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

Best CPU for Mac Pro 6.1

"Audio processing, especially in realtime, is very CPU intensive. Bearing in mind a single small processing plugin might take up a whole 1% of your CPU power. Except you want to use it on 120 tracks... Or others which use more, or lots of others that use less. ... so the alternative is to render the audio offline, which takes valuable time and will only happen quicker with faster CPUs. The more cores the better as decent audio software is written to take advantage of every core it can get its hands on and will spread the load as far and wide as it can (so turbo cycles aren't a great deal of use, one of the reason dual-Xeon systems still compare well to the newer and supposedly faster i7 rigs for this sort of thing)."

Taken from this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2013-mac-pro-for-music.1593780/

Given the fact that Pro Tools is a multicore application that will use all the cores you throw at it I would upgrade.

Considering that CPUs for Mac Pro 2013 are pretty cheap nowadays I would say go ahead and order the E5-2697 v2.

I think the double amount of cores and the substantiality more lv2/lv3 cache will make up for the lower clock speed.

I'm by no means a pro but just my thoughts...
 
MikkelAD said:
"Audio processing, especially in realtime, is very CPU intensive. Bearing in mind a single small processing plugin might take up a whole 1% of your CPU power. Except you want to use it on 120 tracks... Or others which use more, or lots of others that use less. ... so the alternative is to render the audio offline, which takes valuable time and will only happen quicker with faster CPUs. The more cores the better as decent audio software is written to take advantage of every core it can get its hands on and will spread the load as far and wide as it can (so turbo cycles aren't a great deal of use, one of the reason dual-Xeon systems still compare well to the newer and supposedly faster i7 rigs for this sort of thing)."

Taken from this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2013-mac-pro-for-music.1593780/

Given the fact that Pro Tools is a multicore application that will use all the cores you throw at it I would upgrade.

Considering that CPUs for Mac Pro 2013 are pretty cheap nowadays I would say go ahead and order the E5-2697 v2.

I think the double amount of cores and the substantiality more lv2/lv3 cache will make up for the lower clock speed.

I'm by no means a pro but just my thoughts...
Click to expand...

Thanks MikkeIAD ! I'm definitely going to have a look at that thread.
I don't do that much real-time processing as I do rendering.What I get is that CPU is lacking to handle Pro Tools' video engine more than anything else. I wish I could compare both CPU on a real-life situation as opposed to benchmarks. My other concern is the fans turning on quicker with the E5-2697v2 than the E5-1650v2. Also, perhaps the RAM upgrade is enough of an upgrade - I'm still waiting for them to be delivered.
 
Vitamine said:
Thanks MikkeIAD ! I'm definitely going to have a look at that thread.
I don't do that much real-time processing as I do rendering.What I get is that CPU is lacking to handle Pro Tools' video engine more than anything else. I wish I could compare both CPU on a real-life situation as opposed to benchmarks. My other concern is the fans turning on quicker with the E5-2697v2 than the E5-1650v2. Also, perhaps the RAM upgrade is enough of an upgrade - I'm still waiting for them to be delivered.
Click to expand...

I'm just shooting in the dark now but hopefully it will help you. I know close to nothing about audio processing.

Look at this: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/pr...-next-computer-you-should-buy-for-your-studio

A Mac Pro 6,1 with a E5-2697v2 will outperform a Mac Pro 5,1 with two X5690s

My conclusion: You WILL see a performance boost!

In terms of heat if anything I think you could have better temperatures switching:

ark.intel.com

Compare Products

Compare Products
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com

www.intel.com

What is TCase?

Informational content around TCase Proce
www.intel.com www.intel.com

In short = The E5-2697v2 is allowed to get hotter before shutdown...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vitamine
Well if the CPU gets hotter - doesn't that sound like it might spell trouble long term for the GPUs? Those seem sensitive enough already. Especially when the intent is to keep the fans from going loud.
 
th0masp said:
Well if the CPU gets hotter - doesn't that sound like it might spell trouble long term for the GPUs? Those seem sensitive enough already. Especially when the intent is to keep the fans from going loud.
Click to expand...

As far as I know audio processing doesn't tax the GPU's like video editing does. It's not like CPU and GPUs will be taxed 100% and the machine will get too hot. It's a longer talk but I don't think generalising by saying: "ALL GPUs in the Mac Pro 6,1 are overheating in no time and ruin the system" is fair.

On paper topic starter won't get any problems with heat and even if he should decide to bump up the fan speed a little manually just be sure, I doubt that lilttle extra noise will be a problem...
 
You might well be right.

All I know is that if my CPU is busy then the whole can heats up quite a bit and my pretty aggressive fan profile that monitors the PCIe switch kicks in almost instantly. I set it up to keep my GPUs from cooking. The default profile and temperature readings in this machine were quite worrying IMO, having some parts run at over 70 and sometimes into the 80's degrees (C) on the six-core.
My fans run around 1000 default speeds, in summer right now they are at around 1300's to keep everything nice and cool (under 45 degrees on CPU/GPUs without load).
 
th0masp said:
All I know is that if my CPU is busy then the whole can heats up quite a bit and my pretty aggressive fan profile that monitors the PCIe switch kicks in almost instantly. I set it up to keep my GPUs from cooking. The default profile and temperature readings in this machine were quite worrying IMO, having some parts run at over 70 and sometimes into the 80's degrees (C) on the six-core.
Click to expand...

... and I might be wrong.

th0masp said:
My fans run around 1000 default speeds, in summer right now they are at around 1300's to keep everything nice and cool (under 45 degrees on CPU/GPUs without load)
Click to expand...

This is a choice and maybe not a necessary one. Does it hurt and do something bad? Most likely not, but considering this:

"Graphics card temperatures typically range from 30°C to 40°C at idle and from 60°C to 85°C under load. Most high end video cards typically have a maximum temperature between 95°C-105°C, at which point the system will shut off to prevent damage. A video card is not considered to be overheating until it exceeds 90°c under load."

and likewise for my E5-2697v2 with a Tcase of 86C I have no problem with seeing temps of 70-75C on either the CPU or GPU...

In mine experience keeping the Mac Pro 6,1 at a good spot with adequate airflow and minimal dust goes a long way.
 
Last edited:
MikkelAD said:
This is a choice and maybe not a necessary one.
Click to expand...

Definitely a choice. However, I normally don't fumble with fan profiles at all but on this machine I made sure right from the start to do so. After all it has quite a reputation for heat related issues, in particular GPU failure.
 
Vitamine said:
Thanks MikkeIAD ! I'm definitely going to have a look at that thread.
I don't do that much real-time processing as I do rendering.What I get is that CPU is lacking to handle Pro Tools' video engine more than anything else. I wish I could compare both CPU on a real-life situation as opposed to benchmarks. My other concern is the fans turning on quicker with the E5-2697v2 than the E5-1650v2. Also, perhaps the RAM upgrade is enough of an upgrade - I'm still waiting for them to be delivered.
Click to expand...
The 6,1 with 10 core or 12 core definitely outperforms the 5,1 with 12 core in offline bouncing with Pro Tools. I have both types Of macs in the studio.
No problems with the video engine on both machines tho.
Im using Ultimate 2019.10 at the moment.
 
flygbuss said:
The 6,1 with 10 core or 12 core definitely outperforms the 5,1 with 12 core in offline bouncing with Pro Tools. I have both types Of macs in the studio.
No problems with the video engine on both machines tho.
Im using Ultimate 2019.10 at the moment.
Click to expand...

I'm using the same version of PT at the moment and I do get CPU overload errors every now and then with my E5-1650V2. I feel that it's always due to the video engine though - and I'm always careful not to have other software running in the background.
 
I bought a Mac Pro 2013 6-core D300 last friday. I've been trying to study stuff patiently for two days now regarding the updating possibilities.

Processor options are overwhelming. Ram options are not. SSD is easy with adapter. eGPU is an option too, maybe Razer X and some Vega in to it.

Besides the processor choosing one thing remains unclear for me; The RAM speed with 128 GB. It will be slower, it will run at 1066 MHz, and even slower with 12 core, at 800MHz. That's what I have gathered for now, I hope I have understood that one correctly.

What about a 10 core (E5-2690 v2) with 128 GB? Will it run at 1066 or 800 MHz ?

My list of considerations for a CPU. I dropped the E5-2687w for now, because it's an 150W TDP processor, versus 130W for the others. But I am not sure yet. List is gathered from cpubenchmark.net comparison table. It's pretty useful, though I don't think the results are always quite exact. But they are exact enough. The same goes for every other synthetic benchmark though.

I might take 12 core out of the table too. I don't like to sacrifice single core performance too much.
1601212254569.png

Btw. my 6 core E5-1650 v2 is at 8974 in these cpubenchmarks. So I am looking at 33-50% increase in multicore speed.
 
mikas said:
What about a 10 core (E5-2690 v2) with 128 GB? Will it run at 1066 or 800 MHz ?
Click to expand...

I think the 10-core will drop RAM speed down to 800MHz aswell, but I'm not 100% sure.

mikas said:
My list of considerations for a CPU. I dropped the E5-2687w for now, because it's an 150W TDP processor, versus 130W for the others. But I am not sure yet. List is gathered from cpubenchmark.net comparison table. It's pretty useful, though I don't think the results are always quite exact. But they are exact enough. The same goes for every other synthetic benchmark though.

I might take 12 core out of the table too. I don't like to sacrifice single core performance too much.
Click to expand...

