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

early 2009 Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz, what to do?

From A Buick 8

From A Buick 8

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 16, 2010
3,114
127
Ky Close to CinCinnati
Hello, I have recently received an early 2009 mac pro 2.66 GHz. I am wondering if this would be a good replacement for the late 2010 3.2 GHz i3 iMac.

I know expansion wise the mac pro wins hands down, but in other respects the iMac seems to win (on paper anyway).
 
If you're currently using that i3 iMac, I think you will find the 2009 Mac Pro a rather significant boost in speed and performance, even without upgrades. Of course, you can shove significantly more into the tower than you can in the iMac, and when its specs stop being enough for your needs, you have plenty of headroom to upgrade further. Just grab yourself a nice monitor so that you get the feel of that "excellent iMac display."
 
NOTNlCE said:
If you're currently using that i3 iMac, I think you will find the 2009 Mac Pro a rather significant boost in speed and performance, even without upgrades. Of course, you can shove significantly more into the tower than you can in the iMac, and when its specs stop being enough for your needs, you have plenty of headroom to upgrade further. Just grab yourself a nice monitor so that you get the feel of that "excellent iMac display."
Click to expand...
Thank you for the response, yes the iMac is our current daily driver. My wives work had several Macs that they gave away to the employees and we ended up with the mac pro.

I felt the mac pro was a better machine then our iMac but I was not sure. Good point about the monitor, any suggestions of a good one that looks good but won't break the bank.
 
From A Buick 8 said:
Hello, I have recently received an early 2009 mac pro 2.66 GHz. I am wondering if this would be a good replacement for the late 2010 3.2 GHz i3 iMac.

I know expansion wise the mac pro wins hands down, but in other respects the iMac seems to win (on paper anyway).
Click to expand...
Single or Dual processor, a CPU upgrade wil make it rock. Single upgrade is stupid simple.. Dual, not so much. Either is very cost-effective, using used server CPU(s) from Ebay.
 
If anything an SSD will make that Mac Pro scream. An investment in a PCIeSSD would be a pretty good idea if you wanted some extreme speed boosts.

If it's the single processor 2.66 (quad) than upgrading the CPU would be a very straight forward process. If it's the eight core dual processor it will need a bit more work as it would require de-lidding the processors. Either way, a great computer that should do circles around that old i3.
 
DPUser said:
Single or Dual processor, a CPU upgrade wil make it rock. Single upgrade is stupid simple.. Dual, not so much. Either is very cost-effective, using used server CPU(s) from Ebay.
Click to expand...

rawweb said:
If anything an SSD will make that Mac Pro scream. An investment in a PCIeSSD would be a pretty good idea if you wanted some extreme speed boosts.

If it's the single processor 2.66 (quad) than upgrading the CPU would be a very straight forward process. If it's the eight core dual processor it will need a bit more work as it would require de-lidding the processors. Either way, a great computer that should do circles around that old i3.
Click to expand...

Based on what I can tell it is the quad core 2.66, anything specific I should look for on ebay for the CPU upgrade. I looked on OWC and did not see a CPU up grade as an option.

The SSD is an idea, will have to look at the prices on those.
 
From A Buick 8 said:
Based on what I can tell it is the quad core 2.66, anything specific I should look for on ebay for the CPU upgrade. I looked on OWC and did not see a CPU up grade as an option.

The SSD is an idea, will have to look at the prices on those.
Click to expand...

Just going through the process myself, same machine, same approach.
I ended up buying a 6core processor on ebay. Try and search for Intel XEON W3690. I will post my experience once I finish swapping the processor.
 
You'll want to consider one of the following processors:

W3680 or X5680 (6 cores, 3.33 GHz, both models will function identically in your machine)
W3690 or X5690 (6 cores, 3.46 GHz, both models will function identically in your machine)
X5677 (4 cores, 3.46 GHz)
X5670 (6 cores, 2.93 GHz)
W3670 (6 cores, 3.20 GHz)

All except for the W3670 will also allow you to run RAM at 1333 MHz.

I'd recommend the W3680/X5680. The W3690/X5690 is the best you can buy but the slightly increased performance comes at a disproportionate cost IMO (with the caveat that I haven't checked prices very recently).
 
I am pretty sure your 2010 iMac supports target display mode, so you could just use that as a monitor for the MacPro, rather than buying a new one.

Just sayin'...
 
scott.n said:
W3680 or X5680 (6 cores, 3.33 GHz, both models will function identically in your machine)
W3690 or X5690 (6 cores, 3.46 GHz, both models will function identically in your machine)
Click to expand...

The X56xx will also support more RAM (up to 64G in the single CPU model, which the W36xx cannot)
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott.n
Yes, Xeon W3690 supports up to 56 GByte RAM, X5690 up to 64 GByte. Otherwise there is no other difference between W3690 and X5690. I'm running 48 GByte (3 * 16 GByte) because of the triple channel controller. You can get a W3690 for $200.
 
If you don't already have an SSD, I would suggest upgrading that first before the CPU. To maximize performance, there is a way using the terminal to have the OS and home folder on the SSD, but link your media files like music, pics and videos on a rotational drive. The idea here is that the SSD will have your user library folder on it which the OS will be accessing frequently. Otherwise, if you just load the OS on the SSD and copy your whole user home folder to the rotational drive, the OS will be accessing the cached files in your user library folder from that slower drive. Another bonus is that if you ever need to reinstall the OS, you won't have to copy all your media files from a back-up disk because they're separate.
 
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