Just bought a 2008 Mac Pro

[tpivette89]

Pulled the trigger on a single quad core '08 Mac Pro from OWC after searching on my local craigslist for over a month. According to the site, the computer was in "very good condition", and was equipped with a single 2.8ghz quad core processor, a 500GB HDD, HD 2600 XT, and 4GB of 800mhz RAM. While eagerly awaiting my arrival, I ordered a pair of X5272 cpu's (wanted better single core scores vs a large multi-core score), 4 more GB of RAM, and an extra heat sink for the 2nd CPU. Finally the day came, and Fedex said they delivered.

...uh, wait a minute. I have been home all day and didn't hear a single knock at the door. Checked all over my house and saw no packages. Called Fedex and they started an investigation. They contacted the driver and he claimed to have dropped it off near the trash cans on the side of the house. I double checked that area, and found nothing. So I hopped in my car and began to scour the neighborhood. Found my huge box 2 houses down (whew!). So I picked up my package, drove home, and immediately opened it.

What I found was a kind of damaged Mac Pro. There was quite a bit of scuffing, and the upper handle was tweaked. Far from "very good condition"... but after reading OWC's disclaimer, apparently in the fine print, it could have (according to their site) "cosmetic scuffs, pocks, minor dents, bent handles / feet (not affecting case stability), and/or scratches from prior use, but are in better than average condition". Doesn't exactly sound like "very good condition", but I digress.



Opened up the case to do some cleaning, and one of the top tabs came off. Uhh... OK.



Anyway... so I did a quick dusting/vacuum/wipe down, hooked it up to a 20" ACD, plugged it in, and fired it up. Black screen. Heard a lot of fan noise, and traced the sound to the graphics card... which looked a lot like the GT 120 on my early 2009 Mac Pro. So I shut everything down and removed the card. Took it apart, cleaned everything, and reapplied some thermal paste. Reassembled everything, reseated the card, and fired it up again. This time I was greeted with a boot screen, and installed a fresh copy of El Capitan. When everything installed, I did a quick check in About this Mac.

So, instead of a single 2.8 quad core, I had a pair of them. Bonus! Also, I did not have a HD 2600 XT, but a GT 120 like I had thought when I was disassembling it! So... I got a slightly cosmetically damaged Mac Pro, but with a bonus extra CPU and upgraded graphics card.

So, now I have a dilemma... should I stick with the plan and install the X5272 CPUs for better single core performance like I originally intended? Or find a pair of 3.2ghz quad cores and max it out in the multi core scores?

 

[blogger9789]

If you can return the first ones you bought, I would upgrade it and max it out. Get the most power you can.

 

[Supermacguy]

Well what do you need to do with the computer? If you are doing any video editing/processing, app coding, Adobe/graphics work, I think the better way is multiple CPUs. But if its mostly email, spreadsheet, iTunes listening, the fastest single core will make it seem snappier *to you*.

 

[tpivette89]

So I popped in a spare wifi card from a late 2006 iMac just to get the machine online (where it is sitting currently has no access to ethernet cables), and was able to run it through a quick geek bench session. Ran it as is out of the box and got the following scores:

Single core: 1927
Multi core: 10075

Next I added an extra 4BG of 800mhz RAM for a total of 8GB. Ran the geek bench again:

Single core: 1913
Multi core: 10190

I figured the multi core scores would be a little higher, as it is an 8 core machine. Would swapping out the 2.8ghz processors for 3.2ghz real add all that much performance? Or should I put the pair op X5272 (3.4ghz 2 core) and hope for better single core numbers?

This computer will be basically an everyday machine doing light tasks like websurfing and emails, with some occasional photo work and light video editing if my main machine is down for upgrades/etc.

 

[filmak]

I really don't think that you 're going to see much difference in everyday tasks by upgrading the CPU.
Better add a SSD, a better GPU and some more RAM, if you can.

 

[tpivette89]

Decided to install the pair of X5272 cpu's in the Mac Pro. Just wanted to see what it does to the experience. I had a few hours to burn tonight, so I figured, why not? Just gotta remove all the thermal paste and the new processors are ready to drop in



Will update with new geek bench scores and overall thoughts

 

[tpivette89]

Installation went without a hitch. Semi-time consuming, but no issues throughout. Mac Pro recognizes both new cpus:



Ran geekbench 4 as I did with all other tests, and came up with the following scores:



So it would seem as though I gained about 17% in the single core score, vs losing nearly 30% in the multi core score. However, I dropped from 8 cores to 4 cores, and didn't lose 50%. So, maybe that's something? I guess the only way to find out is to install a pair of quad core X5482s and see how it performs.

 

[AlexMaximus]

Installation went without a hitch. Semi-time consuming, but no issues throughout. Mac Pro recognizes both new cpus:

View attachment 745770

Ran geekbench 4 as I did with all other tests, and came up with the following scores:

View attachment 745773

So it would seem as though I gained about 17% in the single core score, vs losing nearly 30% in the multi core score. However, I dropped from 8 cores to 4 cores, and didn't lose 50%. So, maybe that's something? I guess the only way to find out is to install a pair of quad core X5482s and see how it performs.

Thank you for sharing! Congrats for the Mac Pro 2008. In my opinion, it is still an absolute great machine that is very capable. The Nvidia 120 is so much better then the 2600 and has a Mini Display port for original Apple Displays. Do you think the X5482 would be faster then what you have now? I would be very curious to see a benchmark. Do you run Final Cut Pro on it, what kind of work do you do?

 

[tpivette89]

No Final Cut Pro for me as of yet, although I do want to try it out as I've heard its much better than iMovie (which is what I'm currently using). I don't do anything crazy or professional with my video work, it's mainly just hobbyist stuff and family movies.

I believe the X5482s will be better in the multi core aspect (mostly due to 8 cores vs 4), and will have similar (maybe slightly lower) single core scores. I honestly thought the single core scores of the X5272s would've been higher. The scores I got from my early '09 with the X5690 (3.46ghz) absolutely pummel it, while only being 60mhz quicker.

Regardless, I do want to see what the difference will be over the pair of 2 core Xeons I have now. I have a set on order from eBay, and will report back when I put them in.

 

[nigelbb]

I believe the X5482s will be better in the multi core aspect (mostly due to 8 cores vs 4), and will have similar (maybe slightly lower) single core scores. I honestly thought the single core scores of the X5272s would've been higher. The scores I got from my early '09 with the X5690 (3.46ghz) absolutely pummel it, while only being 60mhz quicker.

You cannot directly compare performance with clock speed between different families & generations of CPUs.

 

[tpivette89]

You cannot directly compare performance with clock speed between different families & generations of CPUs.

True, but these 2 cpus are only a year apart. I thought, at most, the single core scores would only be a few hundred points different. But it was nearly a thousand points that seperated them

 

[LightBulbFun]

True, but these 2 cpus are only a year apart. I thought, at most, the single core scores would only be a few hundred points different. But it was nearly a thousand points that seperated them

remember the X5690s are 2 generations ahead of the X5272s and on top of that, the X5690s have Turbo boost

and im not even going to mention how an X5690 is 6 Cores 12 threads vs 2 cores on the X5272


but its very cool to see that the X5272s do work in the Mac Pro 3,1

 

[tpivette89]

remember the X5690s are 2 generations ahead of the X5272s and on top of that, the X5690s have Turbo boost

and im not even going to mention how an X5690 is 6 Cores 12 threads vs 2 cores on the X5272


but its very cool to see that the X5272s do work in the Mac Pro 3,1

Completely forgot about the turbo boost feature in the X5690. Whoops.

Wonder if there are any other "untested but possibly work" CPUs I can try out before I spring for the tried and true X5482s to test them against the X5272s I have in there now. I saw the QX9775 could possibly work, but I don't really want to spend that kind of money on such an old machine just to see if they work (especially since they would probably be identical in performance to the X5482s). The X5272s were a no-brainer due to only being $23 shipped for the pair.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Depends so much on use. I had an x5670 (6-core) and put in an x5677 (4-core) instead. Base clock was higher at 3.4ghz vs 2.9ghz, with boost to 3.7ghz. I rarely need 6 cores, but I use Lightroom, which prefers higher clocks. After eBaying the x5670, I came out ahead $15 to boot. The SSD will be your biggest gain for sure though.

You'll want to watch for compatibility too. I doubt the non-X-series CPUs like the QX9775 will work in dual CPU configurations. That's what the x-series Xeons are all about.

 

[LightBulbFun]

Depends so much on use. I had an x5670 (6-core) and put in an x5677 (4-core) instead. Base clock was higher at 3.4ghz vs 2.9ghz, with boost to 3.7ghz. I rarely need 6 cores, but I use Lightroom, which prefers higher clocks. After eBaying the x5670, I came out ahead $15 to boot. The SSD will be your biggest gain for sure though.

You'll want to watch for compatibility too. I doubt the non-X-series CPUs like the QX9775 will work in dual CPU configurations. That's what the x-series Xeons are all about.

Completely forgot about the turbo boost feature in the X5690. Whoops.

Wonder if there are any other "untested but possibly work" CPUs I can try out before I spring for the tried and true X5482s to test them against the X5272s I have in there now. I saw the QX9775 could possibly work, but I don't really want to spend that kind of money on such an old machine just to see if they work (especially since would probably identical in performance to the X5482s). The X5272s were a no-brainer due to only being $23 shipped for the pair.

the QX9775 is another im wondering about as well, especially as it was a Core 2 Quad/Extreme designed to work in a Dual socket system (Skull trail FTW) the CPU has the right stepping to work in a 3,1 so thats good. (I Have a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 but not 2 QX9775s LOL, I dont even have a compatible mobo for my QX9770 sadly)

other CPUs I wonder about as well if they work in the 1,1-2,1-3,1s are:

Core 2 Duo E6305 and E6405. LGA771 versions of the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 respectively. (all are single socket only apparently)

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/Intel-Core 2 Duo E6305 HH80556KH036F.html http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/Intel-Core 2 Duo E6405 HH80556KH046F.html

and the Celeron 445 a Single Core LGA771 Core 2 Duo based Celeron also single socket only...

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Celeron/Intel-Celeron 445 - HH80556KH036512.html

I know these CPUs are anything but speed demons, but it would be really cool to see if they work regardless because who doesent want a 1.86Ghz single Core Mac Pro

another thing im curious about is

its well known you can Fit an LGA771 CPU into an LGA775 Mobo with a little hacking, but can you fit an LGA775 CPU into a 771 socket? it would be very interesting to try... (I might just do that at some point...) since the Sticker mod will swap the 2 pins around just the same as they do on a 771 CPU

 

[tpivette89]

The pair of Core 2 Duo processors you mentioned are easy enough to find, and cheap as well (under $4 on eBay). The Celeron 455 is a bit of a different animal... as all the examples currently on eBay are de-lidded. Don't know if that would present a problem in a 3,1 or not.

While I do use these computers mostly on a daily basis, it's tinkering and modifying them that really gets my juices flowing. Just knowing that certain combinations haven't been tried yet gets me excited (which is why I went with the dual core X5272s over the normal quad core X5482s). All in the name of science, haha

 

[LightBulbFun]

The pair of Core 2 Duo processors you mentioned are easy enough to find, and cheap as well (under $4 on eBay). The Celeron 455 is a bit of a different animal... as all the examples currently on eBay are de-lidded. Don't know if that would present a problem in a 3,1 or not.

While I do use these computers mostly on a daily basis, it's tinkering and modifying them that really gets my juices flowing. Just knowing that certain combinations haven't been tried yet gets me excited (which is why I went with the dual core X5272s over the normal quad core X5482s). All in the name of science, haha

indeed its the same with me All in the name of science.

Celeron 445 not 455

I have a couple 1,1/2,1s and an Xserve1,1 on hand but most of these odd ball CPUs are much more common/cheaper on US ebay but shipping to the UK kills it...

 

[tpivette89]

indeed its the same with me All in the name of science.

Celeron 445 not 455

I have a couple 1,1/2,1s and an Xserve1,1 on hand but most of these odd ball CPUs are much more common/cheaper on US ebay but shipping to the UK kills it...

I have a newly acquired 3,1 (why I created this thread), and a 4,1 flashed to a 5,1. I really want to try a single X5687 or X5698 in the 4,1... but I've read of one or two accounts of each not working in Mac Pros. Still want to try, though, especially since the X5687 is cheap on eBay.

I reside in the States, so most of these CPUs ship either free or super cheap. Thinking about being a guinea pig for a couple of your suggestions since it will only cost me less than $25 for the trio you mentioned for the 3,1... just for the fun of it.

They're all meant to be run in a single CPU configuration, correct?

 

[LightBulbFun]

I have a newly acquired 3,1 (why I created this thread), and a 4,1 flashed to a 5,1. I really want to try a single X5687 or X5698 in the 4,1... but I've read of one or two accounts of each not working in Mac Pros. Still want to try, though, especially since the X5687 is cheap on eBay.

I reside in the States, so most of these CPUs ship either free or super cheap. Thinking about being a guinea pig for a couple of your suggestions since it will only cost me less than $25 for the trio you mentioned for the 3,1... just for the fun of it.

They're all meant to be run in a single CPU configuration, correct?

your reading my mind

the X5687 and X5698 are also 2 chips I want to see tried. as i said in the CPU compatibility thread, if you trace it back, only like 1 person has ever tried those 2 CPUs, and there could of easily been something wrong with his Setup LOL

and yeah all those Core 2 Duos and the Celeron supposedly do not support running with a second CPU (I dont know what would happen if ya tried LOL)

 

[flowrider]

Folks have been talking about this for about 5 years now. IMO, Neither chip will work in a cMP because both CPUs were released after the release date of the 5,1. I researched this and can find no one who has tried either the X5687 or X5698 in a 5,1 cMP, that has been successful.

Lou

 

[LightBulbFun]

Folks have been talking about this for about 5 years now. IMO, Neither chip will work in a cMP because both CPUs were released after the release date of the 5,1. I researched this and can find no one who has tried either the X5687 or X5698 in a 5,1 cMP, that has been successful.

Lou

do you have some links?

because from what I have looked at, all the people who say they dont work, if you ask where they got that information from, it all leads back to 1 or 2 posts on the netkas forum and IIRC, the X5687 was tried in a Flashed 4,1. he may of had the CPUs not installed properly (I dont think he de-lidded them) (Also I feel like we have had this conversation before )

 

[MacDann]

I have a 3,1 with a couple of X5450s in it, upgraded to X5460s because I had a pair readily available for cheap. Minor bump which really didn't gain anything to speak of for me, as the machine is just used for normal web surfing/email, etc.

However, on the occasion where I run HandBrake to rip video files, I can definitely tell a difference. A lot of this is more of a software issue than hardware, since the code may or may not be written to utilized multiple CPUs. If not, bumping to a faster pair of CPUs isn't going to have an appreciable effect on performance. In the case of video processing, it does make a significant difference.

The best performance bump you're going to get will be from memory if you bump it up to about 32GB - any more than than that is a waste. Other than making sure it's all the same clock frequency, 667 MHz to 800 MHz doesn't make an appreciable difference, either. Also, SSDs are your friend. Even if it's only the boot drive, drop an SSD in there to really get things going. It's money well spent.

On a related note, I'm driving a pair of 23" ACDs with a flashed ATI 5870 w/1GB of RAM. I'm getting ready to move up to dual 30" ACDs on the same card, but expect to graduate to a GTX680 and drive all four ACDs with it if I can find a reasonable means of mounting all four of them on my desk...

MacDann

 

[tpivette89]

I have a 3,1 with a couple of X5450s in it, upgraded to X5460s because I had a pair readily available for cheap. Minor bump which really didn't gain anything to speak of for me, as the machine is just used for normal web surfing/email, etc.

However, on the occasion where I run HandBrake to rip video files, I can definitely tell a difference. A lot of this is more of a software issue than hardware, since the code may or may not be written to utilized multiple CPUs. If not, bumping to a faster pair of CPUs isn't going to have an appreciable effect on performance. In the case of video processing, it does make a significant difference.

The best performance bump you're going to get will be from memory if you bump it up to about 32GB - any more than than that is a waste. Other than making sure it's all the same clock frequency, 667 MHz to 800 MHz doesn't make an appreciable difference, either. Also, SSDs are your friend. Even if it's only the boot drive, drop an SSD in there to really get things going. It's money well spent.

On a related note, I'm driving a pair of 23" ACDs with a flashed ATI 5870 w/1GB of RAM. I'm getting ready to move up to dual 30" ACDs on the same card, but expect to graduate to a GTX680 and drive all four ACDs with it if I can find a reasonable means of mounting all four of them on my desk...

MacDann

My 24" late '06 iMac is donating it's OWC 120GB SSD for the newly acquired Mac Pro 3,1 tonight. Gonna erase the current 500GB spinner drive thats in there now and regulate it to a storage drive. Gonna re-benchmark it, but I doubt I'll get any better numbers.

Maybe in a week or two I'll throw in a pair of X5482s and see how they compare to the X5272s that are in it now. Obviously the multi-core scores will be higher, but I don't really use this machine for that sort of thing, so single-core scores are more important to me.

UPDATE: threw in the 120GB SSD, and ran Geekbench again. Numbers didn't change (as I thought). System feels snappier, and over the next few days I will tailor everything to my needs. For now, I guess I'm done with it until I purchase a pair of X5482s and install them for new numbers vs the X5272s. Will start a new thread when this occurs.

 

[Core 2 Duo]

You might want to try a pair of X5470's...

 

[LightBulbFun]

You might want to try a pair of X5470's...

E0 stepping only sadly

but X5460 with BSEL mod is another thing