Chrome Mac Pro views

[beccas]

Hi everyone.

I would like to hear from those of you who currently have, or are considering getting, a mac pro 4,1 (or 5,1 since these are similar). I am thinking about getting one (4,1) but I am also weighing in the fact that this system is a couple years old.

To be fair, I already have a mac mini (2012 i7 version) that serves me well but the mac pro has become really appealing particularly because I like its ability to be upgraded easily. It also looks like a very durable machine that will last some time. I guess I am interested in it since I am not a huge fan of Apple's current direction (limiting upgrades) and my current thinking is that if I get this, I would be able to hold out for a good while. I definitely will be keeping my mini though!

Sorry for my ramble. My questions:

Do you feel like your Mac Pro has been serving you well with little to no issue? What is your current set up specs?
Do you think that Apple will continue to support it (software wise) for some time to come?
Which is strongly preferred: single or dual cpu? Even if one is not really going to utilize software that will use the multi cores. Does the OS use them? How much max should one spend on each variation?
Chances are I will not be upgrading the cpu. Has the low end cpu been able to hold up well? (for anyone who kept the cpu stock for both variations)
I am only really considering upgrading the storage, RAM and GPU eventually. Is that a good idea?
Is a little gaming feasible once the GPU is upgraded and windows is run to allow a larger library and support?

I know these questions are highly specific to one's use patterns but I just would like to hear from you guys about your experience with this machine now in 2016.

If you have any tips related to this system, please share! All I really know at the moment is that upgrading the firmware to 5,1 is recommended.

Thank you all for your time!

 

[bokkow]

Do you feel like your Mac Pro has been serving you well with little to no issue?

Yes, no issue at all, my Mac Mini 2012 i7 would sometimes get very hot and sometimes freeze. None of that with the MP.

What is your current set up specs?

See my signature

Do you think that Apple will continue to support it (software wise) for some time to come?

OSX - yes, up to 7 years after hardware release (5.1 last release was 2012 so 2019 is a fair estimate)
Windows - no, support for Mac Pro officially ended with BootCamp 5 but it still works flawlessly if you want

Which is strongly preferred: single or dual cpu? Even if one is not really going to utilize software that will use the multi cores. Does the OS use them?

Totally depends on use by the user. The OS does not make all cores being used, the software on it needs to be written to use more CPU's. I would like a dual CPU tray if possible at a nice price but in all fairness my hexacore 3.33 GHz is more than fast enough for my needs

How much max should one spend on each variation?

Really depends on your location. In my country the single goes for around 800-900€ and the dual can go for around 1300-1400€

Chances are I will not be upgrading the cpu. Has the low end cpu been able to hold up well? (for anyone who kept the cpu stock for both variations).

Stock is fine but not truely powerful. Replacing the CPU is quite easy, I would think that over once you have the machine

I am only really considering upgrading the storage, RAM and GPU eventually. Is that a good idea?

Sure!

Is a little gaming feasible once the GPU is upgraded and windows is run to allow a larger library and support?

I play Metal Gear Solid Phantom Pain on Windows 10 regularly


I know these questions are highly specific to one's use patterns but I just would like to hear from you guys about your experience with this machine now in 2016.

If you have any tips related to this system, please share! All I really know at the moment is that upgrading the firmware to 5,1 is recommended.

Depends, if you want to upgrade CPU's and have higher memore bandwith the this is needed. Otherwise there is no real benefit to upgrading the firmware.

Thank you all for your time!

 

[beccas]

Thank you for your reply. Does anyone else use this system for any type of gaming? If so, what is it's performance like?

In general, what the performance of the dual CPU Quad 2.26GHz like? Thanks again!

 

[barry.pearson]

@beccas Hey there, I have recently (last week) upgraded from my 2012 Mac Mini (2.3GHz quad core i7) to a 2009 Mac Pro 4,1 (2.66Ghz quad core Xeon). The Mac Pro is technically slower than the Mac Mini I upgraded from, however during normal use I can't say that I have noticed, also when rendering videos it seems to be around 20-25% quicker than the Mac Mini was.

