

Member
May 5, 2020
36
14
8
IMG_0679.jpg
My research to have patches for TRX40 is ended.
I am happy with Proxmox/OSX and performance is at its best..
Little problems to solve but system is ready for production job ;)
Screen Shot 2020-05-16 at 10.53.20.png
Screen Shot 2020-05-16 at 10.54.36.pngScreen Shot 2020-05-16 at 10.57.49.pngScreen Shot 2020-05-16 at 10.58.30.png
 
Last edited:

fabiosun

Member
May 5, 2020
36
14
8
no what?
explain please and if you have something to test you think could not work I will try to test..
I have a pretty perfect system and for now it is the only way I am very tired to listen every time people to ask for some infos about patches solution and the only answer is "Send to Algrey a trx40"
Are people sure with a TRX40 he will find a solution?
I think no
maybe it is only not possible for now? or no more interested people to find a solution
Solution for now is to have a kvm with all your device passed. Performance is about 3% less than windows pro 64 bit...is it not enough for you?
Do you know that with vanilla method a supported 3950x performs worst about 30% in GPU test (vanilla method worst than Proxmox/osx method)?
I am not talking to some unusefull test but also in "real" life as Davinci Resolve using or Adobe premier media encoder encoding...
so what do you mean the you quote my post saying No :(
thank you :p
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Jaraheel

Jaraheel

New member
May 3, 2020
5
1
3
no what?
explain please and if you have something to test you think could not work I will try to test..
I have a pretty perfect system and for now it is the only way I am very tired to listen every time people to ask for some infos about patches solution and the only answer is "Send to Algrey a trx40"
Are people sure with a TRX40 he will find a solution?
I think no
maybe it is only not possible for now? or no more interested people to find a solution
Solution for now is to have a kvm with all your device passed. Performance is about 3% less than windows pro 64 bit...is it not enough for you?
Do you know that with vanilla method a supported 3950x performs worst about 30% in GPU test (vanilla method worst than Proxmox/osx method)?
I am not talking to some unusefull test but also in "real" life as Davinci Resolve using or Adobe premier media encoder encoding...
so what do you mean the you quote my post saying No :(
thank you :p
Haha! The “No :( “ meant I am too lazy to install macOS on VM and wish there’d be some way to boot macOS via boot loader and patches :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabiosun

fabiosun

Member
May 5, 2020
36
14
8
Will this solution work with the 3990X as well?
Hi
if you have done some Hackintosh with "powerfull" system you should have the answer
3990x is a 64+64 cpu..OSX limit is 0x3f 63 in decimal
You can't pass that limit in OSX..I mean in every osx I have tested till 10.15.3
You can check in kernel by yourself, it is pretty simple
So 3990x could work but only limiting its core or not using threads..
In the past I have had a dual xeon 44+44..to use in hackintosh I have to set 16 cores each and 16 threads to reach for both 64 c/t
So I think this limit is here in the same way
Interesting stuff could be to run two VM with 64 cores each with two different GPU passed for each :)
 

writerinserepeat

Donator
Donator
May 15, 2020
2
0
1
Belgium
Hi
if you have done some Hackintosh with "powerfull" system you should have the answer
3990x is a 64+64 cpu..OSX limit is 0x3f 63 in decimal
You can't pass that limit in OSX..I mean in every osx I have tested till 10.15.3
You can check in kernel by yourself, it is pretty simple
So 3990x could work but only limiting its core or not using threads..
In the past I have had a dual xeon 44+44..to use in hackintosh I have to set 16 cores each and 16 threads to reach for both 64 c/t
So I think this limit is here in the same way
Interesting stuff could be to run two VM with 64 cores each with two different GPU passed for each :)


I really hope they raise this limit in 10.16, if not before. A 64 core/thread limit is so....2017. ;)


Edited to remove kp snapshot.
 
Last edited:

Lucius Snow

New member
May 20, 2020
3
0
1
Hi
if you have done some Hackintosh with "powerfull" system you should have the answer
3990x is a 64+64 cpu..OSX limit is 0x3f 63 in decimal
You can't pass that limit in OSX..I mean in every osx I have tested till 10.15.3
You can check in kernel by yourself, it is pretty simple
So 3990x could work but only limiting its core or not using threads..
In the past I have had a dual xeon 44+44..to use in hackintosh I have to set 16 cores each and 16 threads to reach for both 64 c/t
So I think this limit is here in the same way
Interesting stuff could be to run two VM with 64 cores each with two different GPU passed for each :)
We can disable SMT in the BIOS to run 64 cores / 64 threads. It's faster for many applications by the way. In this case OS X would support fully the 3990X?
 

fabiosun

Member
May 5, 2020
36
14
8
We can disable SMT in the BIOS to run 64 cores / 64 threads. It's faster for many applications by the way. In this case OS X would support fully the 3990X?
As I said you have different opportunity to try..but it is not "a full" 3990x..limiting it to 64 cores ore to 32+32
You will have the same benchmark of a 3970x..maybe a little worst..but I think you can also run two VM istance to have all cores used (separately)
Also limitingcores on 3970x you can achieve with many apps better results because single core frequency could push more Trx4 CPU..but the goal as always should be to have the maximum we can have :)
 

russmcb

New member
May 19, 2020
3
0
1
As I said you have different opportunity to try..but it is not "a full" 3990x..limiting it to 64 cores ore to 32+32
You will have the same benchmark of a 3970x..maybe a little worst..

Hmm... well I need to build a powerful PC for some Windows work but was hoping to add an extra SSD to dual-boot the machine into Hakintosh mode as well. I need a dual Epyc 7742 or a Threadripper 3990X for the Windows side of things, but it sounds like, if I have to choose between the 3990X or the 7742 that the 3990X would at least afford more hope of being "hackingtosh-able" in the near future, even if it would only have the speed of the 3970X (or "a little worse"). Except for the thread count issue would getting the 3990X working as a hackintosh be the same process as getting the 3970x working? Fabiosun, did you document the process somewhere? On the 3990x, would I be limited to 64 core AND 64 threads, OR 32 cores and 32 threads? Thanks.
 
Last edited: