2010 Mac Pro 5.1, is it still worth buying?

[lowendlinux]

Pastrychef- just curious how accurate are those number? I am guessing you used one of those P3 meters you find on Amazon? I know the cMP consumes a lot of power, but more than half of a hackintosh is ridiculous. I know the CPUs are 6-7 years old, but still WOW

I have to say you have got me more interested in Hackintosh today. Are there any tips or "Golden builds" you would recommend to someone who uses OSX exclusively for Adobe Premiere and FCPX to edit HD/4k footage? Are you on the most current El Capitan with your Maximus build? Do you know how these hackintosh builds handle future OS upgrades like for the upcoming Sierra? I am guessing it is usually a hit or miss with hackintosh compatibility.

Sorry for the wall of questions.

Unless you follow tech as a whole you don't realize how fast and efficient things have gotten in the last few years. Heck a modern i3 will give an 8 core 3,1 a run for it's money

Look through this thread https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-hackintosh-thread.1900326/

then do a lot of hackintosh reading before you decide anything

 

[flowrider]

For some reason TWO different machines are called mac pro 5,1. The mid 2010 machines have model numbers MCXXXLL/A. The mid 2012 machines have model numbers MDXXXLL/A.

You are much better off buying the 2012 machines. Apple has a policy of keeping a model running for 7 years after introduction, so the 2012 MDXXXLL/A will last until 2019. That means the software will work, and you can bring it in to an Apple store for repairs if all else fails.

A 5,1 is a 5,1 is a 5,1 cMP no matter if it's a 2010 or a 2012 model. Both can be modified in exactly the same way and both will run the same OS's and software in exactly the same way. Apple will cease support for them at the same time. A 2010 5,1 that has seen light use, is in good cosmetic shape and is clean inside and out is a far better machine to acquire than a 2012 5,1 that isn't.

The reason Apple identified them with the same machine identifier is that they are the same machine.

Lou

 

[kensic]

There is a slight difference between the two. When you look in "About This Mac", they report whether it is a 2010 or a 2012. CPU changes will not change this.

View attachment 645124

View attachment 645126​

I was wondering about that. If ppl turn a 4.1 to 5.1 machine, that wouldn't change the "about this Mac" year correct? I would still see a 2009 even if they modified it.

The 5.1 on craiglist shows mid 2010, and also checking the serial number online and it shows mid 2010
[doublepost=1471366558][/doublepost]Thank you everyone for all the feedbacks, from different point of views.

If the machine checks out, imma purchase it.

It's going to be mostly for Lightroom Room usage, so it won't be on a lot. And 600$ is a steal consider how much others ask for (eBay/craiglist's).

With this purchase I can share all my software with my laptop so that's a plus.

 

[ITguy2016]

I was wondering about that. If ppl turn a 4.1 to 5.1 machine, that wouldn't change the "about this Mac" year correct? I would still see a 2009 even if they modified it.

The 5.1 on craiglist shows mid 2010, and also checking the serial number online and it shows mid 2010
[doublepost=1471366558][/doublepost]Thank you everyone for all the feedbacks, from different point of views.

If the machine checks out, imma purchase it.

It's going to be mostly for Lightroom Room usage, so it won't be on a lot. And 600$ is a steal consider how much others ask for (eBay/craiglist's).

With this purchase I can share all my software with my laptop so that's a plus.

Congratulations. 5.1 is a great system...I'm happy with mine (though it primarily servers as a VM host, I rarely do any console work on it).

 

[ActionableMango]

It sounds like your hackintosh experience was with older methods. As I said earlier, the tools have matured a lot and it's really not that hard anymore.

Have they got everything working yet? Last I checked there were still problems with Continuity, Handoff, Sleep, Messages, etc.

I don't care so much about the first two, but the latter two are important to me because I use them all the time.

 

[grcar]

I was unaware of a way to change a 2010 Mac Pro 5,1 to a 2012 Mac Pro 5,1. Please provide a link to the procedure.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...nsform-a-2009-mac-pro-into-a-12-core-monster/

 

[ITguy2016]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...nsform-a-2009-mac-pro-into-a-12-core-monster/

That article discussing using a firmware update to enable a 2009 Mac Pro to use the same processors as a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro. It is not an article on how to turn a 2010 Mac Pro into a 2012 Mac Pro (which was the request you responded to).

The request is pedantic in that there is no (known) way to turn a 2010 Mac Pro into a 2012 Mac Pro. They are, for all intents and purposes, identical systems save for minor differences (such as model number and year reported in the About Mac dialog). Likewise there is no way to turn a 2009 Mac Pro into a 2010 / 2012 Mac Pro. You can update the firmware to provide equivalent functionality to the 2010 / 2012 versions but it's still a 2009 Mac Pro.

