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

pullman

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
771
121
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Greetings and salutations

I'm looking for a cMP 5,1 to use as a Photoshop workstation. I know the 12-core models will allow more RAM, which can be good for that purpose, but from a practical user perspective does anything speak against the 6-core models?

I'm thinking about how hot these machines run, fan use/noise, power consumption and things like that.

Related to this, should I just go for 2012 models to get as new a computer as possible, or does something speak in favour of the prior models?

Finally the "server" models – they're just normal Mac Pros, right? I see few if any hardware differences when I look at Everymac.

Thank you in advance
P.
 

Macschrauber

macrumors 68030
Dec 27, 2015
2,979
1,487
Germany
If I want to check out a CMP I listen to the fans, if they rattle the machine is rather worn out.

Sometimes the original spinner is in the machine, reading hours with smart utility tells a story.

I prefer a 2011 machine with little hours over a 2012 machine what run 24/7 as a server of course.

Don't buy a 2009 dual cpu machine, upgrading the lidless CPUs is a challenge.

Avoid smoker's or seaside machines. Check out the bootrom if it has certificates or other damages.
 

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
16,656
8,587
Hong Kong
Greetings and salutations

I'm looking for a cMP 5,1 to use as a Photoshop workstation. I know the 12-core models will allow more RAM, which can be good for that purpose, but from a practical user perspective does anything speak against the 6-core models?

I'm thinking about how hot these machines run, fan use/noise, power consumption and things like that.

Related to this, should I just go for 2012 models to get as new a computer as possible, or does something speak in favour of the prior models?

Finally the "server" models – they're just normal Mac Pros, right? I see few if any hardware differences when I look at Everymac.

Thank you in advance
P.
Is there any reason why you must buy the 5,1 to be your own Photoshop workstation?

TBH, for most Photoshop usage, I believe the latest Mac mini can easily outperform the cMP regardless which CPU / GPU you installed.
 

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
Is there any reason why you must buy the 5,1 to be your own Photoshop workstation?

TBH, for most Photoshop usage, I believe the latest Mac mini can easily outperform the cMP regardless which CPU / GPU you installed.
This.

I picked up a few weeks ago a 12-core Mac Pro with what I think were the fastest CPUs offered from Apple, or close. It's... not exactly that fast... by modern standards. My Intel iMac has about 3x the single-core performance in Geekbench and a little under double the multicore performance. And that's an Intel iMac... not exactly an M2/M2 Pro.

The other observation I will make is that the storage is slow. The original buyer of my Mac Pro spent big bucks on the 512GB Apple SSD. But... guess what, plugged into a SATA 300 interface on an ICH10, it's... not exactly the storage speed of the modern Apple "flash storage" solutions.

I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but in my mind, unless you need the PCI-E slots for something, the 5,1 Mac Pro is more in vintage collectible territory than in daily-work-machine land at this point.
 

avro707

macrumors 68020
Dec 13, 2010
2,263
1,654
I'm thinking about how hot these machines run, fan use/noise, power consumption and things like that.

The dual X5690 machines do pump out a lot of heat, especially if you have 128GB 1333mhz RAM and RX580 GPU, maybe some NVMEs in the machine too. The CPUs don't get too warm but the Northbridge gets quite toasty.

A single CPU X5690 machine (6 core) with 64GB RAM, some fast NVME drives and upgraded with a RX6600XT 8GB card is quite a nice option. It will be much quieter running, you won't have that annoying whining fan noise. The only other thing about the 5,1 is that it is so old.

Do you really need a Mac though? If not, go and get a PC workstation if you have the budget, they are easier to upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

pullman

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
771
121
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you so much for your quick, excellent and very relevant replies and comments :)

I'm currently on a cMP 3,1 which I've had since new (see sig). It's currently running DD1 High Sierra which is getting long in the tooth so I'd like to be able to use a more modern OS. For that I'm considering OCLP but that seems more tricky on 3,1s than on 5,1s, hence my thoughts on buying one of them.

I've upgraded my machine several times over the years, with HDDs and SSDs, a Sonnet Tempo and various video cards. I was considering the Mini but I'm fond of the modular design of the MP. I've always enjoyed the flexibility that offers and like to have the PCI slots for further upgrade possibilities. I also use certain older software for my film scanners, which doesn't run on newer machines. The typical image files I edit are perhaps 500MB and my 3,1 handles them well, even when stored on SATA 600 HDDs so I don't think I need a super fast machine.

It's perhaps a bit stupidly nostalgic, but I also like the idea of keeping old machines running. I'm typing this on a 2015 11" MBA which is natively running Monterey and find that pretty cool (I'm a bit silly like that, but then again I only use film when I photograph...).

I find Geekbench scores interesting and know that they don't show the full picture. A 5,1 may possibly double the performance of my current 8-core 3,1. It also seems to me that the Xeons are really stable in use. They just tick along somehow. So that plays into the equation too.

@Macschrauber Thank you for pointing out the fans and the issue with the 2009 CPUs. I'll keep that in mind when I look. I'd probably try to get as recent a machine as possible.

@VivienM How do you find the 12-core in use, is it loud?

@avro707 Thanks for your thoughts on the 6-core models. I don't have any NVME drives (yet lol) but always try to get as much RAM as possible. A bit higher headroom with a 12-core is appealing, but the heat is not. I seem to remember that there were speed penalties for using a full 128 GB, or have I dreamt that? I'm not able to find the info right now.


If I want to check out a CMP I listen to the fans, if they rattle the machine is rather worn out.

Sometimes the original spinner is in the machine, reading hours with smart utility tells a story.

I prefer a 2011 machine with little hours over a 2012 machine what run 24/7 as a server of course.

Don't buy a 2009 dual cpu machine, upgrading the lidless CPUs is a challenge.

Avoid smoker's or seaside machines. Check out the bootrom if it has certificates or other damages.

Is there any reason why you must buy the 5,1 to be your own Photoshop workstation?

TBH, for most Photoshop usage, I believe the latest Mac mini can easily outperform the cMP regardless which CPU / GPU you installed.

This.

I picked up a few weeks ago a 12-core Mac Pro with what I think were the fastest CPUs offered from Apple, or close. It's... not exactly that fast... by modern standards. My Intel iMac has about 3x the single-core performance in Geekbench and a little under double the multicore performance. And that's an Intel iMac... not exactly an M2/M2 Pro.

The other observation I will make is that the storage is slow. The original buyer of my Mac Pro spent big bucks on the 512GB Apple SSD. But... guess what, plugged into a SATA 300 interface on an ICH10, it's... not exactly the storage speed of the modern Apple "flash storage" solutions.

I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but in my mind, unless you need the PCI-E slots for something, the 5,1 Mac Pro is more in vintage collectible territory than in daily-work-machine land at this point.

The dual X5690 machines do pump out a lot of heat, especially if you have 128GB 1333mhz RAM and RX580 GPU, maybe some NVMEs in the machine too. The CPUs don't get too warm but the Northbridge gets quite toasty.

A single CPU X5690 machine (6 core) with 64GB RAM, some fast NVME drives and upgraded with a RX6600XT 8GB card is quite a nice option. It will be much quieter running, you won't have that annoying whining fan noise. The only other thing about the 5,1 is that it is so old.

Do you really need a Mac though? If not, go and get a PC workstation if you have the budget, they are easier to upgrade.
 

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
@VivienM How do you find the 12-core in use, is it loud?
Hard to say since I haven't really tried to use it for any kind of serious work, but my general view would be no, very quiet. And it was absolutely full of dust when I got it, too, which wouldn't have helped.

That being said, my other vintage Mac is a G4 MDD, and boy is that thing loud.

I still have serious difficulty recommending the 5,1, 12-core or not, for any kind of serious work in 2023. Maybe Geekbench isn't the best benchmark, but fundamentally, the rest of the lineup has been outperforming the 5,1 for a long time. And even though I'm not really doing anything demanding on either machine, I can tell you that the performance difference between my 2020 iMac and the 5,1 is very, very perceptible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

pullman

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
771
121
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks for writing back Vivien. I'm a little bit dependent hardware being able to run 32-bit software (Flexcolor specifically for my film scanner) so I need to be able to boot into an older OS versions to use that which this ties me to older machines for my photography work.

Hard to say since I haven't really tried to use it for any kind of serious work, but my general view would be no, very quiet. And it was absolutely full of dust when I got it, too, which wouldn't have helped.

That being said, my other vintage Mac is a G4 MDD, and boy is that thing loud.

I still have serious difficulty recommending the 5,1, 12-core or not, for any kind of serious work in 2023. Maybe Geekbench isn't the best benchmark, but fundamentally, the rest of the lineup has been outperforming the 5,1 for a long time. And even though I'm not really doing anything demanding on either machine, I can tell you that the performance difference between my 2020 iMac and the 5,1 is very, very perceptible.
 

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
Thanks for writing back Vivien. I'm a little bit dependent hardware being able to run 32-bit software (Flexcolor specifically for my film scanner) so I need to be able to boot into an older OS versions to use that which this ties me to older machines for my photography work.
Okay, you didn't mention that before...

Do you need PCI-E slots? If not, why not look at the iMac Pro? Its base model CPU will do over twice the performance my 12-core 5,1... and it can run all versions of macOS from High Sierra to Sonoma. I even wonder if it might conceivably stay supported until the last Intel version of macOS...
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

zgagato

macrumors member
Nov 24, 2021
85
28
Maybe get a 2018/20 Intel mini? It can run Mohave (32 bit) and even Sonoma no problem. 5.1 is great, but it is so old already, think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

AlexMaximus

macrumors 65816
Aug 15, 2006
1,232
578
A400M Base
Hi there,

I think most people that have a MP 5.1 can not imagine how much a basic system can be tuned Up. When I see the used systems on eBay, most of them have the standard configuration, maybe a slightly better gpu, but that’s it.
If, - and I stress the If, you are willing to set aside some funds for strong tune ups, you will be very surprised what a souped up MP 5,1 can do, even with todays standards. I’d challenge the gentlemen above with his iMac 2020 any day.

It really comes down to the question if you are a tinkerer and if you like to upgrade this thing. The upgrade is a sport and a hobby in itself. If that’s your thing, this is the right tool for you. The other question is one of budget. I have my rig now for about 8 years. Of course there is less of a life cycle left, but the entry price tag is also next to nothing today so what’s the risk here?
My calculation is simple. The AMD Radeon 6800XT for the 2019 MP had a price tag of 6000 dollars. (just the gpu)(!)
I have squeezed that card in my MP5.1. I paid 700 dollars for the gpu and another 170 to get it flashed in Poland to have boot screen in OSX Monterey, besides a very fast running Win10 64Bit.
In the Mac Pro 2019 world, Someone needed the base system (5000$) plus the 6800XT (6000$) to have a Pro level machine. -Sure, the MP5.1 might be slower in single core, but who cares? I have a 12 core Pro Level system with a AMD 6800XT For a tiny fraction of the price. Now THAT is VALUE for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trusso and pullman

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
If, - and I stress the If, you are willing to set aside some funds for strong tune ups, you will be very surprised what a souped up MP 5,1 can do, even with todays standards. I’d challenge the gentlemen above with his iMac 2020 any day.
Okay, so... let's see...

What do you have in your 5,1? 2x X5690? Mine has 2x X5670...

My 2020 iMac has the base model CPU, which is a 6-core i5-10500 with hyperthreading. You could have gotten a 10-core i9-10910.

Geekbench forgot to renew their SSL certificate so their site is messed up; what other CPU benchmarks can we look at?

And really, it's the CPU (and the OS support) that seems to be where the 5,1 feels old. Sure, you can improve the lousy storage performance by putting in an NVMe SSD, and you can put in a GPU that will outperform the 5300 in my iMac. You can put more RAM into a 5,1 than in most Apple Silicon machines. But you can't do anything about the fact that 32nm Nehalems up to 3.46GHz are the most CPU you can put in...
 

pullman

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
771
121
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks again, and apologies; I see now that I wasn't so clear on the 32-bit issue earlier. Unfortunately Hasselblad refuses to release modern software for the Flextight scanners (or give Ed Hamrick permission to tweak Vuescan so Flextights can be run using that) which means that I need a system that can handle 32-bit. And I believe that I also fall in the tinkerer category that @AlexMaximus mentioned; I've kept my 3,1 running since 2008 and really like that it keeps serving me well so many years later.

Speaking of PCI-E slots I would like to add an NVME and also a sound card as I'm looking into hooking the computer up to audio equipment. So I don't want to be limited. Being a photographer my image library is huge and I very much like to have drives in the computer instead of having to invest in an external solution for the main storage. My 3,1 currently has eight drives in it.

Thanks for mentioning the iMac Pro's OS compatibility, I wasn't aware of that. I am fully invested in very good Eizo monitors for image editing so I wouldn't want to go the iMac route.

Okay, you didn't mention that before...

Do you need PCI-E slots? If not, why not look at the iMac Pro? Its base model CPU will do over twice the performance my 12-core 5,1... and it can run all versions of macOS from High Sierra to Sonoma. I even wonder if it might conceivably stay supported until the last Intel version of macOS...


Thank you for your suggestion, that is an interesting thought but I fear I would feel a bit limited with that.

Maybe get a 2018/20 Intel mini? It can run Mohave (32 bit) and even Sonoma no problem. 5.1 is great, but it is so old already, think about it.

Thank you Alex. Your post reminded me of this old Vice article. For my use I'm wondering if a 12-core would be necessary. I suppose the extra processing power would benefit Photoshop filters but for the rest of the editing a lot of RAM (and speedy scratch disks) will be better. The tricky thing is of course that the 6-cores are (I believe) limited to 64GB. A reason I started looking at the 5,1 is that they've dropped a lot in price since the pandemic. So it may be a good time to add one of them.


Hi there,

I think most people that have a MP 5.1 can not imagine how much a basic system can be tuned Up. When I see the used systems on eBay, most of them have the standard configuration, maybe a slightly better gpu, but that’s it.
If, - and I stress the If, you are willing to set aside some funds for strong tune ups, you will be very surprised what a souped up MP 5,1 can do, even with todays standards. I’d challenge the gentlemen above with his iMac 2020 any day.

It really comes down to the question if you are a tinkerer and if you like to upgrade this thing. The upgrade is a sport and a hobby in itself. If that’s your thing, this is the right tool for you. The other question is one of budget. I have my rig now for about 8 years. Of course there is less of a life cycle left, but the entry price tag is also next to nothing today so what’s the risk here?
My calculation is simple. The AMD Radeon 6800XT for the 2019 MP had a price tag of 6000 dollars. (just the gpu)(!)
I have squeezed that card in my MP5.1. I paid 700 dollars for the gpu and another 170 to get it flashed in Poland to have boot screen in OSX Monterey, besides a very fast running Win10 64Bit.
In the Mac Pro 2019 world, Someone needed the base system (5000$) plus the 6800XT (6000$) to have a Pro level machine. -Sure, the MP5.1 might be slower in single core, but who cares? I have a 12 core Pro Level system with a AMD 6800XT For a tiny fraction of the price. Now THAT is VALUE for me.
 

BeatCrazy

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2011
5,123
4,480
@pullman I recently bought a 2012 Mac Pro 5,1 and have just finished getting it to its 'final state', yesterday.

I don't use it for real/production work, but I wanted to get it to a good spot, without dropping a ridiculous amount of money.

Mine has the W3565 (4C/8T) with 16GB of RAM and 1TB Samsung 860EVO. I had an unused 5700XT Anniversary Edition GPU, and upgrading the Wi-Fi/BT card to a BCM94360CD, my 'all in' cost was a little under $300USD.

I have it working with Monterey via OCLP, but I have a feeling that's the end of the road for macOS support. I could go to Ventura, but I believe I'd have to drop down to AMD Vega 56/64. That would mean no DSC support, so I would no longer be able to use the 5,1 with my Pro Display XDR or my Apple Studio Display.

I did this as more of a learning project, but I don't think I'd recommend it for most others. Mainly because macOS support will continue to be limited. We are about to start feel the real pain from software dropping support for High Sierra, which means in 3-4 years, Monterey might be almost unusable for modern apps.

Sounds like you're aware of most of these trade-offs, but I'm just pointing it out for those unfamiliar with the potential limitations.
 

AlexMaximus

macrumors 65816
Aug 15, 2006
1,232
578
A400M Base
Okay, so... let's see...

What do you have in your 5,1? 2x X5690? Mine has 2x X5670...

My 2020 iMac has the base model CPU, which is a 6-core i5-10500 with hyperthreading. You could have gotten a 10-core i9-10910.

Geekbench forgot to renew their SSL certificate so their site is messed up; what other CPU benchmarks can we look at?

