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

Dropping Two X5680 6-core 3.33GHz in Mac Pro?

First off..

Why would someone who owns a single-quad core mac pro use a dual core chip to begin with? Isn't that a sheer waste of money? the x5580 is roughly the same thing as the w3580 except it supports dual channel qpi. And the 2nd qpi would be disabled on the single-quad core because, well - one cpu only.

Dual w3580 will not work in the dual because the processor is a single-qpi based chip.


WardC said:
This is an old post of mine but the question has been answered a few times. It won't work due to the microcode in the BIOS not supporting it, and the stepping is different (B1 vs. D0). So, I know this now, it just won't work at all. Dual W3580 has been proven to work and dual X5580 has been proven to work too. That's about as high as you can go with the dual Mac Pro...dual 8-core 3.33GHz. The Quad Core upgrade has been well documented too...you can do i7 975, W3580, or X5580 for roughly the same effect, different price levels for the processors. The 12-core upgrade simply won't work on any Mac Pro, as of now. Again, since my post, it's been well documented on other posts and I got the answer to my question. Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Roman23 said:
Dual w3580 will not work in the dual because the processor is a single-qpi based chip.
Click to expand...


I thought I read somewhere on eBay that someone was selling a Mac Pro with the dual W3580 chips, but then I read elsewhere that they are single QPI and will not support dual processor configs. I think only the X5580 would work in that regard (or other 5500 series)
 
WardC said:
I thought I read somewhere on eBay that someone was selling a Mac Pro with the dual W3580 chips, but then I read elsewhere that they are single QPI and will not support dual processor configs. I think only the X5580 would work in that regard (or other 5500 series)
Click to expand...

That's correct. The seller must have been misinformed or just made a typo as those chips are the same except for the QPI.

3xxx = single CPU systems
5xxx = dual CPU systems
7xxx = quad CPU systems

(Applies to at least Nehalems and Cores)
 
Roman23 said:
Where would I find this word in the system profiler? I don't see anything with the word locked?
Click to expand...

You won't find it in system profiler. The "LOCKED" preface is added to the update file name. Download the last update from apple and use pacifist to look at the contents... you're looking for the .fd file.
 
Also want to add this harpertown processor

There is a 3.4 ghz processor for 3,1 mac pros.. but from what I have been told the x5492 will not work as a replacement for the 3.2ghz, but then again going from 3.2 to 3.4 yields not much at all in performance - in the PC world that is.


hyram said:
The real issue of whether or not a certain processor is supported in Apple’s EFI (or any BIOS for that matter) is in the initialization of the processor NOT whether or not the EFI supports the microcode. This usually entails setting up a slew of MSR’s which are unique to the various processors that the motherboard will support. Without going thru this initialization code in detail it is easier to assume that if the engineers went to the trouble to include the microcode then the processor should be supported. So the microcode being present in the firmware is just a good indication that it might work.

A good example of a processor not working when you think it might is from a forum user named Spacedust who found that a MP3,1 would work with an E5450 processor with a stepping of SLANQ, but the same processor with a stepping of SLBBM would not work. The MP3,1 firmware has the microcode for the SLANQ (CPUID 10676) but does not for the SLBBM (CPUID 1067A). Waltzing thru the initialization code you find that the CPUID 1067A will hang when trying to access a couple of the MSR’s that work for the 10676 processors… a few of which are un-documnented, thank you Mr. Intel.

The most obvious example of a processor working in a Mac Pro which does not support the microcode is the many folks here that have had success upgrading their MP1,1’s to X5355/65 processors; neither of which are supported by the microcode available in the firmware.

As to the hex-cores working in MP4,1’s? Highly unlikely as (I’ve mentioned before) the microcode is not there…. Not a guarantee, but a good indication.

Another point of interest… at least to me… is that when a new model is released it usually ships with an EFI version file name something like “MP31_006C_02B.fd”, but after a while an update is released where the file named is changed to “LOCKED_ MP31_006C_05B.fd”. I’ve noticed this on all the MacPro models as well as Mini’s and servers, I haven’t looked at the iMacs. Once the “LOCKED” prefix appears there have been no more updates to the firmware for that model. The MP4,1 firmware has already received the “LOCKED” file name, so I wouldn’t expect any updates.
Click to expand...
 