The specs of the Mac Pro I have are:

• 2.66GHz quad core Intel Xeon (Xeon W3520)
• 12GB DDR3 1033MHz memory
• 240GB SSD on SATA
• 2x 1TB 7200 HDD on SATA
• Radeon HD 7950 3GB graphics card

This was compared to my Mac Mini which was:

• 2.3GHz quad core Intel Core i7 (i7-3615QM)
• 16GB DDR3 1600MHz memory
• 1TB 5200 HDD
• Intel HD4000 Graphics

So far I haven't found anything to complain about when using the Mac Pro and I'm very happy about my purchase. I don't play many titles but the ones I do; Civilisation: Beyond the Stars and Sins of a Solar Empire, work perfectly smooth when played through Parallels. I'm guessing they would do better if played through boot camp though.

I also play a lot of Xbox One titles through the Windows 10 streaming app, and while it works with my Xbox One controller without any input lag, I have noticed there is about 0.2 second delay on the sound. Again I don't think this would be an issue with Windows under bootcamp rather than Parallels.

While I haven't run into any issues with my stock processor I will likely upgrade to the hexacore Xeon in a few months, just so I know I've got more breathing room in the future. While my machine is a relatively low end 2009 Mac Pro it's still holding up well.

The cost of the Mac Pro (including a magic trackpad, wired keyboard and shipping) was £642, I also sold my Mac Mini for almost £700, which left me some money to order 32GB memory (£80) and I'm looking at a USB 3.0 card (£22).

If there's any particular titles let me know and I can try them out for you to see how they work. I'm likely to install Windows on bootcamp over the next few days too.

 

[beccas]

Hi Barry,

I literally was reading your thread when you sent this reply!

Your thread sent me on a search about the glitch the Mac Mini got since 10.10.3 (I believe?). I heard about it a little but I never really researched it. I am still on 10.9.5 just because of this (well my fear that newer software is buggier). I was now considering updating to 10.10.x (I rather stay a generation behind in terms of software) just to "put a fresh coat of paint" unto my computer experience but it seems as though I may hold off. Thanks!

I am not going to sell my Mini though. I have yet to add a SSD and more RAM (currently only 4GB) and it runs decently well. I still have Apple Care for it too so I want to keep it. In short, I am satisfied with it. By the way, you got a lot for yours. Its funny that these systems are going for so much. What a great investment.

However, there is a great allure to having the MacPro so that's why I am considering it (money is an issue though). I won't be rendering videos or anything of that sort so I know it may seem weird that I want one. I just really like it's build quality and since I am not a fan of Apple removing upgradability in their newer systems, getting one seems to be a great idea in terms of holding out. I also secretly want to play a few games but I don't want to build a Windows PC just for that.

You seem to be happy with your "upgrade". Does it ever feel weird that you traded in a 2012 machine for a 2009 system? By the way, thank you, but I don't have any particular titles in mind. The machine I was considering is the dual cpu version but with the 2.26GHz cpus. Do games generally rely on single cores or are they generally able to utilize the multi-cores? What about general OS use?

Everything would probably remain stock until I am eventually able to fund new improvements to the system.
[doublepost=1454808730][/doublepost]Just a general question. How do you guys remove the dust build up from this computer system?

 

[barry.pearson]

This post is a little long, sorry about that. Also I'm not an expert, this is information I believe to be correct from researching my Mac Pro purchase.

@beccas The glitch with the Mac Mini only seems to be very specific, it has to be a 2012 Mac Mini with Mac OS X 10.10+ and a monitor with 3440x1440 monitor.
Oddly enough when trying to sort this issue out I tried another 21:9 monitor running 2560x1080 it worked perfectly, and the Mac Mini previously ran two 1920x1080 monitors which never caused issues either. I read somewhere that the update to Yosemite changes the amount of memory the graphics buffer has or something similar.
Other than when used with the 21:9 monitor the Mac Mini was fine on both Yosemite and El Capitan.

