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

Buying Mid 2010 2x 2,4 Ghz - help upgrading

nofxrs

nofxrs

macrumors member
Original poster
Mar 27, 2016
41
7
Porto Alegre - Brazil
Hi there!

Tomorrow i'll be buying a MID 2010 2x 2,4ghz from a Friend here in Brazil - Around U$ 1200,00 - this is the cheapest we can find here.
Screen_Shot_2016_03_27_at_4_50_30_PM.png


Really want to upgrade this machine to be a workhorse for at least more 3-5 yrs to come. I work Mainly with advertising photography on Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture one. Also i'd love to be able to play BF4 on Windows sometimes.



I know this may be asked before but i couldn't find a simple question about it.

Can i Put 2x w3690s or the x5690s would give me better results/benchmarks ? There's a huge price difference between them.


GRAPHIC CARD: GTX 970(new) or 680 (used and flashed - ebay)? - To my Work needs (photoshop, lightroom, capture one - nvidia would suit me better or the radeons??). Also wondering about installing a Windows to have some fun on BF4 in spare (Rare) time.

HD - it seems this is a good option, right?: http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-Digi...rue&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_5&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

USB - ? - http://www.amazon.com/Ports-Inateck...ue&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_4&smid=A2QGX098CVHYJ7



Thanks guys!
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You cannot use two W36xx processors. Only X56xx processors will work in a dual-CPU system.

I use and am happy with that Inateck USB 3 card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nofxrs
scott.n member: 522094 said:
You cannot use two W36xx processors. Only X56xx processors will work in a dual-CPU system.

I use and am happy with that Inateck USB 3 card.
Click to expand...

Tks mate!

i found the 3.46 X 'series to be VERY expensive on ebay.
Wondering about the 3.33 or 3.06 - In your opinion, do the price difference vs 3.46 performance worth those +$$$??
 
Last edited:
For photos work, your 5770 should be OK, my understanding is that only few filters can use the GPU to compute.

For gaming, of course 970 is better choice. However, the 970 will only gives you black screen in OSX until you have the Nvidia web driver installed and selected. Which means you may have black screen everytime there is a upgrade in the OS (even just a minor security update). If you figure out how to install the web driver with just a black screen (e.g. via screen sharing), you can go for the 970. Otherwise, better choose some other GPU that have native OSX support (e.g. the 680).

I don't think anyone can tell the difference between 3.33 and 3.46 without any benchmark / stopwatch etc. Again, for photos work, 12 cores means little, you may go for the X5677, which will gives you 8 cores in total, but still 3.46GHz.

No idea if that SSD work or not. Should be OK for OSX, but not sure.

That Inateck card is fine.
 
DanielCoffey said:
A pair of 3.33 will be very nice indeed. Remember to load up with 1333 ram though.
Click to expand...

Tks Daniel!

I'm gonna buy 32gb 1333 from OWC.
Also, read that the 1066mhz ones on the machine are in reality 1333 running underclocked, is it true?
[doublepost=1459116502][/doublepost]
h9826790 said:
For photos work, your 5770 should be OK, my understanding is that only few filters can use the GPU to compute.

For gaming, of course 970 is better choice. However, the 970 will only gives you black screen in OSX until you have the Nvidia web driver installed and selected. Which means you may have black screen everytime there is a upgrade in the OS (even just a minor security update). If you figure out how to install the web driver with just a black screen (e.g. via screen sharing), you can go for the 970. Otherwise, better choose some other GPU that have native OSX support (e.g. the 680).

I don't think anyone can tell the difference between 3.33 and 3.46 without any benchmark / stopwatch etc. Again, for photos work, 12 cores means little, you may go for the X5677, which will gives you 8 cores in total, but still 3.46GHz.

No idea if that SSD work or not. Should be OK for OSX, but not sure.

That Inateck card is fine.
Click to expand...



CPU: I export a lot of 50+ megapixels photos on Lightroom and Capture one, probably it would use the cores, wouldn't?
Also, as any specific upgrade is really hard to do around here (brazil) and i'm going for some holidays in Florida i think it's better to upgrade to one of the best processors.

SSD: Seems it work, a guy commented on amazon that got +900mb/s read and write with this card :)

GPU: I don't mind about black screen and could wait to update the OSx until newer webdrivers are released. Is it possible to run the 970 + the radeon 5770 - to keep the bootscreen working? Saw on your signature that you do run 2 cards simultaneously.

