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

MP 1,1-5,1 Hex 3.2 update from 2010 quad 2.8 photos new! CPU to use!

Korican100 said:
you upgraded the cpu in your 4,1 to the w3580 without upgrading the 5,1 firmware? Forgive me if I am incorrect, but if you flash the firmware to 5,1 you'd probably be getting faster speeds? right
Click to expand...

From what I understand, I'll only get faster speeds if my ram is actually 1333MHz. It's not. And even if it were, it's marginal and just about negligible gains (just like using triple channel instead of double channel on my Mac Pro). If, on the other hand, the firmware update increases performance in other ways, I'm all ears.

flowrider said:
May I ask why you are using such an old version of Geekbench?
Click to expand...

When I tried the update tool in geekbench, it gave no results. I just tried using the newer version, but it requires purchase for 64 bit version. Don't really care enough about geekbench to spend money on it.

In any case, the point is in using the same version for both CPUs...

Loa
 
Loa said:
From what I understand, I'll only get faster speeds if my ram is actually 1333MHz. It's not. And even if it were, it's marginal and just about negligible gains (just like using triple channel instead of double channel on my Mac Pro). If, on the other hand, the firmware update increases performance in other ways, I'm all ears.

Loa
Click to expand...

flowrider said:
It may be marginally faster with the 5,1 firmware. The 4,1 firmware will run the installed RAM at 1066 MHz. The W3580 used will run the installed RAM at 1333 MHz if allowed by the computer. The 5,1 firmware will recognize this and if the installed RAM is recognized as 1333 MHz RAM, it will run at the faster speed.

Lou
Click to expand...

As I said - Nope!

Lou
 
so the only reason for the firmware update is to run the ram at 1333 speeds? Which are completely negligible gains?

That doesn't even seem worth it.
 
Korican100 said:
so the only reason for the firmware update is to run the ram at 1333 speeds? Which are completely negligible gains?
Click to expand...

Also 32nm (hex) processor support. If that will ever be a possibility you might want to just upgrade the firmware now -- if you accidentally swap the processors before hand, you'll need to swap back, upgrade, then swap again.
 
Korican100 said:
you upgraded the cpu in your 4,1 to the w3580 without upgrading the 5,1 firmware? Forgive me if I am incorrect, but if you flash the firmware to 5,1 you'd probably be getting faster speeds? right
Click to expand...

The main reason to upgrade to 5,1 firmware is so that you can install a 6-core Westmere CPU.

If you are simply upgrading to a faster quad-core, then there is nothing to gain by flashing the firmware. Everything will still work with the 5,1 firmware, but there will not be any speed gain (other than faster RAM speed if you happen to: a) have 1333 Mhz Ram already installed &
b) if you have a CPU that supports Ram of that speed (W3580 does).

If, on the other hand, the firmware update increases performance in other ways, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that it does.
 
so to install 3.46 hex W3690 in a 2009, I need to make sure its flashed to 5,1. And get ram some at 1333. got it.
 
Korican100 said:
so to install 3.46 hex W3690 in a 2009, I need to make sure its flashed to 5,1. And get ram some at 1333. got it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you must flash to 5,1 firmware BEFORE you install the W3690, otherwise the computer won't boot. But there is no need to get 1333 RAM, the 1066 will work fine with 5,1 firmware. Also, the 5,1 firmware make the 2009 able to have audio output from HDMI or display port. Even though this is not performance related, but it may be a useful feature.
 
h9826790 said:
...Also, the 5,1 firmware make the 2009 able to have audio output from HDMI or display port. Even though this is not performance related, but it may be a useful feature.
Click to expand...

Actually, I had to use the HDMIAudio.kext to get audio even with flashing -- tried both a ATI 7950 and a NVIDIA GTX 680 (both with efi bios) and neither would give hdmi audio without it.

I'm pretty sure the bios flashing worked, since my mac thinks its a MacPro5,1 and the x5675 actually works and gives me 6 cores :)
 
omvs said:
Actually, I had to use the HDMIAudio.kext to get audio even with flashing -- tried both a ATI 7950 and a NVIDIA GTX 680 (both with efi bios) and neither would give hdmi audio without it.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the firmware make your machine able to do that, but you still need that HDMIAudio.kext driver to make it work.

I also have a 7950 Mac Edition, but there is no native driver for the audio part.
 
Yeah, the W3680 from your link would work fine.

I've bought a couple used without problems (x5675, W3580). Its nice if the seller shows a picture of the underside so you can verify the pins all look okay.
 
Hex 3.2 update from 2010 quad 2.8 photos new! CPU to use!