Yes I'm very happy with my Mac Pro "upgrade", I try not to think too much about the computer being 3 years older than the computer it replaced. The computer overall does feel fresh with it running at a higher refresh rate on the 21:9 monitor than the Mac Mini.

I'm actually about to install Windows 10 through bootcamp now for gaming, so I'll see how it runs then. I have however just installed and been playing Crysis 2 on Origin and according to FRAPS it was running between 35-70 fps. It seemed to drop for a second or two when you leave buildings but then levels out.

In terms of the number of processors, cores and clock speed it all depends on what software you'll be running. If it's a program designed for a single core/thread then two 2.26GHz Xeon isn't going to preform as good as a single 2.66GHz processor. However programs optimised for multiple cores and processors (typically video editing) will blow the single core away.

Here's the Geekbench scores of the 2009 quad core 2.66GHz Mac Pro and the dual quad core 2.26GHz processors (8 core total) that show the higher clock speed serves the 2.66Ghz machine better under most usages:

Playing devil's advocate though, if you were to get a single processor Mac Pro, update the firmware to 5,1 and upgrade to a hexa core/6 core processor running at 3.33GHz then it would trump both of the other processors in both single and multicore performance. This is the route I'm looking to go down when I upgrade in a few months, currently the Xeon X5680 can be found for about £150 (or about ~$220 if you're in the US).

This firmware and processor update will also allow you to use memory at 1333MHz instead of 1066MHz which should also give a little bit of improvement too. Ultimately the cost of the processor(s) vs what they will be used for will be up to you. I mainly use my Mac for editing photos, the occasional family videos, general internet and media consumption and playing the odd video games. For me the current processor is enough but I will see some benefit in upgrading to the hexa core processor later on.

As for cleaning the dust out of the machine I used compressed air to blast it out. It's pretty easy getting access to the inside of the machine due to how easy it is to remove the daughter try and hard drive bays.

EDIT: One last thing, try and get a Mac Pro that you can either pick up yourself or is shipped in it's original box. They're heavy and tough but the legs seem to be a weak point if dropped (in the wrong way).

 

[beccas]

Thanks for letting me know. I am not that resolution set up currently so I don't think that updating is going to be an issue if what you say is true. Still, Mavericks seem fine for me (I am really afraid of updating).

What you said about the core/thread is my thinking too. Wow, that 6 core seems gives surprising results. It is even better than the dual 2.26Ghz at the multi core test? Due to the price (and my fears about upgrading and potentially damaging the cpu tray), a cpu upgrade would be the absolute last thing I'd be willing to do. The current RAM, GPU and HDD are really obsolete so that would be my focus.

I am really excited to get this machine in the future. It is just the cost/benefit that has me a bit on edge. With the specs of this thing and Apple's current offering, I'd thought that people weren't going to be selling them like that. However, I have been seeing a few and that has me wondering if there is something I'm not seeing.

Did you upgrade to 5,1? If so, did you find it difficult?

And yeah, the damage to the feet is something I am worried about. I have seen a few that are damaged and I saw your post. These things are heavy and I am sure carriers don't take much care when shipping stuff. I really would like it to remain in good condition.

Please let me know how your windows experience is. Is your GPU a mac edition one by the way.

Thanks again.

 

[barry.pearson]

@beccas The six core X5680 (or I believe there's a slightly faster X3690 too) processor is better than both my quad core 2.66GHz and the dual processor/8 core 2.26GHz. However I believe that if you have a dual processor setup you could upgrade to two of these for a 12 core system which again would blow everything else away, IF the programs you use can take advantage of those extra cores.

I haven't done the 5,1 firmware upgrade yet as I've not purchased the processor to accompany it. I will let you know how it goes when I do though.

Finally the graphics card is the Sapphire Radeon 7950 Mac Edition which came with the Mac Pro.

 

[h9826790]

There quite a few of us here use the cMP for gaming.