USB: Tks :)
 
Last edited:
nofxrs said:
Hi there!
Can i Put 2x w3690s or the x5690s would give me better results/benchmarks ? There's a huge price difference between them.
Thanks guys!
Click to expand...


You can use W5590, which are available at a good price point.
My 2 x 2.4 geekbench was 14,856
2 x W5590 @ 3.33 went to 18,289.
With the W5590 ram at 1333 is supported.
Screen Shot 2016-03-28 at 8.09.46 AM.png
 
nofxrs said:
Is it possible to run the 970 + the radeon 5770 - to keep the bootscreen working?
Click to expand...
You would need to get creative with powering those as you would need 3x 6-pin, and there are only 2x 6-pins available. An nvidia GT120 is the easiest "second" card to use as it requires no additional power.

For a GPU upgrade the 680 is by far the most hassle-free. If you are capable of upgrading your CPUs, you are capable of flashing a PC version yourself. (if you have a PC available, or I assume you could do it under Bootcamp.) Beats paying 2x the price on eBay for a "Mac-flashed" version.
 
Last edited:
austinpike said:
You would need to get creative with powering those as you would need 3x 6-pin, and there are only 2x 6-pins available. An nvidia GT120 is the easiest "second" card to use as it requires no additional power.

For a GPU upgrade the 680 is by far the most hassle-free. If you are capable of upgrading your CPUs, you are capable of flashing a PC version yourself. (if you have a PC available, or I assume you could do it under Bootcamp.) Beats paying 2x the price on eBay for a "Mac-flashed" version.
Click to expand...

I actually dont have a pc CPU, just a pc notebook.
What does it worth more? the bootscreen on a gtx 680 or to have more performance on a GTX 970, for example?
 
nofxrs said:
Guys,

Which is the best option?

w5675 or w5680 ?? how much better the 5680 is...
Click to expand...

The x5680 is better by about 9%.

Your link to memory doesn't look right. Why are you doing a search for "HP Server R 090476" instead of, for example, "Mac Pro 2010 ram"?
 
ibarnett said:
This works:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/321961726057
Click to expand...
tks i appreciate it! seems a good option for the value
[doublepost=1459312532][/doublepost]
ActionableMango said:
The x5680 is better by about 9%.

Your link to memory doesn't look right. Why are you doing a search for "HP Server R 090476" instead of, for example, "Mac Pro 2010 ram"?
Click to expand...
someone said here in the forum these hp memories would be a good option for the mac pros with excellent prices.. that's why :)
 
I am not sure if those workstation memory works, I've just order 3x16G from a cheap source ($175 in total, new RAM), and the seller want to make sure it can work before he ship it to me.

My understanding is as long as it's 240pin DDR3, and compatible to 1333MHz CL9 2Rx4 1.5, the RAM should work as expected. Luckily the Mac Pro is not that picky on memory. ECC of course is better, but not necessary, RDIMM or UDIMM doesn't matter, as long as don't mix them together.

Therefore, even though the ECC RAM is for another server, and rated 1600MHz CL11 1.35V, its also OK for the cMP, because the 1600 CL11 RAM can down clock to 1333 CL9, and 1.35V memory is compatible to 1.5V system.

Anyway, once I receive my memory (unless the seller insist to refund but not ship them to me). I will test it and report. Those RAM are for server as well, not for Mac Pro.

This is what I ordered. But now out of stock.
image.jpeg

This is what they have now.
image.jpeg


May be apart from CPU, we can make another sticky thread about RAM, so that we know which RAM can be used, and what's the consequence (e.g. Some RAM will further down clock to 1066MHz, and mix ECC with non ECC is OK but ECC will be disabled etc).
 
Last edited:
nofxrs said:
I actually dont have a pc CPU, just a pc notebook.
What does it worth more? the bootscreen on a gtx 680 or to have more performance on a GTX 970, for example?
Click to expand...
The performance looks pretty much the same & having the boot screen is convenient & as the 680 has native support in OS X it means you don't have to worry about having a black screen after an OS X update. http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-970-vs-GeForce-GTX-680
 
Last edited:
h9826790 said:
May be apart from CPU, we can make another sticky thread about RAM, so that we know which RAM can be used, and what's the consequence (e.g. Some RAM will further down clock to 1066MHz, and mix ECC with non ECC is OK but ECC will be disabled etc).
Click to expand...

@bokkow is actually working on that right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
I have gone through the upgrade you plan on doing!
My original MP5.1 was a dual 2.4 CPU and now has 2 X 5680.
The video card I went with is the GTX970 and I upgraded the ram to 48gb 1333ecc.