 

[pastrychef]

Have they got everything working yet? Last I checked there were still problems with Continuity, Handoff, Sleep, Messages, etc.

I don't care so much about the first two, but the latter two are important to me because I use them all the time.

Yes, everything is working. I had Messages, Handoff, and Continuity working perfectly using the iMac14,2 system definition. Sleep is working perfectly and is also very important for me since I leave my system on 24/7, I rely on sleep a lot.
[doublepost=1471370971][/doublepost]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...nsform-a-2009-mac-pro-into-a-12-core-monster/

That's how to flash the firmware on a 4,1 to make it appear as a 5,1. I'm well aware of that.

I'm looking for how to change a 2010 5,1 to appear as a 2012 5,1.
[doublepost=1471371055][/doublepost]

The 5.1 on craiglist shows mid 2010, and also checking the serial number online and it shows mid 2010

If the serial number checks out, you should be fine.

 

[ActionableMango]

Yes, everything is working. I had Messages, Handoff, and Continuity working perfectly using the iMac14,2 system definition. Sleep is working perfectly and is also very important for me since I leave my system on 24/7, I rely on sleep a lot.

Wow, that's great news. Thank you.

With slots and bays gone from the Mac lineup, my next computer won't be a Mac. I've been switching from 90% MacOS, 10% Windows to -> 10% MacOS, 90% Windows. But that last 10% MacOS use is still important to me.

I'm curious, why the iMac definition instead of Mac Pro? I know literally nothing about hackintosh definitions, but I would think a Mac Pro would be the best matching for a PC.

 

[pastrychef]

Wow, that's great news. Thank you.

With slots and bays gone from the Mac lineup, my next computer won't be a Mac. I've been switching from 90% MacOS, 10% Windows to -> 10% MacOS, 90% Windows. But that last 10% MacOS use is still important to me.

My pleasure.

I only use Windows or Linux when I must. Given a choice, I would choose to use OS X every time. It's a comfort level and familiarity thing. Everything just makes more sense to me. Now, that I've discovered the possibilities with hackintoshes, I have a wide array of choices.

 

[Synchro3]

I'm curious, why the iMac definition instead of Mac Pro? I know literally nothing about hackintosh definitions, but I would think a Mac Pro would be the best matching for a PC.

I think because the iMac profile suits his i7 6700K machine. Only iMac has this CPU.

 

[pastrychef]

I'm curious, why the iMac definition instead of Mac Pro? I know literally nothing about hackintosh definitions, but I would think a Mac Pro would be the best matching for a PC.

I suspect that I can get it to work on the MacPro3,1 system definition but I didn't want to bother trying. I switched to the iMac14,2 and iMac17,1 definitions so that I would be ready for when Sierra is released. As I understand it, using the MacPro3,1 will prevent upgrading to Sierra since Apple dropped support for that model.

The reason I limited my experimenting to these three system definitions is because I was told that the MacPro3,1 and iMac14,2 definitions would present the least amount of problems. I later decided to mess around with iMac17,1 definition because of how closely my systems' hardware resembled a real iMac 17,1.

 

[knowhate]

.

 

[ITguy2016]

Thank you for the detailed response. Yes, I am also starting to become more aware of power consumption and what an underrated issue it is. I have to get one of those meters.

I leave my 2010 Mac Pro on 24/7 and didn't notice any appreciable difference in my utility bill. Compared to my furnace / air conditioning the Mac Pro isn't even a rounding error. The power consumption of a Mac Pro should largely be irrelevant unless power is very expensive where you live or you intend to create a large cluster of them.

 

[pastrychef]

Thank you for the detailed response. Yes, I am also starting to become more aware of power consumption and what an underrated issue it is. I have to get one of those meters.

My pleasure. Yes, it's a cool little device. I've also replaced my nettop HTPC to a Raspberry Pi and, later, to an Apple TV.

My mind is blown that you updated El Capitan through the App Store. Hackintosh has come a long way. I remember when Apple first switched from PPC to Intel- those early OSX86 days were a PAIN to setup. I just bookmarked www.tonymacx86.com what a great site. Their buyers guide is very helpful and well made.

Yes, it has come a long way. As a matter of fact, once I knew that my system was running properly, I did the following:

1. Pulled the boot drive from my Mac Pro and plugged it in to my hackintosh.
2. Booted from the USB El Capitan installer.
3. Installed El Capitan on top of my existing El Capitan on the boot drive.
4. After installation finished, rebooted from my boot drive.
5. Ran MultiBeast to install Clover and drivers for the sound, ethernet, and USB.
6. Removed USB El Capitan installer and rebooted.

All my apps and settings from my Mac Pro was now on my hackintosh. It was so simple.