So do you really think the upgrade from the 2.93GHz W3540 to the 3.33GHz W3580 would be that noticeable? I know you've seen my other post(s)...Roman23, but since I plan on running my system with an SSD for boot and running my files off a RAID 0 for my other disk, everything should be pretty snappy anyways. The geekbench improvement is about 1000 points, or about 8-9% improvement (from 10,400 to 11,400) or so. I don't know if I would notice much if anything unless I was exporting a movie, compressing a video file, or running handbrake...or doing something that REALLY stressed the processor. I mean for web surfing, opening apps, etc would I really notice that much, if anything? The difference seems so slim I really can't see throwing $600 at it right now for a less than 10% improvement in overall speed.
 
WardC said:
So do you really think the upgrade from the 2.93GHz W3540 to the 3.33GHz W3580 would be that noticeable? I know you've seen my other post(s)...Roman23, but since I plan on running my system with an SSD for boot and running my files off a RAID 0 for my other disk, everything should be pretty snappy anyways. The geekbench improvement is about 1000 points, or about 8-9% improvement (from 10,400 to 11,400) or so. I don't know if I would notice much if anything unless I was exporting a movie, compressing a video file, or running handbrake...or doing something that REALLY stressed the processor. I mean for web surfing, opening apps, etc would I really notice that much, if anything? The difference seems so slim I really can't see throwing $600 at it right now for a less than 10% improvement in overall speed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you won't really benefit off it. Save it to the future and you may be able to add Westmere to your Mac Pro
 
Hellhammer said:
Sounds like you won't really benefit off it. Save it to the future and you may be able to add Westmere to your Mac Pro
Click to expand...

I think this will be my best option. Again, I don't have my new Mac Pro in my hands so I can't get any real feel for the speed. I will have to make that decision once I fire it up and test it out a bit. But the speed boost going from Nehalem to Westmere is HUGE, I've seen single 6-core Westmere X5680 chip units score upwards of 17,800 on Geekbench and handle overclocking of over 4.3GHz. Pretty damn fast. Dual X5680 systems are scoring the highest ever of any dual-processor workstation on earth, with scores over 28,000! damn!
 
sorry..

My eyes are burning due to a bad sunburn yesterday.. I didn't see it was a 2.93 - you are right.. going from 2.93 to 3.33 is very negligible at best.. though at turbo boost the 2.93 goes as high as 3.2 and the 3.33 goes to 3.6, so yes.. not worth it.. but if one has 2.66, then it is worth it.


WardC said:
So do you really think the upgrade from the 2.93GHz W3540 to the 3.33GHz W3580 would be that noticeable? I know you've seen my other post(s)...Roman23, but since I plan on running my system with an SSD for boot and running my files off a RAID 0 for my other disk, everything should be pretty snappy anyways. The geekbench improvement is about 1000 points, or about 8-9% improvement (from 10,400 to 11,400) or so. I don't know if I would notice much if anything unless I was exporting a movie, compressing a video file, or running handbrake...or doing something that REALLY stressed the processor. I mean for web surfing, opening apps, etc would I really notice that much, if anything? The difference seems so slim I really can't see throwing $600 at it right now for a less than 10% improvement in overall speed.
Click to expand...
 
Where are you getting this from?

"you may be able to add Westmere to your Mac Pro"

DO you know something we all don't? I thought the B1 stepping won't work in a 2009 mac pro, unless you just got one and tested it and are about to tell us that it will work?


Hellhammer said:
Sounds like you won't really benefit off it. Save it to the future and you may be able to add Westmere to your Mac Pro
Click to expand...
 
Roman23 said:
"you may be able to add Westmere to your Mac Pro"

DO you know something we all don't? I thought the B1 stepping won't work in a 2009 mac pro, unless you just got one and tested it and are about to tell us that it will work?
Click to expand...

The processor fits perfectly in the socket (LGA 1366) but when installing the chip in the 2009 Mac Pro, upon pressing the power button, the Mac Pro refuses to POST. This is due to either different stepping (B1 vs D0) or the microcode not being present to allow for the 6-core Westmere chip to be used on the motherboard. It is still undetermined if an EFI flash-based upgrade would allow for using Westmere in a 2009 Mac Pro, or if this will never be possible.
 
Oh, so you did put on in?

Yeah, too bad it didn't post.. sounds like it needs that microcode to make it work.. It maybe the combination of B1 and microcode.. Did you try an SMC reset to see if it would work or not?

I am sure when the microcode comes out, someone on here will develop a efi bios flash utility.


WardC said:
The processor fits perfectly in the socket (LGA 1366) but when installing the chip in the 2009 Mac Pro, upon pressing the power button, the Mac Pro refuses to POST. This is due to either different stepping (B1 vs D0) or the microcode not being present to allow for the 6-core Westmere chip to be used on the motherboard. It is still undetermined if an EFI flash-based upgrade would allow for using Westmere in a 2009 Mac Pro, or if this will never be possible.
Click to expand...
 