For the game that is GPU demanding. It's easy to improve performance by upgrading the GPU.

For the game that is CPU demanding (single thread), the dual 2.26 Quad is the worse choice. No matter how you upgrade the RAM, GPU, SSD etc. The performance won't be improved until you upgrade the CPU. And the overall CPU utilization is very low during gaming (but you pay more for dual CPU setup).

For your info. My 4,1 (spec as my signature) is good for TR, MSG, GTA, CoD, AC, Thief, Hitman, WRC, Dirt, Fallout, Metro, Sleeping dog… (depends on the game, but it's good for 1440P, somewhere between mid to highest setting, Vsync on, maintain 60FPS)

Crossfire is enabled in Windows, the Sapphire 7950 Mac edition card is the master, and the R9 280 is the slave.

 

[beccas]

Thank you both. The feedback definitely helped.

That graphics card is expensive. I was more or less just going to get a regular (no flashed) mid level card somewhere down the line (considerably cheaper and can be had new) though I know dual booting may be an issue with that. If that card was included, you got a good buy barry.

h9826790, for someone who may not be able to upgrade the CPU for some time (especially due to costs; those cpus are expensive!), do you think it is more sensible to purchase the mac pro with the single CPU over the dual CPU set up then? Are most games CPU intensive? Just to be clear, I do not intend to be playing games on the highest setting or anything like that. I would just like it to be able to play them smoothly with little hiccups on a mid-ish setting. I really thought that the dual setup might have been better in the event I ended up expanding my uses for the machine. Besides purchasing the dual set up seems considerably cheaper than upgrading to that set up later on. I could be wrong though. Let me know.

By the way h9826790, I did not know that you utilize dual GPU set ups in the Pro. Cool! Does that mean Nvidia SLI works too in windows on the Pro? Also, are you able to use the dual DPU set up as is in Mac OS? (I know Mac OS can't utilize the crossfire feature though).

One of my fears is that I am going to turn into the type that continually invests in upgrades for the computer. I definitely don't want to do that, especially since the resale value would not increase to the same degree.

h9826790, the setup in your signature is cool for your mac pro. I just googled a few of the stuff there. Didn't even know most of them before.

 

[h9826790]

Yes, that 7950 Mac Edition is expensive. There is no need to buy this card unless you have a specific reason. My R9 280 only cost me $150 (new), I flash it to give me boot screen, and remove the R17 resistor to give me full PCIe 2.0 speed. This card has virtually identical performance as the 7950 Mac Edition, but has a better / bigger cooler. For used card, $100 can give you a 7950 or even 7970 if you study hard enough on the net (with some luck).

For me, apart from few simulation "game" (e.g. X-plane), most of the games are GPU limiting. Even though the game is CPU limiting, so far I never have a game that is multi core performance limiting, but only single core performance limiting (on my W3690). Of course, it depends on the setting. e.g. I don't mind to reduce the number of moving objects, but prefer to have better resolution, texture, special effect, etc. Therefore, my setting almost always more GPU demanding.

For gaming, IMO, it's better to get the single processor 5,1. The upgrade is much cheaper, you can buy a W3680, or a X5677. There is only very few games can use more than 4 cores. I am quite sure there still quite a few years away before most of the games can use more than 6 cores (12 threads). Therefore, a W3680 can serve you well until the 5,1 retire (for gaming, but not something like video production).

The 5,1 is just a PC that can run OSX with 4 PCIe slots. So, both SLI and Crossfire are available in Windows (assuming you set them up correctly. e.g. with the bridge installed).

I can utilise dual GPU in OSX, but not for gaming. I mainly use them for FCPX, and Apple do highly optimise FCPX to utilise multiple AMD GPU. One of the hardest part to setup dual mid level GPU is "how to power the card properly?". I do limit my card's TDP to avoid them pulling too much from the 6 pin power sources. And I prefer to use 2x GPU but running them at lower voltage, stock frequency etc to make them run cooler. Rather than a single card but higher power consumption and hotter. In fact, I don't know any single card that have 2x 7950 performance which can run on native Apple driver and easy to self flash for boot screen. If there is one, I don't mind to pay more for it, or even go through the Pixlas mod (if required).

