3,1 "bang for your buck" upgrades

[Machines]

On the topic of bang for buck processors/RAM;
How does the X5460(3.16Ghz 667Mhz ram $22 on ebay) compare to the E5472(3.0Ghz 800Mhz ram, $22 on ebay)?
Seems like if later on down the line programs start using more cores and my mac pro seems to be starting to lag, I could upgrade to a dual 3.16 X5460 with 16MB 667 RAM at today's prices(I'm sure I can get it cheaper later down the line) for under 96 dollars. That's VS 140 dollars for the 3.0 E542 with 16GB 800Mhz RAM.

I realize they are close in cost, but which combo would perform better? Would there really be anything other than a negligible difference?

Interesting choice of processor , the X5460 .

It is limited to 667 MHz memory (can't do 800 ) .

It is a known good processor for the 3,1 .

I would advise obtaining a C0 stepping / SLANP S-Spec version , if you go this route . It should work, but I can't find anyone to verify that and I have not done it myself .

Any processor you choose for the 3,1 can use 667 MHz memory .

32GB (8 x 4GB) memory kits are dirt cheap . I can snag one for 25 bucks on a good day .

 

[VinnyVincent]

Interesting choice of processor , the X5460 .

It is limited to 667 MHz memory (can't do 800 ) .

It is a known good processor for the 3,1 .

I would advise obtaining a C0 stepping / SLANP S-Spec version , if you go this route . It should work, but I can't find anyone to verify that and I have not done it myself .

Any processor you choose for the 3,1 can use 667 MHz memory .

32GB (8 x 4GB) memory kits are dirt cheap . I can snag one for 25 bucks on a good day .

My thought process behind going with the X5460 is cheap RAM. It seems the 667 RAM is running at about half the cost of 800 RAM for just a 4% decrease in performance in this application.
My thoughts were that if going with a larger amount of memory, like 16/32MB, I would likely be purchasing the 667 ram anyways since it is such a small difference.
With the X5460 you get an extra .16GHZ processor and since they are both hypothetically running on 667 ram, the X5460 would theoretically be a better performing package I'm assuming(albeit negligible)

What's this "C0 stepping / SLANP S-Spec version" you mention? If that is added cost then it would make more sense to use the 3.0ghz instead, even with the 667 RAM.


Either way when you compare my current E5462 with even the 3.2Ghz X5482 on CPUboss.com, the site declares "no clear winner. Too close to call" With only a .2 higher single core score, and a .1 higher score on the X5482 running all cores.

It would seem by far the most cost effective upgrade would be to simply add a second 2.8ghz as some have already pointed out.(although some also pointed out that I probably won't notice a difference even adding a second processor, so I'll probably hold off on that for now)

 

[Machines]

What's this "C0 stepping / SLANP S-Spec version" you mention? If that is added cost then it would make more sense to use the 3.0ghz instead, even with the 667 RAM.

It's called compatibility

Not all stepping versions of chips are compatible with our Mac Pro workstations .

The information is printed on the Xeon chips as a S-Spec .

 

[VinnyVincent]

It's called compatibility

Not all stepping versions of chips are compatible with our Mac Pro workstations .

The information is printed on the Xeon chips as a S-Spec .

View attachment 621416

Ah, okay. Sounds overly complicated/risky considering how close it is in performance to the E5472 3.0Ghz...especially since they are identical in price.


I got the compatability info from here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/
But it could be inaccurate.

What is the difference in application between the E series and X series? I notice they are higher wattage, use 667 ram and seem to perform a little lower per Ghz. Are they older, or made with a specific purpose in mind?
[doublepost=1458147724][/doublepost]It's also interesting that the 3.2ghz X5472 has better performance than the E5472 using all cores, But the 3.0ghz E5472 beats the 3.2ghz X6472 in single core performance. One would assume the opposite would be true.

 

[Machines]

Ah, okay. Sounds overly complicated/risky considering how close it is in performance to the E5472 3.0Ghz...especially since they are identical in price.


I got the compatability info from here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/
But it could be inaccurate.

What is the difference in application between the E series and X series? I notice they are higher wattage, use 667 ram and seem to perform a little lower per Ghz. Are they older, or made with a specific purpose in mind?
[doublepost=1458147724][/doublepost]It's also interesting that the 3.2ghz X5472 has better performance than the E5472 using all cores, But the 3.0ghz E5472 beats the 3.2ghz X6472 in single core performance. One would assume the opposite would be true.

This series of Xeon chips have model designations with a letter preface (e.g. L , E , X) . These are TDP ratings , which is a rating of how much power (and heat) a chip is rated for in terms of Watts .

"L" chips are like those tiny underpowered French cars ; they get the job done but are too slow to escape the riots .

"E" chips are like normal powered cars ; ordinary .

"X" chips are the supercharged 12 cylinder racing trucks with big pick up beds . These I like ...

Now, you will always remember

 

[VinnyVincent]

This series of Xeon chips have model designations with a letter preface (e.g. L , E , X) . These are TDP ratings , which is a rating of how much power (and heat) a chip is rated for in terms of Watts .

"L" chips are like those tiny underpowered French cars ; they get the job done but are too slow to escape the riots .

"E" chips are like normal powered cars ; ordinary .

"X" chips are the supercharged 12 cylinder racing trucks with big pick up beds . These I like ...

Now, you will always remember

Aha, so even though the E5472 is slightly better performing than the X5472 according to this: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5472-vs-Intel-Xeon-E5472

The X is actually "better" because it's rated for heavier use/higher heat?

 

[ActionableMango]

But it could be inaccurate.

I've added a stepping compatibility column for the 3,1. It should be good now.

However, the stepping is identified by the sSpec number on the top of the processor. If the CPU seller just uses a stock photo, or someone else's photo, or the same photo over and over again for different processors, it's possible that the photo he's using is not showing the sSpec number of the actual processor for sale. So it would be good to verify with the seller before you purchase.

 

[Machines]

I've added a stepping compatibility column for the 3,1. It should be good now.

However, the stepping is identified by the sSpec number on the top of the processor. If the CPU seller just uses a stock photo, or someone else's photo, or the same photo over and over again for different processors, it's possible that the photo he's using is not showing the sSpec number of the actual processor for sale. So it would be good to verify with the seller before you purchase.

This is a really good idea . I'm certain more than a few novices got all excited about upgrading their Mac , went through the lengthy process of learning how to do their first install , only to become disappointed because they used the wrong version of an otherwise identical chip . Worse... there's the sinking feeling they may actually have damaged something during the process . I hope all the MP compatible S-Specs get recorded here .

 

[ActionableMango]

I hope all the MP compatible S-Specs get recorded here.

I did a bunch of searches and I cannot find any examples of CPU models that have both compatible and incompatible steppings except for Mac Pro 3,1 with SLBxx. This leads me to believe that all of the other supported CPUs in the table are fine.

Of course my searching may not be the best, so if you are aware of anything else please let me know and I will update the table.

 

[VinnyVincent]

Well I just finished putting in the additional 4GB of RAM. Oddly enough I ran geek bench on it before and after. It got a higher score before. Even the memory performance ranked better. Seems kind of strange, but the "about this mac" window says it has 8 now instead of the 4 it used to have.

 

[CapnDavey]

As for your SSD plans you might consider one of these you will get more speed

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...Sec=1&redirect=true&ref_=s9_simh_gw_g147_i1_r

 

[VinnyVincent]

As for your SSD plans you might consider one of these you will get more speed

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...Sec=1&redirect=true&ref_=s9_simh_gw_g147_i1_r

I've reached a point where i'm satisfied with the current performance. Really just the SSD was enough as I haven't noticed any performance difference with the additional RAM.

At this point, I could spend another 75+ dollars and install a second processor along with a PCIe for my SSD...but would that be cost effective VS just saving my 75+ dollars and putting that toward a newer computer in a few years?
Even though this one is 8 year old it still is faster than I need and should last at least 2 more years for my use in it's current configuration, as long as it holds up.

 

[Machines]

Even though this one is 8 year old it still is faster than I need and should last at least 2 more years for my use in it's current configuration, as long as it holds up.

Maintain your Mac and it will last . Who knows, when OS X gets Siri later on this year, maybe she'll chide you into cleaning her dusty case fans .

 

[VinnyVincent]

Maintain your Mac and it will last . Who knows, when OS X gets Siri later on this year, maybe she'll chide you into cleaning her dusty case fans .

LOL they could have her say something clever about how her undercarriage is dirty and needs attention.

I have an air compressor, I just haven't got around to getting a nozzle to hose out the internals.
I'm also considering doing what you said about putting new thermal paste in where possible.
I'm just a little nervous about doing more harm than good when it comes to things like taking out and reinstalling the processor/graphics card which I have never done.
I'd imagine the quad core 2.8 runs a little cooler anyhow since the same box uses up to a 3.2 dual processor? Or do they run more powerful fans on that setup?

Is there anything else you recommend as far as preventative maintenance for a computer this old?

Part of what draws me to macs is their longevity. My cousin turned me onto them in the mid 90's. He had an old mac from the late 80's that was still going strong, you just couldn't kill it.
I subsequently bought an imac(Dv600...I think) back in 98-99 and while I eventually kicked it to the curb due to it's aging OS, that thing is STILL running. I gave it to my sister and she uses it for multi media storage. the ethernet card went out, but she only uses it offline.

 

[Machines]

I have an air compressor, I just haven't got around to getting a nozzle to hose out the internals.

Remember , real techs use brass fittings . Most of the guys in the industry use those pathetic OSHA rubber safety nozzles . They're the tech equivalent of training wheels . But if you use brass , be careful you don't smack anything . It's unforgiving .

I'm also considering doing what you said about putting new thermal paste in where possible.

Hurrah ! and thumbs up .

I'd imagine the quad core 2.8 runs a little cooler anyhow since the same box uses up to a 3.2 dual processor? Or do they run more powerful fans on that setup?

You should learn how to manually set the case fan rotationals for this model anyways (Mac Pro 3,1) . It can run hotter than later models , doing similar operations . So, say hello to Macs Fan Control .

Is there anything else you recommend as far as preventative maintenance for a computer this old?

Just three basic things : moist thermal paste on all the chips . Clean out the dust . Power protection with a surge protector and a line conditioner . How can it be any simpler ?

Part of what draws me to macs is their longevity. My cousin turned me onto them in the mid 90's. He had an old mac from the late 80's that was still going strong, you just couldn't kill it.

When I have some spare time , on the legacy Macs forum here at M.R., I'll show the community my operational Macintosh IIX , Quadra 700 and a PowerMac G4 or two . They're still in great shape and I just love the Start Up chime of the 700 .

 

[VinnyVincent]

Remember , real techs use brass fittings . Most of the guys in the industry use those pathetic OSHA rubber safety nozzles . They're the tech equivalent of training wheels . But if you use brass , be careful you don't smack anything . It's unforgiving .

So wait hold it 6" away but be careful not to smack anything. Don't use a rubber unless it's your first time...but if you do go in bare it can be unforgiving so don't smack anything...all in the context of servicing what siri has under the hood? hmmm...are we still talking about computers? lol...anyways We have both OSHA rubber style and bare bones here at work. I just need to remember to grab one out of the shop on the way home today.

 

[VinnyVincent]

So, say hello to Macs Fan Control .

Wow interesting program. I had no idea there were four fans on this thing?

Anyways I just got done with the air hose at 60 PSI. I got all the dust out of all the nooks and crannies. It actually wasn't too bad, someone must have cleaned it before at some point.

Whats a good way to make the computer heat up so I can test how high the temps are getting when it's working?
Right now I have it playing chess against itself on the strongest setting and it is making noise, but so far the temps and fan speed haven't changed much. The only thing that went up so far is the CPU temp and only by a few degrees F. The fans are all still on their lowest speed.

Also two of the ram slots are running at 130F while the rest are 99. Is that normal?

 

[Machines]

Wow interesting program. I had no idea there were four fans on this thing?

They're not that small lol . Just cleverly positioned

Anyways I just got done with the air hose at 60 PSI. I got all the dust out of all the nooks and crannies. It actually wasn't too bad, someone must have cleaned it before at some point.

You missed some , I was watching . You have to do a tear down to get all those dust bunnies out on an 8 year old cMP .

Whats a good way to make the computer heat up so I can test how high the temps are getting when it's working?
Right now I have it playing chess against itself on the strongest setting and it is making noise, but so far the temps and fan speed haven't changed much. The only thing that went up so far is the CPU temp and only by a few degrees F. The fans are all still on their lowest speed.

You're not stressing your Mac very much . There are just two ways to do this in a controlled setting :

1) Ask it if it wants to play a game of Thermo-Nuclear Warfare or

2) Buy the paid version of Geekbench 3 and run the stress test for a few hours and watch the thermals . Although, it may die from the stress if you haven't rebuilt it properly . I never place an older System under load before rebuilding it . It's just too cruel .

Also two of the ram slots are running at 130F while the rest are 99. Is that normal?

It's normal that technicians are fond of using Celsius for these sorts of things . Fahrenheit is what I use for a weather report .