Roman23 said:
Yeah, too bad it didn't post.. sounds like it needs that microcode to make it work.. It maybe the combination of B1 and microcode.. Did you try an SMC reset to see if it would work or not?

I am sure when the microcode comes out, someone on here will develop a efi bios flash utility.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who tried it, I am reporting from 3rd party sources and other posts on here (macrumors forums) of people saying it won't POST. Apparently SOMEBODY has tried it...and it didn't work.
 
Again, even if you can flash the bios of the MacPro4,1 to a MacPro5,1, we still don't know if the Westmere upgrade would even work.
 
WardC said:
Again, even if you can flash the bios of the MacPro4,1 to a MacPro5,1, we still don't know if the Westmere upgrade would even work.
Click to expand...
Current boards only need a microcode update to get the newer parts to function. That's all that's technically required (no change in components on the board).

It's possible that something could be changed (i.e. features added with 3rd party semiconductors), but it doesn't match up with Apple's history on the Intel MP's (similar to the '06 to '07 systems; board remained the same, but a new chip was offered, the first Quad core, which in a DP configuration, made the first Octad MP).
 
Don't even know if it would run..

We will have to wait and see for the 1.9 version to come out.. I would imagine it wouldn't work though as the firmware is searching for some chip telling it that it should only install on a 2010 and not 2009..

I might be wrong though.


Giuly said:
I guess he rather meant this as a way to replace the MacPro4,1's EFI with a more-or-less modified one from the 1.9 CD of the yet unreleased MacPro5,1 to run Six-Core processors.
Click to expand...
 
New possibility..

So, Nano.. if there were a firmware cd restoration 1.9 for the 2010... could it work? Any possibility to then flash the 1.9 firmware to the 1.8?


nanofrog said:
Current boards only need a microcode update to get the newer parts to function. That's all that's technically required (no change in components on the board).

It's possible that something could be changed (i.e. features added with 3rd party semiconductors), but it doesn't match up with Apple's history on the Intel MP's (similar to the '06 to '07 systems; board remained the same, but a new chip was offered, the first Quad core, which in a DP configuration, made the first Octad MP).
Click to expand...
 
Roman23 said:
So, Nano.. if there were a firmware cd restoration 1.9 for the 2010... could it work? Any possibility to then flash the 1.9 firmware to the 1.8?
Click to expand...
It force flashes the the system with the original ROM (in case of a failure during a flash that was part of an Update). You may be able to hack it to force a different ROM, but you'd have to figure it out (i.e. change the system identifier in the intended ROM), and test.

If you've the skills or willing to learn via trial and error, you could give it a go and see what happens. ;)
 
Ok, how would I do this?

Assuming what you say is correct.. the 2010 would offer no other additions to the logic board.. in fact it would look exactly like the 2009... So, how would I trick the computer into installing this firmware update? In case something were to go wrong, I got a cheap 2006 macbook in which I can easily use the restoration cd for the 2009 and re-flash the firmware back.. but I have a feeling that the 1.9 if it were to come out would work.

And all it would do is just provide the additions to recognize and run B1 stepping processors?


nanofrog said:
It force flashes the the system with the original ROM (in case of a failure during a flash that was part of an Update). You may be able to hack it to force a different ROM, but you'd have to figure it out (i.e. change the system identifier in the intended ROM), and test.

If you've the skills or willing to learn via trial and error, you could give it a go and see what happens. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Roman23 said:
"you may be able to add Westmere to your Mac Pro"

DO you know something we all don't? I thought the B1 stepping won't work in a 2009 mac pro, unless you just got one and tested it and are about to tell us that it will work?
Click to expand...

I said MAY... You haven't been talking about anything else but flashing the EFI lately so IF someone does that and releases the method, it may be possible
 
Roman23 said:
Assuming what you say is correct.. the 2010 would offer no other additions to the logic board.. in fact it would look exactly like the 2009... So, how would I trick the computer into installing this firmware update? In case something were to go wrong, I got a cheap 2006 macbook in which I can easily use the restoration cd for the 2009 and re-flash the firmware back.. but I have a feeling that the 1.9 if it were to come out would work.

And all it would do is just provide the additions to recognize and run B1 stepping processors?
Click to expand...
You'd have to figure out how to change either the System ID or mod the ROM file to make it think it's meant to load into your existing system ( System ID, which is more than just Mac Pro 4,1 I should think, as there's an SP and DP model).
 
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