I recently purchased a used W3690, I scored it for just a tiny bit over $300. I didn't know about the X5xxx at the time but I doubt I would have been able to purchase one for nearly the same price. So far so good, I'm running 3x8gb RAM (for tri-channel) and it's plenty for now. I have another 8gb stick on stand by but benchmarks were slower due to no longer running in tri-channel.
 
Last edited:
3.2 GHz Quad-Core 2010 Nehalem

MacVidCards said:
Consider getting an X5xxx as they will allow 64GB of RAM

The W3xxx have issues with 4th RAM slot
Click to expand...

I just picked up a 3.2 GHz Quad-Core 2010 Nehalem. The X5675 would be a swap upgrade for the Quad core, right? And, have you guys seen much improvements in going to six-core like the X5675? Of course, dependent on what the use is... I was just thinking in general.

Thanks,
Greg
 
Since you've already got a 3.2ghz system, you probably won't notice a lot of improvement unless you have something thats seriously multi-threaded. Stuff like video encoding would show dramatic improvement though, but day-to-day tasks probably less noticeable. I had the base processor, so even my single-threaded performance increase was noticeable.

The hex cores are also a newer architecture which might have some benefits - I read somewhere that filevault will use cpu-based acceleration for the encryption on the hex core processors.
 
omvs said:
Since you've already got a 3.2ghz system, you probably won't notice a lot of improvement unless you have something thats seriously multi-threaded. Stuff like video encoding would show dramatic improvement though, but day-to-day tasks probably less noticeable. I had the base processor, so even my single-threaded performance increase was noticeable.

The hex cores are also a newer architecture which might have some benefits - I read somewhere that filevault will use cpu-based acceleration for the encryption on the hex core processors.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that is what I thought. It looks like I can pick up a used one for around $220+. Might be something for later. I need Ram first. :)

--
Greg
 
omvs said:
Since you've already got a 3.2ghz system, you probably won't notice a lot of improvement unless you have something thats seriously multi-threaded. Stuff like video encoding would show dramatic improvement though, but day-to-day tasks probably less noticeable. I had the base processor, so even my single-threaded performance increase was noticeable.

The hex cores are also a newer architecture which might have some benefits - I read somewhere that filevault will use cpu-based acceleration for the encryption on the hex core processors.
Click to expand...

Would you think I would see much of an improvement coming from the 2010 2.8? Looking at the X5675 since I have all my ram bunks full and want to be able to use them all.
 
2010 2.8 quad > 3.33 hex W3680

I've just done this upgrade. Really straightforward. Used W3680 cost me £180 or so from eBay including shipping to UK from USA. I was holding out for an X series, but then realised the cost of 64GB RAM wasn't justified for my workflow so happy to stick at 32GB.

In terms of performance improvement, it doesn't feel any snappier in day to day operations, but then why would it? SSDs make more difference in that respect.

Looking forward to doing some more intensive CPU heavy stuff in Photoshop soon where I expect it to shine. Also encoding video and audio.

Obviously the Geekbench score improves massively.

For the price I think it's worth it as software will always develop to take advantage of the extra cores and it's clocked faster than the 2.8 stock too.

A good upgrade to extend the life of a 2010 MacPro.
 
CPU Temperature Question

Can anyone using iStat Menus tell me what temp you guys are looking at? Is it the 'CPU A Tdiode' or the 'CPU A, Core 0 Relative to ProcHot'. Also, can you tell me what your temps are for those?

Thanks in advance.
 
DonMega said:
Can anyone using iStat Menus tell me what temp you guys are looking at? Is it the 'CPU A Tdiode' or the 'CPU A, Core 0 Relative to ProcHot'. Also, can you tell me what your temps are for those?
Click to expand...

I use the Tdiode - that should be the temperature from the die's thermal diode - that can be hotter than the heatsink temp because there will be somewhat of a thermal differential depending on the efficiency of the cooling.

Theatsink can also be interesting just to see how much hotter the die is than the heatsink - if there's a big delta, could indicate the thermal paste isn't doing a good job (too much or too little)

I'm not sure what the relative one is. My value is 30deg C higher than Tdiode, which seems like a lot -- perhaps its a different part of the die (!?!) or perhaps its not a real temperature, but some other indicator?
 
omvs said:
I'm not sure what the relative one is. My value is 30deg C higher than Tdiode, which seems like a lot -- perhaps its a different part of the die (!?!) or perhaps its not a real temperature, but some other indicator?
Click to expand...

That's how far from "Processor Hot". It's a count down measurement, therefore, the higher the better.

I personally believe that the most important reference temperature is the Tdiode temp. However, interestingly, during the stress teat. If the Heatsink temperature in my Mac Pro reach 67C, thermal throttling will occur, that's right at the T-case max. (Anyway, I believe it's just a coincident)
 
Last edited:
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