How long before 09 Mac Pro Quad core become obsolete?

[deconstruct60]

Graphics cards are trivial to update if that is the only issue.

That doesn't mean the 2009 certification matrix is also mutated. Sure, as long as you mutate the system so that is it not a 2009 Mac Pro anymore. You get new software updates. However, that is indicative that the 2009 Mac Pro is not going to be supported. You would not have change the system to pretend to be something if it was actually in the targeted configurations.

Apple's vintage schedule has way too many inconsistencies to be trusted.

What is inconsistent about the policy is that it really only covers the hardware. In many aspects Apple tries to treat Macs as a holistic system. But not in this case. The policy covers the hardware.

Not n is Mountain Lion kicks a couple of the low end notebook options that were sold into early 2009,

Immaterial because Mountain Lion is software.

The coupling that the vintage policy is pragmatically setting an upper bound on the OS updates. Apple is going to test new OS releases on a set of hardware before release. When that hardware gets "old" they will pull it from the set of hardware that an OS will be tested on for the primary service lifetime of that OS. That still leaves the OS releases that occurred after the hardware introduction and the de-support date. Since, the vintage process takes about 6 years in the normal case that is quite a few OS versions. On the new "OS every 12 months" that's actually a large number. Even on the every 18-24 months it is still more than a 2 for all but odd corner cases.


Setting an upper bound does not set a lower bound. The Macbook laptops (and Mini's and MBA's) that got nuked were in part wiped out by old components. A 'dead end' Intel integrated graphics architecture among other things.

If you look at the Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1, they share the same board. Both are going away even though the 3,1 didn't come out until 2008. We can argue on the basis of rounding, but it's likely that these will be decommissioned together..

The 1,1 and 2,1 are being officially decommissioned together because they were sold together. The somewhat inconsistency here is that Apple didn't completely discontinue the 1,1 when the 2,1 arrived.

If you read their vintage policy, there's a range to it. It's more than 5 years and less than 7, yet some are desupported before the 5 year mark.

You can get spare parts for those boxes even if the newest bleeding edge OS doesn't install. What you are referring to as "desupport" is getting a new, bleeding edge OS. That isn't supporting the system you have. That is creating a new system which has a new service lifecycle. Likewise creating a 2010 model after the 2009 model is not "support". That is creating a new product that composes a new system. To spin that as support in the context of the vintage support service policy is only to muddle the issue.

What is inconsistent here is people flip-flopping between hardware and software and from a systems perspective to a component perspective.

They're very clear on what constitutes vintage, yet less clear on how it is handled.

There is little unclear in [ emphasis added. ]

" ... Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception: ...
....
Obsolete products are those that were discontinued more than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued all hardware service for obsolete products with no exceptions. Service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. .."

If you try to bring a 30" DVI Cinema display to Apple, they won't fix it. They won't give you any spare parts to fix it even if you are a service provider. Likewise with any other hardware on their list, no hardware support service.

It is left to commonsense that there will be no new software products for this stuff either. If hardware support stopped externally, it will have stopped internally too. Those machine should be pulled from critical production workloads; including the QA testing labs. Nor is there anything here to suggest that these constraints set a minimal service lifetime for software service.

The policy has a 5-7 range to allow Apple to extend hardware support as conditions allow at their discretion. If Apple projected a 5% failure rate over a 5 year range and it turns out they only got a 2% rate then they'd have enough spare parts and contingency budget to go another 1-2 years. If they get a failure rate above the projective then will cut it short at 5 year . If the failure rate is approximately on target ... agin they'll end at 5 years rather than put the company at risk of higher than projected costs.

 

[AppleDroid]

I'm so tempted to try this to squeeze another few years out of my 2009 Quad but the horror stories I've read about over-tightening the heatsink crushing a new cpu...

Maybe I'll just pony up some cash for an SSD + 16GB of ram. That I know I can do without possible destruction.

http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,852.0.html
http://www.yourdailymac.net/downloads/

"Mac Pro 2009-2010 Firmware Tool"

It's the 2010/2012 firmware, there is no difference, it remains MacPro5,1

Edit: BTW, read ****** first, understand what you are doing. Going from 2009 to 2010 is nothing but upside (so far as I know), but make really really sure you have a reason for downgrading a 2010/2012 to 2009, 'cuz if your CPU is not supported, you have a problem.

 

[Liquinn]

My powermac G5 isn't obsolete... yet.

 

[BlueWaterVA]

I'm so tempted to try this to squeeze another few years out of my 2009 Quad but the horror stories I've read about over-tightening the heatsink crushing a new cpu...

Maybe I'll just pony up some cash for an SSD + 16GB of ram. That I know I can do without possible destruction.

If your '09 is a quad it has only one processor. The single processor boards have a standard W35XX CPU. If you change CPUs you can't overtighten them. You can even replace them with a X56XX series after you do the '09 - '10 bios upgrade.

That's what I did and my system is awesome!

 

[Lesser Evets]

I don't consider my 2006 obsolete yet. Amazing machine.

Same here.

I did the processor upgrade in January, and it is now 60% faster. Brilliant machine. All my previous "Mac Pro"s were clunkers within 3 years, but this one is still current and speedy. The only problem is that OSX has now dropped it.

I expect up to 3 more years use from this Pro before it really is time to switch up. Even then, it will still probably be OK for many functions.

The neutering of computers and computing due to mobile/i devices has left most stronger computer from circa 2006/7 still current and keen. No fear. The MacPro 1,1 has good life still left.

 

[xav8tor]

If your '09 is a quad it has only one processor. The single processor boards have a standard W35XX CPU. If you change CPUs you can't overtighten them. You can even replace them with a X56XX series after you do the '09 - '10 bios upgrade.

That's what I did and my system is awesome!

Which 56XX did you use? The X5687 is really tempting me with the 3.6 clock speed, which I can effectively use more than cores. In fact, with two of my primary apps, I'd be right at 3.9 turbo all the time! I've done the firmware upgrade. Any install differences on a single socket board with a 56XX v. 36XX?

Update: Spent a good part of today on the phone with Intel, Apple, OWC, and an authorized Apple repair center. All of them swear up and down you can't put a 56XX in a single socket 5.1 36XX mobo. How the heck did you pull it off and is it running full speed?.

 

[thekev]

That doesn't mean the 2009 certification matrix is also mutated. Sure, as long as you mutate the system so that is it not a 2009 Mac Pro anymore. You get new software updates. However, that is indicative that the 2009 Mac Pro is not going to be supported. You would not have change the system to pretend to be something if it was actually in the targeted configurations.

From a software standpoint, I don't expect them to lock out upgrades based on serial. If we're talking about updated firmware, which was an officially supported update, and a gpu on the supported list, you should be able to run any OS that the 5,1 runs.

What is inconsistent about the policy is that it really only covers the hardware. In many aspects Apple tries to treat Macs as a holistic system. But not in this case. The policy covers the hardware.

Then they are lacking a definitive policy on software including security updates? In their own statements, they don't really differentiate much there. The macs that are de-supported by Apple in Mountain Lion were also dropped by a couple developers such as Adobe. It doesn't affect me as my hardware is split between newer and unaffected and ancient + runs older versions of things anyway so as not to choke it.

Immaterial because Mountain Lion is software.

The coupling that the vintage policy is pragmatically setting an upper bound on the OS updates. Apple is going to test new OS releases on a set of hardware before release. When that hardware gets "old" they will pull it from the set of hardware that an OS will be tested on for the primary service lifetime of that OS. That still leaves the OS releases that occurred after the hardware introduction and the de-support date. Since, the vintage process takes about 6 years in the normal case that is quite a few OS versions. On the new "OS every 12 months" that's actually a large number. Even on the every 18-24 months it is still more than a 2 for all but odd corner cases.


Setting an upper bound does not set a lower bound. The Macbook laptops (and Mini's and MBA's) that got nuked were in part wiped out by old components. A 'dead end' Intel integrated graphics architecture among other things.

I also figured that the revised OS cycle would have some effect on things. I'm aware how bad the older integrated graphics sucked. They were at times many years behind discrete graphics. The HD4000 and onward will hopefully alleviate that as a weak point in typical computing.

The 1,1 and 2,1 are being officially decommissioned together because they were sold together. The somewhat inconsistency here is that Apple didn't completely discontinue the 1,1 when the 2,1 arrived.

Well the 2,1 wasn't a true replacement. They weren't just going to leave a system that started upwards of $4k as their sole system. I disagree with that starting the clock on deprecation given that it wasn't a true replacement. It was one aimed at the top of that market.

You can get spare parts for those boxes even if the newest bleeding edge OS doesn't install. What you are referring to as "desupport" is getting a new, bleeding edge OS. That isn't supporting the system you have. That is creating a new system which has a new service lifecycle. Likewise creating a 2010 model after the 2009 model is not "support". That is creating a new product that composes a new system. To spin that as support in the context of the vintage support service policy is only to muddle the issue.

What is inconsistent here is people flip-flopping between hardware and software and from a systems perspective to a component perspective.



There is little unclear in [ emphasis added. ]

" ... Apple has discontinued hardware service for vintage products with the following exception: ...
....
Obsolete products are those that were discontinued more than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued all hardware service for obsolete products with no exceptions. Service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. .."

If you try to bring a 30" DVI Cinema display to Apple, they won't fix it. They won't give you any spare parts to fix it even if you are a service provider. Likewise with any other hardware on their list, no hardware support service.

It is left to commonsense that there will be no new software products for this stuff either. If hardware support stopped externally, it will have stopped internally too. Those machine should be pulled from critical production workloads; including the QA testing labs. Nor is there anything here to suggest that these constraints set a minimal service lifetime for software service.

The policy has a 5-7 range to allow Apple to extend hardware support as conditions allow at their discretion. If Apple projected a 5% failure rate over a 5 year range and it turns out they only got a 2% rate then they'd have enough spare parts and contingency budget to go another 1-2 years. If they get a failure rate above the projective then will cut it short at 5 year . If the failure rate is approximately on target ... agin they'll end at 5 years rather than put the company at risk of higher than projected costs.

While I would never suggest that anyone pay anything for a 30" cinema, they weren't discontinued that long ago. It was 2009 or 2010. They shouldn't be marked obsolete yet. I only suggest against them because they're an old and unreliable design. I get anecdotes of "mine runs perfectly" whenever I say this, but I've seen too many different problems with the older cinema displays over different units. Anyway my issue once again is that when Apple says they're de-supporting something, there isn't a real differentiation of whether it's hardware or software.

 

[BlueWaterVA]

X5650 Xeon in '09 single CPU Mac Pro

Which 56XX did you use? The X5687 is really tempting me with the 3.6 clock speed, which I can effectively use more than cores. In fact, with two of my primary apps, I'd be right at 3.9 turbo all the time! I've done the firmware upgrade. Any install differences on a single socket board with a 56XX v. 36XX?

Update: Spent a good part of today on the phone with Intel, Apple, OWC, and an authorized Apple repair center. All of them swear up and down you can't put a 56XX in a single socket 5.1 36XX mobo. How the heck did you pull it off and is it running full speed?.

Hey xav8tor,

The guys at Apple, Intel, OEC and the authorized Apple repair center just don't know what they are talking about. The '09 Mac Pro uses the X58 chipset and has a LGA1366 CPU socket.

The only difference in a W36XX and a X56XX is that the X is coded for dual or single CPUs and has a few more instructions than the W36XX. As far as power is concerned the W series requires 140 watts while some of the X series only require 40 watts.

If I buy a dual processor board for my '09 Mac Pro I can add another X5650 and have a 12 core machine.

I am running CS6 and FCPX and my system screams.

I wouldn't hesitate to go with the X5687.

I am a pro video editor and have been doing it for over 30 years.

I used to build my own PC systems but since Apple adopted the Intel CPU I have been very happy with the Mac, I can have windows and OSX.

Take a look at the attachments. Let me know if you would like more info.

But don't take my word for it go to http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/apac/eng/products/server/processors/3600/feature/440725.htm and you can read the specs on all of the CPUs in question.

 

[xav8tor]

Hey xav8tor,

The guys at Apple, Intel, OEC and the authorized Apple repair center just don't know what they are talking about. The '09 Mac Pro uses the X58 chipset and has a LGA1366 CPU socket.

The only difference in a W36XX and a X56XX is that the X is coded for dual or single CPUs and has a few more instructions than the W36XX. As far as power is concerned the W series requires 140 watts while some of the X series only require 40 watts.

If I buy a dual processor board for my '09 Mac Pro I can add another X5650 and have a 12 core machine.

I am running CS6 and FCPX and my system screams.

I wouldn't hesitate to go with the X5687.

I am a pro video editor and have been doing it for over 30 years.

I used to build my own PC systems but since Apple adopted the Intel CPU I have been very happy with the Mac, I can have windows and OSX.

Take a look at the attachments. Let me know if you would like more info.

But don't take my word for it go to http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/apac/eng/products/server/processors/3600/feature/440725.htm and you can read the specs on all of the CPUs in question.

Thanks a TON for that reply. The 5687 and 3690 (which we all know works in the 4.1 to 5.1 upgrade), differ only with regard to the 2nd QPI channel on the 56XX and amount of RAM supported.

It is my understanding that the 2nd QPI is so two CPU's can communicate. If only one is installed, the 2nd QPI just ignores itself and does nothing, so no problem. There are plenty of dual socket Win workstations sold with only one CPU and the 2nd as an option, so this makes sense.

The additional RAM support is a non issue as 12 is more than enough for my purposes and I can always double that without a problem if needed.

Thanks for answering the question. Over 1,500 bucks is a lot to spend on a non-returnable item, but I guess that in a worst case scenario I could recoup some of the loss on eBay if it doesn't work. If it does work, I'll have the fastest single socket Mac Pro on the planet, so I'll be happily chugging along in single threaded (or poorly multi-threaded) apps at a full GHz faster than I am now with the 3540, and time is money, as you well know.

Thanks again.

 

[derbothaus]

X5687 is Quad core. It is not the fastest chip. Even a W3680 beats it full throttle. But I think you are aware of this and only looking at turbo single thread use, right? An i7-2700 is faster on that front. It is just so much money for a modest OC. But you may end up being the ONLY Mac user with one.

 

[xav8tor]

X5687 is Quad core. It is not the fastest chip. Even a W3680 beats it full throttle. But I think you are aware of this and only looking at turbo single thread use, right? An i7-2700 is faster on that front. It is just so much money for a modest OC. But you may end up being the ONLY Mac user with one.

Yeah but the 2700, aside from being i7, slower bus, slower memory bandwidth etc., is socket 1155. My primary app I am concerned about is multithreaded, but it all flows into a single core except for a few controllable calls. Overclocking benches of it in Windows show one GHz, which I will get with the upgrade, gives a 25% or more frame rate increase, something I desperately need. Even if a 2700 worked, although it does turbo to 3.9 even, the 5687 turbos to 3.87 too with only one or two cores active, and runs all the time at 3.6 min. The 3680 only goes to 3.6 in turbo and the the 3690 to 3.73 and it costs almost as much as the X5687. The only other CPU out there that MIGHT fit is that crazy 4.4 dual core sold in pairs for over 40 grand.

I found a bulk OEM new X5687 for "only" 1300 bucks with a 30 day return policy and full 3 year Intel guarantee. Some places sell them for twice as much. Thanks again for all the help to those that responded. Keep your fingers crossed for me. It should be here tomorrow or the next day.

 

[deconstruct60]

Then they are lacking a definitive policy on software including security updates?

There are no written commitments for the software portion of Apple's systems. I suspect they will lengthen the cycle for "security only" updates to n - 1 and n - 2 versions (instead of just n - 1 ). Most security fixes are narrow enough in scope to make back-porting straightforward.

In their own statements, they don't really differentiate much there.

There is huge difference between Apple not trying to decouple hardware from software and being clear about support services. When they say hardware it is mentioned. What Apple doesn't want to draw a distinction on is that OS X is decoupled or sold apart from Mac hardware. IF you have Mac you have to have OS X. If have OS X you have to have a Mac. That's where Apple's communication merges the two. [ EULAs and Terms are about enforcing that joining. ]

The macs that are de-supported by Apple in Mountain Lion were also dropped by a couple developers such as Adobe.

Of course. It is probably more than a couple. Industry standard practice is to de-support configurations that are layered on top of other components that have been de-supported by their respective "owners". So if IBM de-supports a version of AIX , Oracle will immediately follow suit and de-support their products on top of that stack.

The very real issue here is that the root cause of a "trouble ticket" that the folks higher up on the component stack may lie in one of the lower layers. For example you call Apple with the problem but it is really in the Nvidia controlled driver. Part of providing a support service is triaging and directing the problem on those who responsible for the core issue.

If Intel pulls all replacements for a 8 year old Xeon part from the market, Apple would be in a dubious position to have a policy which covered configurations with that part as being eligible for hardware service.

While I would never suggest that anyone pay anything for a 30" cinema, they weren't discontinued that long ago. It was 2009 or 2010. They shouldn't be marked obsolete yet.

Technically yes. However, the fact that the model was introduced in 2004 causes the issue of whether the suppliers even still make/service the parts anymore. 2015 is more than 10 years after the model was introduced.

As long as Apple has some inventory of used ( turned in for recycling but still working reasonably well and end-of-lease ) and spare parts inventory lying around I suspect they will make "whole" folks who protest. Even without parts they could offer a 27" model or worse case offer money for replacement from another vendor.

I also suspect that 30" monitors sold so slowly toward the end of their lifetime that there really aren't there may folks who bought late.

The Mac Pro 2009 is going to be in a similar context. The number of models sold late will dwindle. The original 2009 configurations probably will be dropped on schedule.




I only suggest against them because they're an old and unreliable design. I get anecdotes of "mine runs perfectly" whenever I say this, but I've seen too many different problems with the older cinema displays over different units. Anyway my issue once again is that when Apple says they're de-supporting something, there isn't a real differentiation of whether it's hardware or software.[/QUOTE]

 

[xav8tor]

Hey xav8tor,

The guys at Apple, Intel, OEC and the authorized Apple repair center just don't know what they are talking about. The '09 Mac Pro uses the X58 chipset and has a LGA1366 CPU socket.

The only difference in a W36XX and a X56XX is that the X is coded for dual or single CPUs and has a few more instructions than the W36XX. As far as power is concerned the W series requires 140 watts while some of the X series only require 40 watts.

If I buy a dual processor board for my '09 Mac Pro I can add another X5650 and have a 12 core machine.

I am running CS6 and FCPX and my system screams.

I wouldn't hesitate to go with the X5687.

I am a pro video editor and have been doing it for over 30 years.

I used to build my own PC systems but since Apple adopted the Intel CPU I have been very happy with the Mac, I can have windows and OSX.

Take a look at the attachments. Let me know if you would like more info.

But don't take my word for it go to http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/apac/eng/products/server/processors/3600/feature/440725.htm and you can read the specs on all of the CPUs in question.

Well, maybe they do know what they are talking about. I either got a DOA X5687 or it won't work in a 4.1 to 5.1 single socket Pro. Tried all sorts of resets etc. to no avail. Black screen, fans, but no boot chime. Reinstalled W3540 and all is back to normal.

Anyone want a cheap X5687, or for that matter, 4.1 Mac Pro? I've had it!

 

[thekev]

Well, maybe they do know what they are talking about. I either got a DOA X5687 or it won't work in a 4.1 to 5.1 single socket Pro. Tried all sorts of resets etc. to no avail. Black screen, fans, but no boot chime. Reinstalled W3540 and all is back to normal.

Anyone want a cheap X5687, or for that matter, 4.1 Mac Pro? I've had it!

The "X" cpus were never used in the single socket model. People on here reported success with the W3680 which is just single package compliant. Neither is officially supported or certified, so of course they say it's not possible.

 

[BlueWaterVA]

X56XX Xeon in single cpu '09 MP

The "X" cpus were never used in the single socket model. People on here reported success with the W3680 which is just single package compliant. Neither is officially supported or certified, so of course they say it's not possible.

Why would Apple use "X" cpus? They would definitely cost more, and the bottom line (as tight as Apple is) is always what the manufacturer is thinking about. Also, Apple has always taken pride in providing a total closed solution. They don't want you to know how to upgrade their hardware and they don't expect that there are many users with the nerve to try it.

Moving on, just because they are not shipped from Apple with a "X" cpu doesn't mean that a "X" will not work.

xav8tor, do you have the technical expertise for changing out a CPU? Also, did you do the 4.1 to 5.1 upgrade prior to installing the CPU? If so, did you verify that the system reports as a 5,1. A very important factor to know is that the X5687 will not function with 4,1 but your W3540 will function with either 4,1 or 5,1. I recommend that you retrace your steps and try again. There are many posts on this subject, just do a little googling.

Many pro owners have made this change without difficulty. Although every case that I have known about was a 6 core upgrade, not a 4 core. But, I don't think that would make any difference at all. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way.

By the way, what kind of ex aviator are you? Military or private?

 

[xav8tor]

xav8tor, do you have the technical expertise for changing out a CPU? Also, did you do the 4.1 to 5.1 upgrade prior to installing the CPU? If so, did you verify that the system reports as a 5,1. A very important factor to know is that the X5687 will not function with 4,1 but your W3540 will function with either 4,1 or 5,1. I recommend that you retrace your steps and try again. There are many posts on this subject, just do a little googling.

Many pro owners have made this change without difficulty. Although every case that I have known about was a 6 core upgrade, not a 4 core. But, I don't think that would make any difference at all. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way.

By the way, what kind of ex aviator are you? Military or private?

Ex civvy pro, still involved in the biz. I guess since I started with upgrading the original IBM PC to an XT, and about a dozen computers since then, and temped at Microsoft in tech support, yeah, I should be able to pull this off. I did the firmware upgrade, it shows in the sys report as a 5.1. I reseated the X5687 a half dozen times, then went back to the 3540, checked that 5.1 was installed, then tried again. No joy. The X5687 is either DOA or it won't work in a 4.1 to 5.1. I was surgical in removing, cleaning, installing the CPU's, no excess pressure, no forcing things, anti-static, etc. It just doesn't work. The thing is, HP is still selling the Z800 with just one 5687 installed, so two aren't required. Maybe it is an Apple or single socket mobo thing. That stuff I don't know.

 

[Davy.Shalom]

It becomes obsolete when it no longer does what you need it to do.

^ Yes.

You have to remember that a computer is a tool and not a crutch. If it continues to do all the tasks you need it to do with an acceptable amount of efficiency, then it is not obsolete. The term "obsolete" really depends. It can refer to Apple's point of view, your point of view, the community's point of view...etc.

Just remember that if your Mac Pro functions fine for your purposes, it's not obsolete. Many people get caught up in the rat race of buying the newest things Apple and other companies release. There's nothing wrong with using slightly older software if it suits your needs. Now, if you need to run a program that is not compatible with the Mac Pro, and requires a newer system (hardware), then I would say it is obsolete relative to that specific situation.

 

[ixodes]

It all depends on how one defines obsolete.

As compared to what?

Most likely it's been obsolete long before now.

 

[thekev]

Why would Apple use "X" cpus? They would definitely cost more, and the bottom line (as tight as Apple is) is always what the manufacturer is thinking about. Also, Apple has always taken pride in providing a total closed solution. They don't want you to know how to upgrade their hardware and they don't expect that there are many users with the nerve to try it.

Moving on, just because they are not shipped from Apple with a "X" cpu doesn't mean that a "X" will not work.

I said it's something other than what others have successfully tested on here. It's also a very expensive option if purchased at typical pricing. Why would you bother spending so much on that quad option compared to the W3680 that has worked well for others? It's the same cpu Apple uses, so it's not much of a risk, and it's only around $600. Beyond that buying one of these to rip out the entire board and replace it with a dual socket board is silly. You'd spend less buying a dual socket machine in the first place.

 

[scottrichardson]

Just updated my octo 2.93Ghz 2009 model with the firmware updater.

If I were to upgrade my CPUs, What's the fastest dual hex system I could build? How many watts of CPU power can the 2009 models handle? The 3.46Ghz hex cores would be nice. Can I install two of those?

Scott

 

[xav8tor]

I said it's something other than what others have successfully tested on here. It's also a very expensive option if purchased at typical pricing. Why would you bother spending so much on that quad option compared to the W3680 that has worked well for others? It's the same cpu Apple uses, so it's not much of a risk, and it's only around $600. Beyond that buying one of these to rip out the entire board and replace it with a dual socket board is silly. You'd spend less buying a dual socket machine in the first place.

You have a point, but there are apps that still want GHz and don't care about cores, as long as you have two. 0.3 GHz means about 5 FPS on one app I use. When you are trying to maintain a perfectly smooth video compliant frame rate, that overhead can mean the difference between a successful project and starting over.

I hope the vendor makes good on the return policy. I may get a 3680 or 90 plus credit, instead of getting an HP Z and giving the Pro the heave ho. Even at a 50% discount, that chip was 1300 bucks. For 200 more, I could have gotten a base brand new HP Z620 with an E5 quad at 3.6 GHz in it and cannibalized my Pro to fill all the slots.

All of these upgrades have risk. First, if you're still under warranty, the firmware upgrade and CPU swap void it. If you really want to have some fun taking risks, get a GTX and try getting OpenCL running on a card with more than 2 GB VRAM, but that story os for another thread I guess.

 

[thekev]

You have a point, but there are apps that still want GHz and don't care about cores, as long as you have two. 0.3 GHz means about 5 FPS on one app I use. When you are trying to maintain a perfectly smooth video compliant frame rate, that overhead can mean the difference between a successful project and starting over.

I go pretty conservative when hacking something to work. The cost and untested nature of that cpu would have pushed me to a different solution, even if it was a non mac pro. Some software developers do offer credit if you want to switch from OSX to Windows or Linux. Sometimes they'll let you do it if you're upgrading. Obviously getting a workflow up and running on a different OS if Apple no longer meets your needs could be a significant amount of work.

I hope the vendor makes good on the return policy. I may get a 3680 or 90 plus credit, instead of getting an HP Z and giving the Pro the heave ho. Even at a 50% discount, that chip was 1300 bucks. For 200 more, I could have gotten a base brand new HP Z620 with an E5 quad at 3.6 GHz in it and cannibalized my Pro to fill all the slots.

I hope so too. That chip should not be at $2600 today under any circumstances. Note intel's suggested pricing. I already knew it was extremely expensive though.

All of these upgrades have risk. First, if you're still under warranty, the firmware upgrade and CPU swap void it. If you really want to have some fun taking risks, get a GTX and try getting OpenCL running on a card with more than 2 GB VRAM, but that story os for another thread I guess.

Is the EFI 1.5 firmware not certified by Apple on that model? That's the only reason I can think of that it could possibly void the warranty. The cpu would void the warranty. In both cases if you put things back together as they were, it shouldn't be a problem. Just don't strip the screws with cheap drivers.

 

[xav8tor]

Is the EFI 1.5 firmware not certified by Apple on that model? That's the only reason I can think of that it could possibly void the warranty. The cpu would void the warranty. In both cases if you put things back together as they were, it shouldn't be a problem. Just don't strip the screws with cheap drivers.

Nope. The firmware flash everyone is using to transform a 4.1 to a 5.1 in theory voids the warranty. Fortunately, a method to revert is provided, but what if you can't get the system back up to revert before needing the warranty repair? Then you are screwed, as you are if you do your own CPU swap, "approved" model or not. I don't know the depths of OS X nearly as well I as I did Windows, but I can tell you Apple has diagnostic routines that bore through your OS disk and can recover pages of logs of all sorts of events...just like Windows, maybe more. You might fool an inept "Genius," but you won't fool a real one if you did the damage.

 

[thekev]

Nope. The firmware flash everyone is using to transform a 4.1 to a 5.1 in theory voids the warranty. Fortunately, a method to revert is provided, but what if you can't get the system back up to revert before needing the warranty repair? Then you are screwed, as you are if you do your own CPU swap, "approved" model or not. I don't know the depths of OS X nearly as well I as I did Windows, but I can tell you Apple has diagnostic routines that bore through your OS disk and can recover pages of logs of all sorts of events...just like Windows, maybe more. You might fool an inept "Genius," but you won't fool a real one if you did the damage.

I was aware of the reversion method. This is where I'd try a third party repair center where I've bought a lot of other stuff rather than Apple directly. At the time a lot of these guys are doing their swaps, these things would be either nearly or completely out of warranty. It became popular in 2011 when pricing dropped 40% on the W3680 and Apple's pricing remained unchanged. They were either out of warranty or on their third year of Applecare in most cases. There may have been exceptions. I'm also not really that familiar with the underlying framework. I'm still aware of all of these risks. It's just that I'll never be one of the ones to do the first testing on if a given cpu will work.

 

[xav8tor]

It's just that I'll never be one of the ones to do the first testing on if a given cpu will work.

If I've done my research, I don't mind being the first. I like it actually. Back about ten years ago I had a project I wanted to render in HD and all I had was a Sony Vaio desktop. I made calls to video outfits all over, mostly Hollywood. They all said I was crazy and it couldn't be done. I needed an SGI Octane at minimum. Well, long story short, I figured out a way to capture each of the 24 frames per second by hand, then placed them in sequence, by hand, on a timeline and hit the render button for a two minute animation. Three and a half days later, as the temp alarm went off blaring, the smell of electric smoke in the air, it finished as an uncompressed HUGE avi file. Took it to a local guy to transcode into something I could play to a then outrageously expensive HD plasma, it worked, the clients were blown away, I made a name for myself in that niche, and it was all because I dared to be first. My favorite expression was what one guy said: "You're trying to force an elephant though a straw."

PS - I still have that Vaio and it still works.