El Capitan OS X 10.11.6 Build 15G7a Seeded

Apple seeded the first beta of El Capitan OS X 10.11.6 (build 15G7a) and, for now, the most obvious change is a couple of modifications in the sandbox (configuration) data:


Presumably to combat security issues (with software update). And you may remember the Geekbench scores (1 and 2) with that strange SKLCRB1,1 model identifier. Well. I now have, after digging through AppleGraphicsPowerManagement_Info.plist, reason to believe that they are real and from Apple and this is why:


It may not use the same processor, but this board-id was/is being used for testing. Why else would Apple add Broadwell (the first three) and Skylake (the next twelve) device-id’s to that board-id. A great trick to hide your trails 😉

Note that the device id’s 0x1906, 0x190B and 0x192B cannot be found in the frame buffer data. Which is still the same as what I found in OS X 10.11.4 Build 15E65.

And some of the frame buffer data sets, for device id’s 0x1902, 0x1912, 0x1917 and 0x1932 will first need an update before they are fully supported.

Anyway. Next time you see a Geekbench score with board-id Mac-50619A408DB004DA and a funny looking model identifier, then you know what to make of it.

Edit: They used Build 15W4314 during the test runs with Geekbench, which may be an indication that we won’t see new hardware before OS X 10.12 is released (10+12=22 and that happens to correlate with the letter W).

6 thoughts on “El Capitan OS X 10.11.6 Build 15G7a Seeded

    • There are a few things to keep in mind:

      1.) Your processor has twice the number of cores and threads.
      2.) Your processor has a (much) higher TDP (45 watt versus 28~23 watt).
      3.) They used DDR3L-1600 memory, not even LPDDR3-1866, instead of supported DDR4-2133 memory.
      4.) The 64-bit Geekbench results are known to be faster than 32-bit results.
      5.) Unreleased models can be slower due to the lack of optimised power management.

  1. SKyLakeCustomerReferenceBoard? Basically, it looks like Apple is testing a generic Intel-provided motherboard. Maybe a shift in the future to some limited “official” “unsupported” macOS for NUC? (Oh, that would be GREAT. Especially for OS X Server. $199, I’m calling it now. 😉
    ((It has been my thought that the iMac and Mac mini could live on into the future with minimal cost to Apple if they just put a NUC board into their chassis. Then focus Apple engineering on Mac Pro and MacBook Pro, and iDevice of course where they’re obviously more focused. Let Intel shoulder the burden of the basic x86 desktop board design, engineering, and QA. Give Intel something to do. Would also mean that Apple might gain a quicker out-the-door for those units, and Intel gains a quicker manufacturing ROI through commoditization.))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s