No matter what you pick the single core performance will never be great when using the Mac Pro 2013. I think the choice is pretty simple. If you want the best all-around CPU get the E5-2667 v2. If multi-core performance is the most important get the best offer you can find on either the E5-2690 v2 or E5-2697 v2 👍
 
Thanks for your input. I Appreciate it.

I reckon I have to sacrifice either one a little bit while upping the other one - single core versus multicore performance. You can't have both maximized. And I would have use to both of those in a machine.

This thing was to be a HTPC and/or a collectable item for me. I do have a lot of Macs in my museum allready. But I got a little bit enthusiastic about it, and maybe will throw some more money in to the well to find out what can be done with this.

By far this is the most beautifull computer ever designed. By beautifull I mean esthetically.

About memory speed; would it be that all 26xx chips would lower it to 800 MHz, and 16xx chips would be able to keep up with 1066 MHz - if so, 1680 v2 would up itself a little bit in the list. Just a thought or quick guess, maybe someone can confirm or shoot down my assumption about RAM speed.
 
mikas said:
About memory speed; would it be that all 26xx chips would lower it to 800 MHz, and 16xx chips would be able to keep up with 1066 MHz - if so, 1680 v2 would up itself a little bit in the list. Just a thought or quick guess, maybe someone can confirm or shoot down my assumption about RAM speed.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that is how it works.

"On the server-class CPUs (12-core sold by Apple, 8-core 3.3 GHz, 10-core 3.0 GHz), the modules unfortunately run at 800 MHz. But on the stock 4-core, 6-core, 8-core models as shipped by Apple, they run at 1066 MHz."

From: https://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-OWC_128GB-bandwidth.html

It sounds like you are really determined to use 128GB of RAM and if you don't want the single core performance to take a little hit maybe the standard 8-core(1680 v2) is the best for you...
 
That's what I'm thinking about too right now.

If I want to make this my corona-isolation-homestudio-machine, I'd like to have 128GB of memory. I am a CAD user; ArchiCAD (multiple instances at once, memory eating app), Rhinoceros (one instance+grasshopper within it), Solibri model checker (one instance), Cinema 4D, Affinity suite; Photo and Designer. TwinMotion 2020, MS Teams etc. Lots of Safari windows, like tens of them all the time, or over a hundred some times. And Apple Photos app, Messages app, LibreOffice, Text Edit, Preview, all of the little things I don't remember now. And I do not shut down my machines very often. They sleep. Uptimes are at least measured in weeks, maybe months or so. The amount 128 GB is very well used all the time.
 
Last edited:
Made my decision at night while sleeping, and it seems I changed my mind when dreaming.
;)
I am getting an E5-2690V2 10-core, and 64GB of 1866 MHz RAM. I am keeping the 5,1 as my main machine at home. nMP 6,1 is going to be a slave to it, like with CPU rendering. It servers as my HTPC aka tv-Mac meanwhile. SSD is going to be replaced with Kingston A2000 1TB + sintech adapter.
 
mikas said:
I am getting an E5-2690V2 10-core, and 64GB of 1866 MHz RAM.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that configuration will perform as you would like it to. It's more or less the top configuration of the Mac Pro 6,1 so you will get the most out of the black beauty's capabilities 👍
 
mikas said:
[...]
About memory speed; would it be that all 26xx chips would lower it to 800 MHz, and 16xx chips would be able to keep up with 1066 MHz - if so, 1680 v2 would up itself a little bit in the list. Just a thought or quick guess, maybe someone can confirm or shoot down my assumption about RAM speed.
Click to expand...

I know it's too late for you ;-) but for posterity's sake: according to OWC, yes:
Special 32GB module use information: Due to processor design and memory architectures, 32GB module utilization occurs at a bus speed of 1066MHz with Apple Mac Pro 2013 E5-16XXv2 4-Core, 6-Core, and 8-Core processor equipped models, 800MHz with factory 12-Core or after-market E5-26XX equipped models.
Click to expand...

I was just considering adding two 32's to my 6.1 (have 2x16 now), and have decided to go with only two more 16's for a total of 64 because of this (as I'm on the E5-2667v2). I think this may be one of the reasons OWC stopped offering the 2667 as an 8-core upgrade and switched to the 1680 for that. Although to be fair they also say that
Overall performance with applications and workflows that are able to utilize higher available memory, remains exceptional.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you guys for this thread. I just picked up a late 2013, love the form-factor, but, not a fan of proprietary GPU cards. The CPU-well, mine comes with a base-model, so this has been great to see what can work. Not afraid to fiddle with it.
 
Has anyone tried the 2673 v2? It’s in the compatibility list for the 6,1 and has the lowest TDP at 110w. I’ve ordered one as I found one for reasonable money. I’m keen to see if it runs at a lower temperature than the 2667 v2. I’m guessing it will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ikir
Both CPUs have 100% same clock speeds and different TDP (-20W) on paper I wonder how?

Nobody did a a detailed test: 2673 vs 2667 unfortunately
 
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