Haha, I don't think that you can go into the infinite upgrade trap. In fact, it's more and more limiting for the cMP now.

CPU: Max at dual X5690, you can't go anything beyond that. And for single processor 5,1. A W3680 should not cost you more than a mid level GPU.

RAM: Since we talking about gaming in this thread. 3x8G DDR3 non ECC is more than enough. Even 3x4G is very good for gaming.

GPU: A single GTX 680 should be a good choice for you. This is one of the area that you can spend lots of money and go well beyond GTX 680. However, IMO, it's quite painful to deal with the driver for the new card (e.g. GTX 980 Ti). So, there is no good reason for you to pay for such a relatively expensive upgrade.

PCIe card: I can't see that you need to pay for any expensive card in this area, since you didn't say that you need any special hardware for professional use.

Storage: A 850Evo plug into the optical bay is good enough. And this is the most painless solution for dual boot OSX / Windows on a single SSD. This should not cost you too much. However, if you want to, you can pay thousands of bucks on something like Quad SM951 in RAID 0. But again, I can't see any reason you will go for this route.

 

[beccas]

Thanks!

I also saw a thread about the CPU compatibility list and wanted to ask your opinion on this card X5677* 4x2 3.46 GHz 1333. It is relatively cheap on ebay and has a higher clock speed. The only thing is that it would remain as a 8 core set up. What do you think? I just re-read your post. You mentioned that CPU. -_- But what do you think of it in a dual cpu set up?

And I forgot about powering the cards. I saw on this site that the GTX 680 (like you mentioned) was a really goo card to get so I will most likely get that. Just one though. I don't thin kI need any dual GPUs.

Haha, I was joking a little about the upgrade cycle. But still, a little serious in that I don't want to invest too much on a computer that is more than 5 years old already.

I would consider the X5677 as an upgrade (if you think it is worth it) since they are relatively cheap.
Ram, where is a good (cheap, really) place to get this specific RAM? It doesn't need to be ECC? So 24-32GB is fine?
GPU: GTX 680 was the most I was looking at.
PCIe: nothing other than a USB 3.0 card really and that one I am not even sure I need.
SSD will be the goal. What is your opinion of PCIe SSDs though over the regular? Do you think it is worth it?

My uses, at least for the foreseeable future, are nothing professional or too demanding. i just want some thing that will last and is relatively affordable.
[doublepost=1454871001][/doublepost]I forgot to ask.

What is a good price for the single cpu and dual cpu (both low end) set up? Anyone can chime in. Just want to figure out what is considered a good deal.

 

[h9826790]

I didn't pay attention to the current price of the dual CPU 5,1. However, they generally much more expensive than the single CPU model. Also, since the 4,1 can be flashed to 5,1, and the single CPU 4,1 and 5,1 are virtually identical. Therefore, there is no need to buy the single CPU 5,1 (if that's more expensive).

If you are willing to wait for good deal, $400 is totally possible for single CPU 4,1.

If you don't have any specific need for dual CPU setup. Unless you get a very good deal for dual CPU 5,1. I personally will go for the much cheaper single CPU 4,1.

If you end up have a dual processor model. I think the 5677 is a very good balance between speed, cost, cores. It should serve you well for few years. And if you really need more than 8 cores, you can further upgrade them later on (or when the X5680 / X5690 price drop).

If you can get the ECC RAM with a reasonable price, of course go for the ECC RAM. However, there is no need to use ECC RAM.

I personally believe the PCIe SSD worth the price. However, not anyone can utilise the PCIe SSD. I have no slot left, so didn't try that yet.

 

[barry.pearson]

Sorry if the post is a little image heavy. I didn't compress these images beyond any done by my camera/FRAPS.

