-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Apparently Lexa core RX 550s work now #264
Comments
As discussed in #129, this is interesting... You appear to be performing an override of the device properties using OC to rename the model to 0x67FF which will make the Mac think that it is a baffin core and use the baffin video driver. You can confirm this with the following commands;
What does the underlying hardware identify the card as without the OC override? |
Hello, |
I have a theory that AMD launched Lexa in 2017 but it was quickly replaced by the better Baffin chips in 2018. There may have been a period of time where they were manufacturing/supplying both SKUs to card vendors but after a while they stopped making or ran out of the older Lexa chips. It seems inefficient to maintain two production nodes unnecessarily. Can you let us know the vendor and model number of your graphics card? |
The card is a Yeston rx 550 5G D5. It is mentioned in #129 as beeing baffin (this is why I bought it), but on Windows in CPU-Z it is detected as a Lexa core (with 512sp, 1183MHz ref clock and 1500MHZ memory clock, a sort of mix of baffin and lexa spec for the clock speeds, but lexa sp count...). In Mac os, system information does not detect it explicitly as Lexa, but the device-id is a lexa one. |
Well after digging a bit it seems that in my case at least I have a baffin rx 550 but with a "wrong" device-id. It seems that the Yeston rx 550 4G D5 exist in at least two variants :
|
As far as I know, this is correct. The 512SP variant are identified as Lexa, and the 640SP variants are identified as Baffin. That's why the 640SP variants have always worked, while the 512SP variants only have worked recently. To elaborate more, here is a screenshot dug up comparing the 512SP and 640SP variants: Notice how the 512SP variant is identified as Lexa (Polaris 12), while the 640SP variant is identified as Baffin refresh (Polaris 21). TechPowerUp confirmed this when it was released (although they got the Lexa codename wrong, Polaris 20 is Ellesmere refresh). At the end of the day, my guess is that they added Lexa support sometime. |
Hmmm. Still not convinced but you could be correct. I think it is far more likely that AMD are just selling Polaris 21 chips with only 512 working SPs and giving it the 699F (Lexa) designation (but with a different revision code) to still allow for product/driver differentiation without needing to run two completely different and expensive production nodes. Just my 2c because without a bunch of random RX550 cards to test on, it's just an educated guess. |
Yeah, this is really interesting. I've found some threads from 2021 of people getting "Lexa" RX550s to work by overriding their device-ids in clover or OC. |
Hello everyone! I have an RX 550 LEXA with ID 699F but when I try to spoof it to 67FF like in the OP, only the name changes in MacOS, it still shows 14MB vRAM and, 699F Device ID and no acceleration... EDIT: I got it to work, MacOS recognizes my GPU and monitor, and it feels much smoother in general now. But there's still no METAL HARDWARE ACCELERATION. EDIT2: After a lot of tries, I finally managed to get full METAL HARDWARE ACCELERATION in MacOS Monterey on my LEXA RX 550. According to TechPowerUp, my Graphics Card was released in 2017. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/msi-rx-550-aero-itx-oc.b4473 GPU-Z also says that it's a LEXA card. |
Can you do so please? It would be helpful. |
Its always worked for me using an SSDT |
I managed to get my Lexa RX 550 working using SSDT patching (overwriting the device-id using the OpenCore configuration didn't work). |
Just need And it will be good, i have build many Lexa GPU with id 0x699F and all is working fine |
so, whereis your tutorial? :-) |
Tested this with a user:
Looking for more reports, will add if more confirmed reports. We should also figure out when exactly support was added.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: