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

Apple Mac Pro 5.1"Quad Core" 2.8 Server Mid-2010 - A1289 - 2314-2 What the best customisation?

G

gorus grind

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 1, 2016
3
0
I guys,
I just bought an Apple Mac Pro 5.1"Quad Core" 2.8 Server Mid-2010 - MC915LL/A - A1289 - 2314-2 on eBay, and it coming with this specs:

Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz (Quad Core) W3530, 500GB HDD, 8GB DDR3, Registered RAM, ATI HD 2600

I'm looking for the best performance is possible on this machine and I need your help. As we can see here http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...d-core-2.8-mid-2010-nehalem-server-specs.html I can make a CPU upgrade for two 2.93 GHz Six Core "Westmere" Xeon (X5670), I'm not sure if I will gain a good performance with this upgrade?! Also, I'm thinking in install a 256GB M.2 SSD via PCI, is possible?
 
You may want to take a look at the following sticky thread with regards to the processor: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/

About 2 years ago I upgraded my 4.1 to a 5.1, and installed a W3690, and it has worked fine. I am currently waiting on my M.2 SSD to be delivered, and there is quite a lengthy thread on that subject as well: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...the-09-macpro-bootable-ngff-pcie-ssd.1685821/

I believe the consensus is that the best bang for the buck is using a Lycom DT-120 Adapter, with a Samsung ACHI compatible M.2 drive. Supposedly, there is a driver out there for the NVMe drives, but you can't use them as a boot drive from that last information I saw on the subject.
 
gorus grind said:
…I can make a CPU upgrade for two 2.93 GHz Six Core "Westmere" Xeon (X5670)…

…After tryed to understand the CPU compatibly table, I can install an X5690 on my Mac Pro, I'm right?…
Click to expand...

Be aware that you cannot upgrade your Quad to dual Hex. Your CPU tray does not have the 2nd CPU socket. Therefore, a single X5690 still possible in your case.
 
Synchro3 said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can install a X5690 or the higher upgrade is X5670?
[doublepost=1464807139][/doublepost]
h9826790 said:
Be aware that you cannot upgrade your Quad to dual Hex. Your CPU tray does not have the 2nd CPU socket. Therefore, a single X5690 still possible in your case.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks a lot. I can use the same cooler or is recommended another one?
 
gorus grind said:
Yes, I can install a X5690 or the higher upgrade is X5670?
[doublepost=1464807139][/doublepost]
Ok, thanks a lot. I can use the same cooler or is recommended another one?
Click to expand...

Same cooler, all you need is just a X5690 and some thermal paste (some tool to (un)install the heatsink as well).
 
gorus grind said:
I guys,
I just bought an Apple Mac Pro 5.1"Quad Core" 2.8 Server Mid-2010 - MC915LL/A - A1289 - 2314-2 on eBay, and it coming with this specs:

Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz (Quad Core) W3530, 500GB HDD, 8GB DDR3, Registered RAM, ATI HD 2600

I'm looking for the best performance is possible on this machine and I need your help. As we can see here http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...d-core-2.8-mid-2010-nehalem-server-specs.html I can make a CPU upgrade for two 2.93 GHz Six Core "Westmere" Xeon (X5670), I'm not sure if I will gain a good performance with this upgrade?! Also, I'm thinking in install a 256GB M.2 SSD via PCI, is possible?
Click to expand...
You first need to ask yourself, what you want to do with the machine?

An SSD is the most important element to accelerate performance for any application. Go for a larger drive. If you are doing games or graphics work, the second most important upgrade is the graphics card. Then I would add memory to 16GB or more dependent on your type of work.

Unless you are doing video transcoding or working with Xcode on VERY large compiles, adding cores and GHz will not change the performance in a noticeable way. It is not useful for most current games. 4 cores of 2.8Ghz Xeons are plenty. I went from an 8 core 2.8GHz to 12 core 3.06Ghz and the difference is only noticeable with large HD video encoding and running a bunch VMWare guests. I stayed away from 3.4GHz because I want to keep the power low enough for all the extra SSDs and cards in my system.

More high speed cores do give you bragging rights and look nice with hyper threading on the Activity Monitor.
 
haralds said:
You first need to ask yourself, what you want to do with the machine?

An SSD is the most important element to accelerate performance for any application. Go for a larger drive. If you are doing games or graphics work, the second most important upgrade is the graphics card. Then I would add memory to 16GB or more dependent on your type of work.

Unless you are doing video transcoding or working with Xcode on VERY large compiles, adding cores and GHz will not change the performance in a noticeable way. It is not useful for most current games. 4 cores of 2.8Ghz Xeons are plenty. I went from an 8 core 2.8GHz to 12 core 3.06Ghz and the difference is only noticeable with large HD video encoding and running a bunch VMWare guests. I stayed away from 3.4GHz because I want to keep the power low enough for all the extra SSDs and cards in my system.

More high speed cores do give you bragging rights and look nice with hyper threading on the Activity Monitor.
Click to expand...

The SSD usually won't improve the application's performance. It just improve the loading time. Once the loading complete, everything is in the RAM, and SSD no longer do anything in the process.

Unless, the application will access the storage frequently with lots of IO. (e.g. Use the storage as scratch disk) Then SSD won't help.

However, since a normal user will seat in front of the computer when the application is loading. So, 1s loading time vs 8s loading time make the user "feel" that the application is accelerated. In fact, no matter it's HDD or SSD, the application may still need the same time to finish the same job. e.g. An application may require 10s to finish the calculation regardless the storage type, because that's the CPU's limit.

On the other hand, adding cores may not help for most application, but increase the clock speed do affect almost ALL application. Especailly on a cMP, the single core performance is almost the most limiting factor now.

Anyway, the cMP has plenty of power avail (980W), and SSD only consume little bit of power (less then 10W). I really can't see why need to stay at a slower CPU because of saving power for SSD. However, by staying at slower CPU, that may effectively reduce the heat, and then the fan noise.
 
Last edited:
W3690 or W3680 or X5690 or X5680 all work in your single-CPU MP. Last time I looked (over a month ago) the W3690s were a much better deal than the X series. Only negative: max 56g of RAM, compared to max 64g with X series.

Whether you use multi-core or not, the faster clock rate will speed things up. I've built two (from 2009 4,1 starting points), one with 3.33 (W3680) and one with 3.46 (W3690) and they both work really well. No heat issues at all.
 
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