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

[DonMega]

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)

Thanks for the reply. I just did another CPU swap for a friend and I was a little concerned about the temps I was seeing. We got a w3690 off of eBay and after successful install are seeing 100° F tdiode temp. When I did my w3680 my temp was ~87° F, but I couldn't remember if it was tdiode or not.

So, another question; Is 100° F well within spec? Thanks again.

 

[omvs]

100deg F is okay - at idle, its going to depend a lot upon the ambient temperature (I'm idling around 100deg F with the fans at minimum 800rpm). I'm not sure where they start throttling, but most chips are rated up to ~100deg C / 212deg F on the die, though you generally want the heatsink less (80deg C?)

My 3690 is hitting 67deg C / 150deg F when prime95 is in torture mode. Fans are going full bore at 4krpm at that point. Thats making me wonder if i was too stingy on the thermal paste, since I didn't remember being able to get the fans going that hard before.

 

[flowrider]

So, another question; Is 100° F well within spec? Thanks again.

The W3690 has a Max operating temperature of 67.9º C (154.2ºF) - So Yes, you are within spec.

http://ark.intel.com/products/52586/Intel-Xeon-Processor-W3690-12M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/Intel-Xeon-W3690

Lou

 

[DonMega]

Thanks for all the replies. It is settling in nicely this evening at 96° F.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Why are people choosing the W36xx series over the X56xx series?

Comparing the two, seems like the X56xx is a better chip. Lower power, higher max temp., more addressable RAM (W3690 only addressed 24GB?) and you can pick up a X5670 for $150 on ebay. Pay a little more to get the X5680 or 90 but for me, an X5670 is hella better than the stock 2.4 that came in my 4,1 and doesn't cost an arm and a leg! Not to mention, if I ever get crazy and want to go dual, my X5670 will be right at home with it's companion.

FWIW, I used Noctua NT-H1 paste on my CPU and my Tdiode hovers around 100F doing normal stuff, with ambient at 83F (these warm summer days!).

I'm running all four slots RAM, each with 8GB DDR3-1333 ECC Registered, and not a hiccup yet. I'm not so much into chasing benchmarks but I might download GB and test with 3 and 4 sticks to really see the difference.

Got my dual Apricorn Velocity Solo X2 cards running great with Intel 520's.

How can I tell the exact model of the ATI/AMD card I have? I pulled it out of a Dell PC, and there isn't a sticker on it. The OS just says it's a "AMD Radeon HD 6xxx".

This Mac Pro went from (almost) the e-waste pile to a pretty decent machine!

 

[DonMega]

Why are people choosing the W36xx series over the X56xx series?

Comparing the two, seems like the X56xx is a better chip. Lower power, higher max temp., more addressable RAM (W3690 only addressed 24GB?) and you can pick up a X5670 for $150 on ebay. Pay a little more to get the X5680 or 90 but for me, an X5670 is hella better than the stock 2.4 that came in my 4,1 and doesn't cost an arm and a leg! Not to mention, if I ever get crazy and want to go dual, my X5670 will be right at home with it's companion.

I did a little research before my friend decided on the w3690 and the biggest reason for him was that we got one for $200. The x5690s were no where near that reasonable. He wanted a kick in the pants for his quad core Mac without spending a lot of money. Also, the machine is stocked with 48GB of RAM (3x 16GB sticks) and it sees all 48GB RAM no problem.

 

[h9826790]

I did a little research before my friend decided on the w3690 and the biggest reason for him was that we got one for $200. The x5690s were no where near that reasonable. He wanted a kick in the pants for his quad core Mac without spending a lot of money. Also, the machine is stocked with 48GB of RAM (3x 16GB sticks) and it sees all 48GB RAM no problem.

Exactly, the W3690 was way more cheaper than the X5690. May be the price of X56xx drops a lot now, but few months ago, a W3690 still cost less than half of a X5690.

For the RAM issue, unless someone really need 64G RAM on a single CPU machine, otherwise 48G RAM in triple channel is the best config for performance regardless which CPU you use.

About TDP, I can make the thermal throttling occur because I intended to stress the machine (GreekBench + Furmark) under the worst case scenario (hot summer in Aisa + air con off + all windows doors close). Also, I leave the fan at low RPM to avoid any noise. Even though under this condition, the thermal throttling only occur few seconds occasionally. Under normal circumstances, there is no way the machine will operate near that condition. Therefore, the W3690's performance will be identical to a X5690.

Of course, it the X5690 cost more or less the same as the W3690, I will pick the X5690 as well. However, it's not there yet, a X5680 may be at the same price range as the W3690 now, but the X5690 still relatively expensive. If compare a X5680 to a W3690, clearly the W3690 can perform a little bit better, than why I don't get the better performance one? TDP is not that critical, and can easily be fixed by some fan control software.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I did a little research before my friend decided on the w3690 and the biggest reason for him was that we got one for $200. The x5690s were no where near that reasonable. He wanted a kick in the pants for his quad core Mac without spending a lot of money. Also, the machine is stocked with 48GB of RAM (3x 16GB sticks) and it sees all 48GB RAM no problem.

Checking ebay for current pricing, it seems the W3690 still is about $350, nowhere near the $200 "deal" you got, but like you said, the X5690 is still close to $500, making the W3690 a better deal.

My point was, for those on a budget, a X5670 is truly a sweet spot ($150) for a 2.93Ghz hex core. The ability to use the chip in a dual CPU config in the future is also a bonus. Twice the price for a W3690 for only 500Mhz more max speed doesn't seem, to me, to be a good deal. It may be the cheapest way to get the max speed, but that doesn't make it a good deal.

I do agree, if wanting max speed, the W3690 is a bit cheaper. Even though the specs are almost the same, cpuboss.com shows the Geekbench scores of the X5690 much better than the W3690. Odd.

Everywhere I look, the W3690 shows 24GB Max RAM. Although the system "sees" it, I wonder if it actually uses it?

 

[DonMega]

Checking ebay for current pricing, it seems the W3690 still is about $350, nowhere near the $200 "deal" you got, but like you said, the X5690 is still close to $500, making the W3690 a better deal.

My point was, for those on a budget, a X5670 is truly a sweet spot ($150) for a 2.93Ghz hex core. The ability to use the chip in a dual CPU config in the future is also a bonus. Twice the price for a W3690 for only 500Mhz more max speed doesn't seem, to me, to be a good deal. It may be the cheapest way to get the max speed, but that doesn't make it a good deal.

I do agree, if wanting max speed, the W3690 is a bit cheaper. Even though the specs are almost the same, cpuboss.com shows the Geekbench scores of the X5690 much better than the W3690. Odd.

Everywhere I look, the W3690 shows 24GB Max RAM. Although the system "sees" it, I wonder if it actually uses it?

Point well taken. And as to the RAM, I'll do a bit of testing and report back. My w3680 machine is using all 32GB of RAM (4x 8GB), and that makes me wonder why 48GB wouldn't be fully utilized? Also, OWC and others are selling 48GB sets of RAM for 2010-2012 machines...

 

[rhett7660]

Just for clarification, if I have a 2010 PM with 32gigs of ram, which chip would I need to buy?

Currently running a 2.8 quad-core Intel Xeon with 32gigs 1066mhz DDR3.

Just want to make sure I get the correct one that will work with the amount of ram I have in it.

TIA...

 

[h9826790]

Both W3690 and X5690 works with 32G RAM in a Mac Pro 5,1.

 

[rhett7660]

Both W3690 and X5690 works with 32G RAM in a Mac Pro 5,1.

Thank you very much!!! Greatly appreciated.

 

[evildream]

wich cpu in 4.1 changed in a 5.1

hi
can anyone suggest me a good cpu but not so expenssive like the W3690?
my budget is aroud 150 dollars
thx

 

[omvs]

hi
can anyone suggest me a good cpu but not so expenssive like the W3690?
my budget is aroud 150 dollars
thx

What type of applications are you running? Its not clear if it would be better to recommend a slow 6 core or a faster 4 core....

And for that matter, I assume you have a single-socket system?

 

[evildream]

i'm a graphic designer and i'm looking to work with after effect and fcx.
your right i have a 2,66 quand core nehalem
thx

 

[omvs]

For that price range, i think you're looking at a x5670 (6 core, 2.93Ghz)or a w3580 (4core, 3.3Ghz)

I'm not totally sure, but it looks like those two apps use many cores, so I'd probably go for the 6 core.

The x5670 also gets you higher max memory if you need it, though 16GB dimms aren't cheap.

EDIT: I accidentally confused the x5670 with the x5675, which is ~5% faster. (updated frequencies above). I'd still say the x5670 unless you need single-thread performance.

 

[evildream]

thank you very much.
i will search for this cpu in ebay like i'm living in belgium. it'a the best way
again thx

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

hi
can anyone suggest me a good cpu but not so expenssive like the W3690?
my budget is aroud 150 dollars
thx

Just 4 posts prior, I mentioned the X5670 for $150 being the sweet spot. There are lots on ebay for around that price.

 

[evildream]

For that price range, i think you're looking at a x5670 (6 core, 2.93Ghz)or a w3580 (4core, 3.3Ghz)

I'm not totally sure, but it looks like those two apps use many cores, so I'd probably go for the 6 core.

The x5670 also gets you higher max memory if you need it, though 16GB dimms aren't cheap.

EDIT: I accidentally confused the x5670 with the x5675, which is ~5% faster. (updated frequencies above). I'd still say the x5670 unless you need single-thread performance.

will a X5650 work in my single cpu 2009/ 5.1 firmware?
because i see in geekbench that iy's a good score with this cpu
what do you think?
thx

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

will a X5650 work in my single cpu 2009/ 5.1 firmware?
because i see in geekbench that iy's a good score with this cpu
what do you think?
thx

Like any of the X56xx series, it will work, but this chip is the same clock speed you already have, so you're really just buying a couple more cores. Most apps you won't see a difference unless the program is heavily threaded.

A X5650 is about $75, a X5670 is about $150 and you get a 10% bump in speed. You're choice, depending on your wallet.

 

[Phildo]

I have been wanting to do this upgrade for quite some time but have been procrastinating. Turns out that I should have done this ages ago - this was a very, very, very simple job.

I bought:

Item: 2 x 3.06GHz X5675 processors
Where from: eBay

Item: ArctiClean 60ml Kit (includes 30ml ArctiClean 1 and 30ml ArctiClean 2) and 3.5grams Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
Where from: http://www.amazon.com/ArctiClean-3-...ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1412014849&sr=1-2

Item: Eklind 3mm X 9"long Hex Key T-handle
Where from: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000X285AW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Item: Packet of cotton sticks.
Where from: Any supermarket or pharmacy.

I wanted to make sure that I kept side A stuff separate from side B, hence the Post-it notes. I ended up not needing that.

I also printed out the relevant pages from the Mac Pro Apple Technician Guide. Also didn’t need that.

I also had this video clip loaded on my Apple TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng34AVZS8Aw

There are other YouTube clips that you can watch - just do a search for Mac Pro upgrade on YouTube.

I started by removing the processor tray from the Mac Pro.

I used the 3mm allen key to undo the four bolts that hold the heat sink to the logic board.

Once the bolts are undone then the heat sinks lift off easily enough. You can see the thermal paste on each of the heat sinks and processors.

A close-up photo of the bottom of a heat sink. You can see some dust that I had to remove. Each of the four bolts has a spring. You’ll need to apply someone downward pressure on each bolt later on when it’s time to put the heat sinks back on.

Apple used a lot of thermal paste originally, resulting in the excess being pushed over the outer ridge of the processors.

I wanted to make sure that the cotton stick was soaked with plenty of cleaning liquid so I removed the nozzle from the top of the bottle and dipped the cotton stick in.

The old thermal paste quickly turned to liquid.

I cleaned the old thermal paste off the top of each heat sink. I wasn’t prepared for the amount of liquid goo that there was, so used a microfibre cloth to wipe all of the thermal paste off the contact surface.

The old thermal paste quickly dissolved into goo once the damp cotton stick was rubbed around. Then it was a matter of having something to wipe the goo off with, which is where the microfibre cloth came in handy. Some cotton wipes would have also done the job.

The two X5675 3.06 six-core processors that I bought on eBay.

To remove the old processors, release the lever.

The door that holds the processor in place will then lift up.

The old processor then simply lifts out. Very simple.

I put the new processors in place and then pushed each lever back into place. This pushes the door down that holds the processors firmly against the logic board.

It’s impossible to put the processors in the wrong way.

Once both processors were in place it was time to apply new thermal paste.

I didn’t want to put too much paste on and then have grief with removing the excess paste, so started with a very small amount.

I quickly found that more thermal paste was needed, so used the syringe to apply it in different places before using a cotton stick to spread it out.

This stuff was quite thick, and cotton from the cotton stick was easily coming loose.

Once I had spread the new thermal paste and made sure there were no cotton strands in it, I used the syringe to put a small ridge around the outside of the processors. This was so that it would flatten out when I put the heat sinks back on.

With the second processor, I used the paste syringe to apply the paste in a spiral pattern, which was then easier to spread out with a cotton stick.

I made another outer ridge with the syringe on the second processor.

Then it was time to put the heat sinks back on.

I made sure that the connection lined up on each heat sink.

Previous photos have pointed out the spring on each bolt. When doing these bolts back up, you need to push down on the allen key to get the ends of the bolt to reach the logic board.

With tightening the bolts, I found that I had to make sure that each of the four had reached the logic board before tightening any of them up. Tightening up just one bolt first pulled the heat sink onto an angle that made it difficult to get the other bolts to reach the threaded holes on the logic board.

Within minutes the heat sinks were back on and the processor tray was ready to go back into the Mac Pro.

The seconds felt like hours, but finally the startup chime happened and the Mac started up. Success!

I’m now kicking myself for not doing this a long time ago. I spent around half an hour on this, being overly cautious and taking photos. Realistically, this could be done in minutes.

The Get Info box before the upgrade:

The Get Info box after the upgrade:

The Hardware Overview before the upgrade:

The Hardware Overview after the upgrade:

Geekbench score before the upgrade:

Geekbench score after the upgrade:

The Mac feels a heap sharper. As mentioned, I should have done this a long time ago instead of putting it off.

I had originally wanted to get a pair of X5680 3.33GHz six-core processors but ended up buying the 3.06GHz processors for about one third the cost of what X5680s were going for at the time.

Conclusion: if you have a 2009 or 2010 Mac Pro then do this! If you have an earlier Mac Pro then sell it, get a 2009 or 2010 and do this. It was very simple to do and has made a massive difference to the speed of my Mac Pro.

 

[flowrider]

I wanted to make sure that the cotton stick was soaked with plenty of cleaning liquid so I removed the nozzle from the top of the bottle and dipped the cotton stick in.

I didn’t want to put too much paste on and then have grief with removing the excess paste, so started with a very small amount.

I quickly found that more thermal paste was needed, so used the syringe to apply it in different places before using a cotton stick to spread it out.

Once I had spread the new thermal paste and made sure there were no cotton strands in it, I used the syringe to put a small ridge around the outside of the processors. This was so that it would flatten out when I put the heat sinks back on.

With the second processor, I used the paste syringe to apply the paste in a spiral pattern, which was then easier to spread out with a cotton stick.

Conclusion: if you have a 2009 or 2010 Mac Pro then do this! If you have an earlier Mac Pro then sell it, get a 2009 or 2010 and do this. It was very simple to do and has made a massive difference to the speed of my Mac Pro.

Very well written! Good Job! However, I take exception with a couple of steps and comments in your procedure.

1. Regular Isopropyl Alcohol works just fine to clean the old thermal paste.

2. You really don't want to use cotton swabs to clean off the old or spread the new thermal paste. It will leave residue.

3. For cleaning I used a brand new cotton handkerchief, It's easier to control than a swab and will leave no residue. The handkerchief, of course, will give it's life for this process.

4. To spread the the new thermal paste use a piece of plastic, like the edge of a credit card. Just put a dab in the middle of the processor and spread it with the card. As you state it's better to use too little than too much, you can always add more if you need it. Just make sure there are no voids and don't let the paste drip over to the sides.

5. The process on a dual CPU 4,1 Mac Pro is MUCH MUCH Harder than a 5,1 due to the lidless CPU design used on the 4,1 (2009) model. There are tutorials in this forum on the procedure necessary for the 4,1 Mac Pro

Otherwise you were right on.

Lou

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I'm curious about the before and after Geekbench scores...
The before shows a "Mid 2010" Mac Pro and the Window title says "2.4 Dual 64-bit" but the after shot (the next day) shows "Mid 2012" Mac Pro and the window title says just "3.06 64 bit".

Why did the model of the Mac Pro change from 2010 to 2012, and why did Geekbench not show the latter windows as "3.06 Dual 64-bit"?

 

[flowrider]

^^^^Because Geekbench recognizes the 5,1 Mac Pro by it's processor. The X5675 CPU was optional equipment in the 2012 5,1 Mac Pro, not the 2010. Both 2010 and 2012 5,1 Mac Pros are identical except for the processor(s) supplied by Apple.

In my case, my 5,1 has X5677 CPUs. These are quad 3.46MHz processors. Since Apple never supplied these as standard or optional equipment, Geekbench doesn't recognize my Mac Pro with a year, but only as a 5,1.

Lou

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

^^^^Because Geekbench recognizes the 5,1 Mac Pro by it's processor. The X5675 CPU was optional equipment in the 2012 5,1 Mac Pro, not the 2010. Both 2010 and 2012 5,1 Mac Pros are identical except for the processor(s) supplied by Apple.

In my case, my 5,1 has X5677 CPUs. These are quad 3.46MHz processors. Since Apple never supplied these as standard or optional equipment, Geekbench doesn't recognize my Mac Pro with a year, but only as a 5,1.

Lou

Thanks for the explanation.