MP 1,1-5,1 Is the X5690 3,46GHz really the fastest CPU for MP 5.1?

[marqus]

hi there,

just bought an original MP 5.1 (not a flashed 4.1) with two 2.4 Westmeres. Is it true, that the fastest option in these machines are two Xeons X5690? Do they have to be proven as "they came as a pair and so they work together"? Or can I just buy 2 of them...?

Are the 5.1 Xeons lidded or unlidded?

Final question: Is the system intelligent enough to be able to keep the RAM running at 1066 whereas the X5690 run at 1333MHz?

thanks alot,
Marqus

 

[ADDvanced]

Yes.

No.

Not sure.

Unlidded.

You should go here:

The Definitive Classic Mac Pro (2006-2012) Upgrade Guide

The largest/most-complete guide to all possible classic Mac Pro upgrades covering OS, Firmware, GPU, CPU, Storage, USB, THunderbolt and Network upgrades.

blog.greggant.com

 

[pertusis1]

Yes.

No.

Not sure.

Unlidded.

You should go here:

The Definitive Classic Mac Pro (2006-2012) Upgrade Guide

The largest/most-complete guide to all possible classic Mac Pro upgrades covering OS, Firmware, GPU, CPU, Storage, USB, THunderbolt and Network upgrades.

blog.greggant.com

Wrong. They are lidded processors.

Otherwise, I agree.

 

[ADDvanced]

I thought ONLY the 4.1 was lidded and 5.1 was not lidded? I thought this was why the heat sinks are different between 4.1 and 5.1....

 

[tsialex]

From early-2009 to mid-2012, only the dual CPU early-2009 CPU tray use de-lidded Xeons.

All other CPU trays use lidded standard Xeons (single CPU early-2009, single CPU mid-2010/mid-2012, dual CPU mid-2010/mid-2012).

 

[marqus]

AFAIK only the dual boards on 4.1 are unlidded...

EDIT:TSIALEX was 30s faster...

 

[eicca]

Depending on your needs, you might also consider the X5677. Same clock and RAM speed but two fewer cores and a buttload less money. I got my dual X5677s for $35 total. It’ll give you the same boost in day-to-day performance as the expensive X5690s. Obviously your total multi-core power won’t be quite as high but still a significant increase over the Westmere 2.4s.

If you don’t need the extreme multi-core power then the X5677s are what I recommend.

 

[DPUser]

Go with X5680s, 1/2 the cost of 4% faster 5690s. Unless your workload is exclusively/predominently single-threaded, than what eicca says.

You may be surprised to find RAM labelled 1066 is actually 1333 once you get the new CPUs in. Either way, your RAM will do what it can, and no more.

 

[eicca]

Also, from my experience, bumping from the 2.4GHz Westmeres to the 3.4GHz Xeons makes the computer feel exactly 50% faster, as the benchmarks suggest. It's noticeable, but not mind-blowing. I'd describe it more as a polish than a boost. Again, this is all in single-threaded performance and regular day-to-day use.

So for me, it definitely would not have been worth the cost of the X5690s because most of my usage is single-thread.

 

[DPUser]

I'm doing multitrack audio work, so the extra cores mean more virtual instruments, audio tracks and plugins. Machine doesn't feel faster, it's just a truck that can haul more rock (or jazz, or pop, or...)

 

[eicca]

I'm doing multitrack audio work, so the extra cores mean more virtual instruments, audio tracks and plugins. Machine doesn't feel faster, it's just a truck that can haul more rock (or jazz, or pop, or...)

A good example. Which DAW do you use? How's your average CPU utilization?

I also happen to audio work in Logic (which is why I got the cMP). My projects aren't as heavy as some other users though. A finished product was barely pushing 30% CPU even on my 2.4GHz Westmeres. But I don't do as much with virtual instruments or synths, it's mostly raw audio with some basic stuff like compression, EQ and reverb. I'm interested to see what a project looks like when it requires the X5680s to work.

 

[KeesMacPro]

I also happen to audio work in Logic (which is why I got the cMP). My projects aren't as heavy as some other users though. A finished product was barely pushing 30% CPU even on my 2.4GHz Westmeres. But I don't do as much with virtual instruments or synths, it's mostly raw audio with some basic stuff like compression, EQ and reverb. I'm interested to see what a project looks like when it requires the X5680s to work.

I use a MP 4,1>5,1 dual x5690 for professional audio work too , Logic Pro running Mojave with 48GB RAM installed.
My projects vary a lot between small acoustic setups, orchestral multi tracks ,editing/mastering and synthetic stuff.
I replaced the stock Nehalems about 2 years ago, and noticed a big improvement .
Sice then ,depending on the project, i normally dont see the CPU load going over ~25%.

Another thing that improved speed and workflow a lot was replacing the SSDs for NVMe blades.
About 6 months ago i bought a I/O Crest SIPEX 40129, converted it to passively cooled and replaced the single PCIe blade adapter.
For my purposes this is a very effective and stable setup.

Normally i dont open loads of apps at the same time, so 48GB 1333mHz seems enough in this case.

 

[DPUser]

I'm running DP (Digital Performer) 10..13 under Mojave and regularly push the 12 core 5,1 (see signature, below) pretty hard. Lots of VIs, vocals and plugins. Some projects have full live band with maybe 10-12 mics on drums. Some projects are sync to picture. I end up mastering a lot of the tracks as I mix and find the mastering chain takes a fair amount of additional horsepower. Like KeesMacPro, I find the Mac Pro super solid. I'm booting from NVMe and running projects and VI samples from multiple SATA SSDs. 48GB RAM. Backups are internal spinners, external spinner for Time Machine, and BackBlaze.