Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

130W TDP XEONS in 2009 DP cMP 4.1

Powermange

Powermange

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 1, 2013
30
5
Sweden
Hi!
Like the "Title" says. I know my cMP 4.1 (upgraded to 5.1, thank you for that tool) is spec'd for 95w TDP processors and they peak at the X5675 (a.f.a.i.k.?)
But i've read several posts from people using 130W TDP processor for upgrade?!

Clearly outside spec but it seems to work, right?!

Has anyone been unsuccessful in using 130W processors like X5690? (and dare share :))

Is it more likely the limitations is in heat dissipation or power draw?

Will it depend on overall system configuration? (drives GPU, etc) or processor circuitboard?

I appreciate the fact that noone knows these things for sure but there seems to be plenty people in here giving VERY educated guesses :)

Thankful for all thoughts
 
Powermange said:
Hi!
Like the "Title" says. I know my cMP 4.1 (upgraded to 5.1, thank you for that tool) is spec'd for 95w TDP processors and they peak at the X5675 (a.f.a.i.k.?)
But i've read several posts from people using 130W TDP processor for upgrade?!

Clearly outside spec but it seems to work, right?!

Has anyone been unsuccessful in using 130W processors like X5690? (and dare share :))

Is it more likely the limitations is in heat dissipation or power draw?

Will it depend on overall system configuration? (drives GPU, etc) or processor circuitboard?

I appreciate the fact that noone knows these things for sure but there seems to be plenty people in here giving VERY educated guesses :)

Thankful for all thoughts
Click to expand...

You can use any CPU of the line, 130 watt or less. It is spec'd for up to and including 130 watts.
 
I have updated my CPUs twice in my 5,1 DP Mac Pro. Both times were with 130w TDP Processors. First with W5590 and then with X5677. The X5677 seems to run a bit cooler than the W5590s and I am running my fans slower, but I am running my fans a bit faster than stock, see attachment. I ran the W5590s for well over a year and have about 4 months on the X5677s. No issues at all.

Lou
 

Attachments

  • Fans.jpg
    Fans.jpg
    109.1 KB · Views: 146
Don't underestimate X5675's

I'd say for the dual prozessor machines Apple has choosen the X5675 as top option for a reason. It will turbo up to 3.46GHz and power-/energywise, still keeps a reasonable footprint. The 64-bit GB score of ~29k is also very close to those 130W CPUs.

I'm running the intake & exhaust fans at ~1050 rpm and everything else on auto now. IMO it's actually well balanced, very quiet and currently best bang for the buck.
 
Last edited:
Ok awesome, thank you all for answers. Exactly what i wanted to hear. So is the x5690 the fastest that will fit or is there others? How much does 5690 boost to?

Pimping this wonderful old apple box has become a very interesting pasttime of mine :) on to finding a more modern GPU :)
 
Hm, turbo boost...
Now two of you have referred to this possibility, one with the 5675 the other with 5690s. Can you really do this on OS X? I always thought a BIOS is necessary to do this.

I'm also thinking about the 5690 option. This summer I put two 5660 into my early MP2009 and this was a nice performance boost.
 
Horselover Fat said:
Hm, turbo boost...
Now two of you have referred to this possibility, one with the 5675 the other with 5690s. Can you really do this on OS X? I always thought a BIOS is necessary to do this.

I'm also thinking about the 5690 option. This summer I put two 5660 into my early MP2009 and this was a nice performance boost.
Click to expand...

Two different Xeons would not link correctly to each other with the QPI link.

5690's here in the UK are going for insane prices on ebay, though USA prices are much cheaper the tax is significant but nevertheless still at a premium to the slightly lower clock 5 Series even for buying over there. If you could pick up a pair of 80 or 75 models for a fraction of the price for that tiny fraction less performance I would go for the bargain - unless you simply want it maxed out.
 
Fangio said:
I'd say for the dual prozessor machines Apple has choosen the X5675 as top option for a reason.
Click to expand...

I like to think that Apple chooses all of their components for a reason.

Do you have anything other than conjecture as to why Apple chose the X5675 processors that they did?
 
I would take a wild guess that the VRM isnt rated for dual 130w cpu's. Maybe it runs very hot when using dual 130's? has anybody temp checked it vs the 95 watt chips like the 3.06.
 
brand said:
I like to think that Apple chooses all of their components for a reason.
Click to expand...
Sure. So which part of well balanced you didn't get? :rolleyes:
Do you have anything other than conjecture as to why Apple chose the X5675 processors that they did?
Click to expand...
Apple isn't exactly known for stating reasons for decisions to offer certain options, but they are for leaving also desireable ones out. So everyone is free to speculate. My guess would be power consumption. It's nice to still have the same after the upgrade as this cMP is running 24/7.
---
Powermange said:
Two X5677's successfully installed now, no issues!
Click to expand...
Congrats!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back