EDIT: When I did these tests I hadn't installed the Apple drivers for Windows so that

@beccas Yes I got the 7950 with the Mac Pro and that was one of the reasons I purchased this machine over similar priced units (which often had a GT120). Anyway I've just installed Windows 10 on bootcamp and installed a few games to see how the machine handled them. First title I tried was Civilization: Beyond Earth (love that game right now) and it played on maximum settings at 3440x1440 locked at 30fps according to FRAPS.

I tried a few other titles, mainly sim titles such as the newest Sim City and Sins of a Solar Empire. Sim City seemed to be locked at 60fps and only varied between 59-61 occasionally, again on maximum settings. Finally I downloaded Crysis 2 as I think that it is the most demanding title I have on PC. Again I was running Crysis on Ultra settings at 3440x1440 on the Sapphire HD 7950. I was getting around 35-50fps depending on the action.

Like last time it seemed to be when I transitioned from indoor to outdoor areas where it dropped for a second or so before levelling off.

Lowering the graphics down to Very High bumped up the fps by around 10-15 frames. I did notice however that Crysis used all eight threads available to it (four cores, each with two threads). When playing it was using up around 25% of the processor, and about 4GB of my 12GB of memory.

ADDED: It will be worth noting that while I was trying out Crysis 2 I hadn't installed the Apple drivers for Windows (completely forgot) and was also running a second 1920x1080 monitor from the machine too. If I was only using the 1920x1080 monitor it would likely run noticeably better.

 

[beccas]

Hmm...okay so $400 is a good deal for the single cpu 4,1. Would $100-$200 more for the dual cpu 4,1 be considered a good deal? Like with low end amount of RAM, basic HDD and stock GPU. Just trying to figure out what I should look out for.

Only 25%? Based on what you said, your computer's CPU doesn't seem to be too taxed by that game. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable about holding off a cpu upgrade.

By the way, that is a pretty cool set up, especially the monitor. What size screen is that (the bigger of the two)? Actually, do you have a link for it? Really impressed.

 

[h9826790]

The dual processor 4,1 use lidless CPU, it's very very hard to upgrade the CPU unless you get another pair of lidless CPU (which cost $$$).

25% is because the game can only use few cores. If the game can only use 2 cores, no matter it's a 12 cores 2.26 or Quad 3.46, it can still only use 2 cores. However, the 2.26 machine will be much more CPU limiting. For gaming, at this moment, CPU speed is everything, not core count.

 

[beccas]

That's why I wasn't really considering upgrading the CPU for the dual cpu version. I read that it was harder to do than in the single CPU version. Maybe I should just look to the single cpu then. I think I may get a decent deal (still not sure what is considered a good deal though) for the dual variation so that's why my eyes have been on this one.

What I was trying to say is that the specs of his system is:

• 2.66GHz quad core Intel Xeon (Xeon W3520)

I could be wrong but from the benchmark he posted, the scores were

The 4 core 2.66Ghz does not seem to be *that* more powerful than the 8core 2.26Ghz in the single core test...right? Am I interpreting that correctly?

If I am, I was trying to make the point that if his system's current CPU is only being utilized ~25%, I can't see the 2.26Ghz being pushed much more than that so my guess what that 2.26GHz was somewhat decent still.

I could be totally wrong in interpreting this though since I am new to this all. I was not talking about the core count but rather the clock speed not being substantially higher. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What does your computer show when you're playing a higher end game? I know that your set up is much more beastly though so I know it is not a proper comparison.

 

[barry.pearson]

@beccas The monitor is 34" 21:9 (rather than 16:9) ratio, model is the AOC U3477PQU.

The monitor was the reason I upgraded from the Mac Mini as the resolution caused graphical issues. If you;re in the US here's a link to it on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/AOC-Professio...UTF8&qid=1454883753&sr=8-1&keywords=AOC+U3477

As for playing those games earlier, you can see some titles were designed for multi-core use, while others weren't. The 25% was spread across all cores and threads when playing Crysis, however when I was playing Civ: Beyond the Stars it only used about 70% single thread, although overall processor usage is only about 10-15%.