I had to order an extra power cable to power up the 970 video card.
The only issues I have is when I do the occasional updates to the OSX, the computer will not boot up and I have to put the original GPU back and to get it going.

BTW, my geekbench scores went from:

Screenshot 2016-04-01 12.18.59.png


to this!

Screenshot 2016-04-01 12.19.14.png


Hope this helps!
 
davidm5 said:
I have gone through the upgrade you plan on doing!
My original MP5.1 was a dual 2.4 CPU and now has 2 X 5680.
The video card I went with is the GTX970 and I upgraded the ram to 48gb 1333ecc.

I had to order an extra power cable to power up the 970 video card.
The only issues I have is when I do the occasional updates to the OSX, the computer will not boot up and I have to put the original GPU back and to get it going.

BTW, my geekbench scores went from:

View attachment 624527

to this!

View attachment 624528

Hope this helps!
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot for your feedback!! Hope to get a result that high too.


The upgrade kit i just bought consists in:

Processor: 2x x5680's (ebay)
Processor Thermal paste: Arctic Silver ARTICOMBO ACN-60ML and AS5-3.5G Combo - This will be enough for 2 processors?
Memory: 64 gb (a-tech from ebay- recommended on this post..)
GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB SC GAMING ACX 2.0
GPU extra cable: NEW Mini-pcie 6pin Mac-pro G5 to Pci-express 6-pin Video Card Power Cable for MAC MAC Pro

MAIN HD - Pci-e: Kingston Digital HyperX Predator 240 GB PCIe Gen2 x4
Second HD - Samsung 850 EVO 250GB 2.5-Inch SATA III Internal SSD (MZ-75E250B/AM)
USB: [4 Ports for Mac Pro]Inateck 4 Ports PCI-E to USB 3.0 Expansion Card for Mac Pro
-
Keyboard: Logitech k811

-


Yesterday i did a 64 bit Geek bench and returned this result before any upgrade -->
IdmeVOL.png


In 14 days i'll be posting a new geekbench test, hopefully with good score!
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
  • Like
Reactions: davidm5
nofxrs said:
tks i appreciate!

In your opinion...
Which is the best thermal paste applying method. One thumb sized drop right in the middle ?
Any tutorial that u could recommend ?
Click to expand...

There are lots of test out there, for me, which is good enough to prove there is no real world difference between different methods. The main key factor is the amount, and then use any method that can evenly spread the paste around.

In my own experience, for AS5, it's very simple to use. You can even apply it, put the heatsink on, pull the heatsink out, check if the paste can cover the whole CPU but not too thick, and then re-install the heatsink again. If no enough paste, add tiny bit on the clean area. If too much, suck some away.

I know someone will say this a horrible method and will introduce lots of air bubble in the paste. Theoretically it is true. However, TBH, in my own experience, there is no real world difference. I did try to make it perfect, just apply the paste, install the heatsink and go. I also try the method above. No real world difference. Of course, the 2nd method is much easier because I can adjust the amount, and I have no doubt about how the paste spread. I try that on both my CPU and GPU, all good. May be I can get 1-2 degrees cooler if I can apply the perfect amount, and then put the heatsink back in without open it up again. But that's too hard for me, and I don't like the feeling that "do the paste really spread as I wish".

I guess the air bubble effect is tiny. That's why someone use the credit card method also can always achieve the good result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nofxrs
h9826790 said:
There are lots of test out there, for me, which is good enough to prove there is no real world difference between different methods. The main key factor is the amount, and then use any method that can evenly spread the paste around.

In my own experience, for AS5, it's very simple to use. You can even apply it, put the heatsink on, pull the heatsink out, check if the paste can cover the whole CPU but not too thick, and then re-install the heatsink again. If no enough paste, add tiny bit on the clean area. If too much, suck some away.

I know someone will say this a horrible method and will introduce lots of air bubble in the paste. Theoretically it is true. However, TBH, in my own experience, there is no real world difference. I did try to make it perfect, just apply the paste, install the heatsink and go. I also try the method above. No real world difference. Of course, the 2nd method is much easier because I can adjust the amount, and I have no doubt about how the paste spread. I try that on both my CPU and GPU, all good. May be I can get 1-2 degrees cooler if I can apply the perfect amount, and then put the heatsink back in without open it up again. But that's too hard for me, and I don't like the feeling that "do the paste really spread as I wish".

I guess the air bubble effect is tiny. That's why someone use the credit card method also can always achieve the good result.
Click to expand...

Tks a lot for sharing your experience.
In a few days i'll try that out!
 
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