Is A Ryzen Hackintosh Worth It?

[TiresomeToe933]

I am currently wanting to do a hackingtosh because of proving myself right, to show that buying a Mac Pro in 2017 is stupid and because I like hacking and all stuff debug and dev. But should I go for Ryzen for its high performance cores in terms of video editing or wait for X299 to be hackintosh compatible. If I decide to go with ryzen why would I put up with the hassle of making it work? Are there any other points to consider?

[DrMacintosh]

A Ryzen Hackintosh is possible but it requires more effort and maintenance than an Intel build. 

[GDRRiley]

you can get mac pro 2010s or 2012s and load them up with dual 6 cores, 64 GB of ram, 4 hdd/ssds, a PCIE SSD and dual gpus if you want a nice mac

[Meowcat285]

(Disclaimer: I am not sure about this because I don't know much about CPU architecture)

 

I would think that it would not work because of the different architecture.

[daniielrp]

I don’t think a hackintosh is worth it in general, throwing Ryzen in there would just make things much more complicated.

[DrMacintosh]

11 minutes ago, Meowcat285 said:

I would think that it would not work because of the different architecture.

x86 is x86. 

10 minutes ago, daniielrp said:

I don’t think a hackintosh is worth it

How? Its just a PC....saying buying a PC and installing the OS you want on it is saying that PCs aren't worth it. 

[TiresomeToe933]

yeah, but I want a more modern system with more modern protocols and i/o

 

11 minutes ago, Meowcat285 said:

(Disclaimer: I am not sure about this because I don't know much about CPU architecture)

 

I would think that it would not work because of the different architecture.

you can use a patch

[daniielrp]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

How? Its just a PC....saying buying a PC and installing the OS you want on it is saying that PCs aren't worth it. 

This makes no sense.

 

Trying to hack macOS onto unsupported hardware, constantly battling driver issues, having to disable parts of the OS security and not having access to the latest OS version is not worth it.

[airdeano]

just a reminder, although a discussion on OS usage is fine, but troubleshooting and configuration of hardware is not allowed on these forums.

[daniielrp]

This is the realism of a hackintosh. I’ve tried, had some working, but couldn’t be bothered with the hassle - which is answering the OP. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by SansVarnic

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, daniielrp said:

This is the realism of a hackintosh.

Building a Hackintosh is pretty easy. If you have compatible hardware from the start you won't have to fight the OS every update and fight the services not working. 

 

Plenty of people do it and have machines that can update update over update. 

[daniielrp]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Building a Hackintosh is pretty easy. If you have compatible hardware from the start you won't have to fight the OS every update and fight the services not working. 

 

Plenty of people do it and have machines that can update update over update. 

Point made.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, daniielrp said:

Point made.

What point? All you did was bold the section of my statement where I said compatible hardware.......RYZEN IS COMPATIBLE 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, daniielrp said:

This makes no sense.

 

Trying to hack macOS onto unsupported hardware, constantly battling driver issues, having to disable parts of the OS security and not having access to the latest OS version is not worth it depending on the user.

Fixed for truth. There are people out there that relish such a challenge, and would have no problems troubleshooting problems on their own should something break.

[SansVarnic]

- Thread Cleaned - 

Guys keep this a civil conversation or the thread will be locked.

[MoFi]

macOS on amd is unstable

[TopHatProductions115]

On 9/17/2017 at 10:32 PM, Meowcat285 said:

(Disclaimer: I am not sure about this because I don't know much about CPU architecture)

 

I would think that it would not work because of the different architecture.

The architectures are the same for most modern Desktop CPUs on the market - x86_64 (AMD64). So, that isn't the issue. Apple's desktop OS just tends to favour Intel CPUs and chipsets more. But, AMD Hacintoshing is possible. You just need to carefully monitor updates - and keep lots of bootable image backups (for easy recovery). Don't just rely off of Time Machine.

EDIT: Darwin/XNU supports ARM hardware out of the box now. Let the ARM Hacintoshing begin...
XD

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by TopHatProductions115

[TopHatProductions115]

On 9/17/2017 at 10:58 PM, daniielrp said:

Point made.

You can also just buy supported hardware from the get-go. Intel Hacintoshing requires the same carefulness. I don't see why you emphasized such...

 

[FoxPro]

On 2017-09-17 at 10:41 PM, daniielrp said:

This makes no sense.

 

Trying to hack macOS onto unsupported hardware, constantly battling driver issues, having to disable parts of the OS security and not having access to the latest OS version is not worth it.

Many times actually, in my case too, if you get hardware that is pretty close to Apple products (but obviously cheaper), like my i5-4690k, and an R9270x (used the kexts for a 7xxx series, since the R9 is a rebadge), run perfectly and I can update like any Mac would. Apple thinks it's a 4K iMac from 2014, and it's smooth sailing for me, even recognised my Intel server ethernet card out of the box. Everything works for me, and like I said, it updates just as if it were a real one, even going from 10.11 to 10.13. I never had to disable ANY of the security, not for a single thing, not to install kexts, not to update, nothing. I even plan to run FileVault on it, just need to get around to doing it.

 

Hell I even got an AMD one to work, an A10-6700 I think it was. Ran 10.9 and the only problem was with the RTC, the system clock would either run too fast or too slow. That killed anything like Logic Pro that uses that clock as a timer, but it still /ran/ well. Updates however were a no-go. Like it was said in the replies, AMD is possible, but much, much harder.