I think the i7-6700K is looking like the best bet and I would like to have the best odds of upgrading to Sierra. Although the GPU story is a bit unclear since we are in a refresh period with AMD and Nvidia. Although it seems Nvidias CUDA is used in Adobe and Avid Media Composer in the professional world. I have an AMD card in my Mac Pro.

So you would recommend the Z170 motherboard? I'm looking for something with multiple I/O slots (Many PCIe, USB 3, Dual maybe Triple Display support etc). Again geared to edit video. I am guessing Thunderbolt is still iffy on Hackintosh.

The Z170 is one of the Skylake chipsets that will work with the i7-6700K Skylake CPU. If you need lots of PCI-e slots, just choose an ATX motherboard. Those give plenty of slots. Some people have gotten Thunderbolt working but it's a bit convoluted and still a bit hit and miss at this point.

I think the state of GPUs will be much clearer after the official release of Sierra.

By the way you Maximus build on that site is really nice. How long did that take to build and put MacOS on?

Thank you. Choosing all the components took the longest. Physically putting everything together only took 2-3 hours and that's only because I went very slowly and assured that everything was nice and neat.

Installation of El Capitan took about an hour. I followed directions provided by Stork on his build which is found here. After this, I ran the system for a few days to make sure all was good and then I transplanted the boot drive from my Mac Pro in to the hackintosh and retired my Mac Pro.

Since Stork used the MacPro3,1 system definition and Apple announced that Sierra will drop support for Mac Pro 3,1s, I have experimented with iMac14,2 and iMac17,1 definitions in preparation for Sierra and I'm confident I'm ready for the upgrade.
[doublepost=1471397069][/doublepost]

I leave my 2010 Mac Pro on 24/7 and didn't notice any appreciable difference in my utility bill. Compared to my furnace / air conditioning the Mac Pro isn't even a rounding error. The power consumption of a Mac Pro should largely be irrelevant unless power is very expensive where you live or you intend to create a large cluster of them.

Unfortunately, here in NYC, electricity is quite expensive. Additionally, we have very underrated amounts of heat and humidity in the summers. Being that I despise heat and humidity, I had to work my air conditioner harder during the summers due to the amount of heat put out by my Mac Pro. It all adds up...

You may say, well it should balance itself out in the winter where I wouldn't have to turn the heat up as high. However, I haven't turned on the heat in my apt in close to 20 years.

 

[ITguy2016]

Unfortunately, here in NYC, electricity is quite expensive. Additionally, we have very underrated amounts of heat and humidity in the summers. Being that I despise heat and humidity, I had to work my air conditioner harder during the summers due to the amount of heat put out by my Mac Pro. It all adds up...

You may say, well it should balance itself out in the winter where I wouldn't have to turn the heat up as high. However, I haven't turned on the heat in my apt in close to 20 years.

Perhaps you were driving yours harder than I do mine as well as having a higher spec'd configuration (mine is a stock quad core 2.8GHz 2010 model as sold from Apple except for a memory upgrade to 32GB) which pushed out more heat. I just placed my hand behind mine and I could feel a slight amount of heat being pushed out from the power supply fan. Certainly nothing that would influence the temperature in the room.

This system runs 24 / 7 as a virtualization server. I don't push the graphics hard. Sometimes CPU use is elevated as I perform various tasks with it (via a VM). I guess my point is that unless you're pushing one of these hard 24 / 7 I don't see the power consumption or heat output being a concern. Perhaps the impact is masked in the fact I own a home and you're in an apartment? The heating / cooling costs of a home are likely to be significantly more than an apartment and thus mask the increased power consumption of a Mac Pro.

 

[flowrider]

You may say, well it should balance itself out in the winter where I wouldn't have to turn the heat up as high. However, I haven't turned on the heat in my apt in close to 20 years.

The weather outside is frightful but I've got my Mac to keep me warm

Lou

 

[h9826790]

I was wondering about that. If ppl turn a 4.1 to 5.1 machine, that wouldn't change the "about this Mac" year correct? I would still see a 2009 even if they modified it.

The 5.1 on craiglist shows mid 2010, and also checking the serial number online and it shows mid 2010
[doublepost=1471366558][/doublepost]Thank you everyone for all the feedbacks, from different point of views.

If the machine checks out, imma purchase it.

It's going to be mostly for Lightroom Room usage, so it won't be on a lot. And 600$ is a steal consider how much others ask for (eBay/craiglist's).

With this purchase I can share all my software with my laptop so that's a plus.

That page is totally cosmetic, you can do whatever you like. The "year" info at there is not reliable, but the serial number check should be good.

 

[Sharky II]

I dunno about you guys, but I think the 5,1 (i have a 4,1 flashed to 5,1) is still a fantastic machine.

