Best Single Core Performer? (CPU Upgrade - Mac Pro 1,1)

[Goftrey]

I'm looking to upgrade the stock 2.66GHz 5150's I've got in my Pro at the moment with something with a little more juice. It chokes a little in FCPX and is seriously bottlenecking the 660 when gaming.

I don't really need 8 cores - and as I've now dropped my consoles for this Mac Pro, I'm looking around for processors that are going to give me the best performance per core.

The 3GHz 5160's are a nice boost and they're dirt cheap (£5 each) so I'm using that as a benchmark. I've also looked at the x5355's but, in Geekbench at least, they're slower than the 5150's on a single-core level.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Umbongo]

5160s or 5365s are all there is, and while 10% extra performance is nice for under £15, they are still less than half the performance of a modern 3.5GHz+ 4-core CPU. So don't expect too much from it. You may not even notice the difference :/. I didn't and I went through owning a 2.66 and then getting a 3GHz along side it.

The best value upgrade after that is selling your system and buying a used 2009 model sadly. Or Hackintoshing.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

I'm looking to upgrade the stock 2.66GHz 5150's I've got in my Pro at the moment with something with a little more juice. It chokes a little in FCPX and is seriously bottlenecking the 660 when gaming.

I don't really need 8 cores -

Thanks in advance.

You think you don't need multiple cores but the software does need it and would prefer to be running on more cores. FCPX bro, just feed it power. You can get great options for low prices if you look around.

 

[flowrider]

The Mac Pro 1,1 was only delivered with Dual Processors AFAIK. Will a 1,1 even run as a single processor machine?

Lou

 

[Goftrey]

5160s or 5365s are all there is, and while 10% extra performance is nice for under £15, they are still less than half the performance of a modern 3.5GHz+ 4-core CPU. So don't expect too much from it. You may not even notice the difference :/. I didn't and I went through owning a 2.66 and then getting a 3GHz along side it.

The best value upgrade after that is selling your system and buying a used 2009 model sadly. Or Hackintoshing.

Hmm. For less than a tenner I may as well give th 5160's a go then.

I have been considering the hackintosh route but this Pro under Yosemite is still doing everything I ask of it, which is why I'm hesitant.

----------

You think you don't need multiple cores but the software does need it and would prefer to be running on more cores. FCPX bro, just feed it power. You can get great options for low prices if you look around.

I'd rather have 4 higher performing cores than 8 lower performing cores, in which 4 of them are sat not doing much 90% of the time.

----------

The Mac Pro 1,1 was only delivered with Dual Processors AFAIK. Will a 1,1 even run as a single processor machine?

Lou

They were shipped with 2x dual processors. I'm on about upgrading to a higher clocked set of dual core processors (equalling 4 cores) or splashing on a couple of quad core processors (equalling 8 cores).

 

[bax2003]

I would do this:

-Flash it to Mac Pro 2.1 (for Clovertown CPUs support)
-Get two Intel Xeon E5345 CPUs, and you will have 8-core 2.33GHz system

More cores, larger CPU cache. That will be budget 8-core solution.

To conclude, do not disassembly you Mac Pro just to get a little speed bump with same number of cores. Not worth it.

Just my opinion.

You can check my post here: (Reply #392 )
http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1094.msg27121.html#msg27121

 

[Umbongo]

I would do this:

-Flash it to Mac Pro 2.1 (for Clovertown CPUs support)
-Get two Intel Xeon E5345 CPUs, and you will have 8-core 2.33GHz system

More cores, larger CPU cache. That will be budget 8-core solution.

To conclude, do not disassembly you Mac Pro just to get a little speed bump with same number of cores. Not worth it.

Just my opinion.

You can check my post here: (Reply #392 )
http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1094.msg27121.html#msg27121

He is gaming though, that will reduce performance there.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

He is gaming though, that will reduce performance there.

Upgrade the 660 to a low power 7 series like a 770.

 

[paulrbeers]

I
The 3GHz 5160's are a nice boost and they're dirt cheap (£5 each) so I'm using that as a benchmark. I've also looked at the x5355's but, in Geekbench at least, they're slower than the 5150's on a single-core level.

Thanks in advance.

Say what? The X5355's are not slower than the 5150's. They are exactly the same....

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=x5355

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=5150

Both score roughly 1400 in 32bit and 1500 in 64bit. Some machines will score a few points lower and others higher, but both land right at 1400 and 1500.

The best choice are the X5365's if you can find them. Fastest single core for the 1,1's and 2,1's (3.0ghz), and will be the best for FCX since FCX CAN use all the cores. You DO need all 8 cores (at least for rendering)....

 

[NOTNlCE]

The BEST CPUs you can put in that machine are X5365s, but jumping to 5160s isn't even worth the hassle, in my opinion. Don't get a new GPU. I used to own a Mac Pro 3,1 and I can tell you firsthand that the CPU bottlenecks a GTX 660. I currently own 2, but jumping from two E5462s to an i7-5820K was like night and day, even running a single graphics card. The 2.66GHz Quad Cores, I believe they're X5355s, are the best bang for your buck. The extra 4 cores will help you significantly in FCP X, but the marginal difference in Single Core performance isn't nearly enough to justify the price point of X5365s.

SideNote:
The Mac Pro 1,1 is limited to PCIe 1.1, and a more powerful GPU won't help that much. For a short while, I had my 2x GTX 660s in my 3,1 - and the performance increase wasn't nearly as large as it is in my current rig. Just a firsthand reasoning NOT to get a better GPU. I don't think it'll be cost effective at all.

-N

 

[goMac]

I'd rather have 4 higher performing cores than 8 lower performing cores, in which 4 of them are sat not doing much 90% of the time.

Final Cut Pro X will definitely use all 8 cores. If you reduce back to 4 cores, you may end up handicapping your FCPX performance.

For games... you're pretty much stuck. There is no way to fix that. You've got to get a newer machine to remove that bottleneck. It's not the CPU, it's the machine itself. No CPU upgrade will fix that.

Have to agree with the others. Try and get a 2009 or newer.