 

[beccas]

The monitor...is...huge. I have been thinking about getting a larger monitor too (34inch too) but one that is cheaper than the one you have.

In the case of Civ: Beyond the Stars, now I understand why I'd need a higher clock speed CPU. I have been so misinformed this whole time. I wonder why programs aren't designed more for multi core processing. Hmm...

 

[prvt.donut]

[QUOTE=" This is the route I'm looking to go down when I upgrade in a few months, currently the Xeon X5680 can be found for about £150 (or about ~$220 if you're in the US).

.[/QUOTE]

Where in the US can the x5680 be found for about $220? Send a link and I will buy them today! Been looking and the prices are insane at the moment!

 

[h9826790]

That's why I wasn't really considering upgrading the CPU for the dual cpu version. I read that it was harder to do than in the single CPU version. Maybe I should just look to the single cpu then. I think I may get a decent deal (still not sure what is considered a good deal though) for the dual variation so that's why my eyes have been on this one.

What I was trying to say is that the specs of his system is:

• 2.66GHz quad core Intel Xeon (Xeon W3520)

I could be wrong but from the benchmark he posted, the scores were View attachment 614815

The 4 core 2.66Ghz does not seem to be *that* more powerful than the 8core 2.26Ghz in the single core test...right? Am I interpreting that correctly?

If I am, I was trying to make the point that if his system's current CPU is only being utilized ~25%, I can't see the 2.26Ghz being pushed much more than that so my guess what that 2.26GHz was somewhat decent still.

I could be totally wrong in interpreting this though since I am new to this all. I was not talking about the core count but rather the clock speed not being substantially higher. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What does your computer show when you're playing a higher end game? I know that your set up is much more beastly though so I know it is not a proper comparison.

Ok, let's say the game can only use one core. On a Quad 2.66 system, you get 1911 points, which means only 25% of the CPU is utilised. On the other hand, on a 8 cores 2.26 system, the machine will only get 1673 points (which is 14.2% lower than the 2.66), and only 12.5% of the CPU is usable in the game. The CPU utilisation rate is even lower on the 12 cores system regardless the CPU speed, only 8% is working, the remaining 11 cores will only sits there and doing nothing (even though the game is bottlenecked by the CPU).

If that 2.66 can just gives you 60FPS, then the 2.26 may only able to gives you 51FPS.

If you use Vsync, the difference may suddenly become 60FPS and 30FPS.

Of course, this is an extreme example. However, this could happen.

 

[nigelbb]

This is the route I'm looking to go down when I upgrade in a few months, currently the Xeon X5680 can be found for about £150 (or about ~$220 if you're in the US).

.

Where in the US can the x5680 be found for about $220? Send a link and I will buy them today! Been looking and the prices are insane at the moment!

This was the first hit when I searched on eBay. OK the pair are $9.99 more than $220 each but they are in the same ball park price-wise & not insane at all.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MATCHING-...050035?hash=item35fa62ddf3:g:ihQAAOSw5dNWpukX[/QUOTE]

 

[prvt.donut]

Where in the US can the x5680 be found for about $220? Send a link and I will buy them today! Been looking and the prices are insane at the moment!

This was the first hit when I searched on eBay. OK the pair are $9.99 more than $220 each but they are in the same ball park price-wise & not insane at all.[/QUOTE]

Link please! When I search eBay pairs are always around $450 or $2-300 each.

 

[h9826790]

Are you guys speaking the same thing?

$220 each ($10 more for a pair) = $450 a pair

Another one, $450 a pair, so a bit more than $220 each

 

[nigelbb]

Are you guys speaking the same thing?

$220 each ($10 more for a pair) = $450 a pair

Another one, $450 a pair, so a bit more than $220 each

prvt.donut said Where in the US can the x5680 be found for about $220? NOT Where in the US can a pair of x5680s be found for about $220?