I love my 3.46GHz 6-core, although sometimes I do covet my neighbour's 12-core beasts! I couldn't afford one at the time, though.

I think that with a PCIe SSD boot drive, you're really rocking in 2016. The reality is that the Xeon technology hasn't moved on much.

I'm using mine with a 30" ACD and a 24" Dell. Some might think that's a bit '2009', but come on! It's a beautiful set up.

I imagine those 8-core i7s are amazing, though!

I'm a little worried what to upgrade to, when the time comes, I'm a Logic X user and have an SSL PCIe audio card, but for the time being, I'm running 96KHz projects and getting by great!

Cheers,

Ed

 

[CapnDavey]

not a bad price a friend of mine just got a 12 core 2.93 for 1300 with a 7970 ATI card

 

[kensic]

Update.

Purchased the computer, case is in great condition, graphic card is HD5870, classic plastic wireless keyboard, & 24" asus 1920x1200 monitor. = $600

Pretty happy with the purchase. This will serve me well with my light casual / learning photo editing.

Thanks all for all the opinions.

 

[jameslmoser]

In my opinion, no. The 5,1 is using technology that's approx 7-8 years old. While it's still capable of doing that many people need it to do, it does so in a pretty inefficient manner. By that, I mean these systems suck down lots of power and spit out lots of heat.

With a 5,1, you will be getting:

PCI-e 2.0 when 3.0 is the norm now
SATA 2 when 3 is the norm now
USB 2 when 3 is the norm now and 3.1 is appearing in more and more computers​

Future proof? Sierra will drop support for the 4,1 and next up will be the 5,1s. Will that happen with macOS 10.13.x? I don't know, but it CAN happen.

In general, I feel this is probably the worst time to buy any new system from Apple because so many models are long overdue for updates. If I were in your shoes, I would continue to work the MacBook Pro for now and wait to see what new computers Apple releases.

SATA 3 and USB 3 can easily be added through PCI cards. I am replying on my 2009 Mac Pro which has both.
[doublepost=1471678395][/doublepost]

Wow Chef.. First I am hearing about these Mac Pros having SATA II. I for some reason always thought they were SATA3 compliant. I have known about the PCI 2.0 for some time, and I've read modern GPUs still haven't hit the limit of PCI 2.0. But this is too much. The SATA II realization is making seriously wonder if I should keep upgrading my machine. Welp looks like Hackintosh it is. Damn you 

If your using spinning hard drives, do you really need SATA 3? I have two SATA 3 SSD's connected to a PCI Card, and 4 Larger spinning hard drives hooked up to the on board SATA 2 ports. There are also PCI SSD's that work in it, and I have one (Samsung XP941), but I can't use it and boot windows so...

 

[Mactrunk]

5,1 is fine here. 12 cores at 3.46.
Not sure how often the multiple cores get used, but I'm very happy with the machine.
SATA3 for the SSD boot drive and it sure is peppy.

 

[kensic]

5,1 is fine here. 12 cores at 3.46.
Not sure how often the multiple cores get used, but I'm very happy with the machine.
SATA3 for the SSD boot drive and it sure is peppy.

https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL6G.S/#owctabs

did you use that for ur ssd?....it seems like thats the only way.

my Mac Pro came with a pci 6gb/s to esata card ( http://www.newertech.com/products/pcieesata.php ). and I'm trying to think how i can use that with my 6gb/s ssd.

 

[h9826790]

https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL6G.S/#owctabs

did you use that for ur ssd?....it seems like thats the only way.

Any SATA SSD can be used in cMP without any adaptor. Just plug that into one of the SATA port and then you are good to go.

The easiest way is actually just plug that in the lower optical bay.

And yes, the Max sequtntial speed will be limited to around 250MB/s. However, for most real world ops. We need a SSD because it's low latnecy, which will not be affected by SATA 2 connection. High sequential is just a number. It won't make your Mac boot faster, won't make your Mac significantly most responsive, and usually only make the apps loading tiny bit faster.

I have a Tempo SSD card, which is effectively a PCIe SATA 3 adaptor. I used that for a period, and can't feel any difference in real world.

Of course, SATA 3 sure is better than SATA 2, but that's only if you really can benefit from it (e.g. You often copy large files). If you want to pay for it, do it! It's nothin wrong to do that.

However, that's not the only way to connect a SSD in cMP.

IMO, if you focus on high sequential speed, you should buy a PCIe SSD, so that you pay for the SSD, but but not the adaptor. For SATA 3 connection, you pay a lot on the adaptor, but can't even reach 50% of a PCIe SSD's Max sequtntial speed.

Just a friendly reminder, you should go for the SM951 if you want a fast SSD, but not the OWC SSD.