And really, it's the CPU (and the OS support) that seems to be where the 5,1 feels old. Sure, you can improve the lousy storage performance by putting in an NVMe SSD, and you can put in a GPU that will outperform the 5300 in my iMac. You can put more RAM into a 5,1 than in most Apple Silicon machines. But you can't do anything about the fact that 32nm Nehalems up to 3.46GHz are the most CPU you can put in...
You are completely correct, I do see this as you are. The CPU is the weak spot on the 5.1. BTW, I also love iMacs they are super great machines.
As users that loves to have a good running MacOS/Win10 Hybrid machine, we all sit in the same boat. The main question is this: How much longer will Apple support Intel Macs in terms of years & MacOS and what is most efficient in terms of equipment to use till that day comes And how much does it cost.
I was in the same shoes two years ago as Pullmann today and wanted to switch to an iMac Pro. I had one for testing for 10 days. But in the end it was too expensive and I have realized I had to but all HDD’s and valuable PCIe adapter cards in even more expensive TB3 chassis and external SATA HDD boxes. It wasn’t feasible, so I stayed on my MP5.1

Under normal circumstances, I would recommend to switch to Apple Silicone. But since Pullmann is kind of stuck on the 32 Bit third party software issue, a low cost solution might be best. The open question is the price structure at his location.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
You are completely correct, I do see this as you are. The CPU is the weak spot on the 5.1. BTW, I also love iMacs they are super great machines.
As users that loves to have a good running MacOS/Win10 Hybrid machine, we all sit in the same boat. The main question is this: How much longer will Apple support Intel Macs in terms of years & MacOS and what is most efficient in terms of equipment to use till that day comes And how much does it cost.
I was in the same shoes two years ago as Pullmann today and wanted to switch to an iMac Pro. I had one for testing for 10 days. But in the end it was too expensive and I have realized I had to but all HDD’s and valuable PCIe adapter cards in even more expensive TB3 chassis and external SATA HDD boxes. It wasn’t feasible, so I stayed on my MP5.1

Under normal circumstances, I would recommend to switch to Apple Silicone. But since Pullmann is kind of stuck on the 32 Bit third party software issue, a low cost solution might be best. The open question is the price structure at his location.
Interestingly, I don't have any macOS/Windows hybrid machines... I have Windows machines (home-builts or Dells, typically) and I have Macs running macOS. And I would note that if you look at all my x86 machines, my brand-new-to-me 5,1 Mac Pro has the second slowest CPU in single-core performance, I think. In my case, I had always wanted a desktop Mac with a retina screen and finally bought the Intel 2020 iMac refurbished for barely more than the cost of a studio display and figured that if I got half the life expectancy of a Mac Studio for 1/3 the price, I would come out ahead, but I don't have any software/hardware dependencies tying my Macs to Intel.

In terms of 'how much longer will Apple support Intel Macs', I am leaning towards the view that 2025's macOS release will drop the last Intels.

I almost wonder if the OP shouldn't rethink the problem a bit and add more machines to his life. Get something with reasonable performance for the 32-bit software; maybe a 2018 Mac mini, possibly even with 10 gigabit Ethernet? Use that machine to scan the stuff with the scanning software, then as soon as the stuff is scanned, transfer it over a network to something more modern like an Apple Silicon machine. (Assuming that is doable - if the entire workflow is done in the 32-bit-only software, that obviously doesn't work)

Ultimately, this is the problem with these specialized pieces of hardware that require specialized software from greedy vendors who couldn't care less about OS compatibility - at some point, and I am not saying the OP is at that point yet but they will be in 2-3 years at most, you basically end up needing to dedicate an old machine to the old hardware/software and that's it. And, unfortunately, Apple's eagerness to kill things like 32-bit app support makes this worse than it would be in Windowsland.

And we're back to the fact that Apple's lineup sucks for the OP's situation:
- the 5,1 Mac Pro makes lots of sense, but is lacking in CPU
- the trashcan Mac Pro... probably doesn't have anything going for it that, say, the iMac Pro doesn't have other than the lack of a built-in monitor
- the 2019 Mac Pro can't run Mojave
- laptops are a silly idea if the OP is going to be tied to this software for years to come - a 2014 retina 15" would be great, but what do you do when the battery starts swelling for the third time and Apple no longer offers battery replacements?
That leaves regular iMacs, the iMac Pro, and the 2018 Mac mini, doesn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
@pullman I recently bought a 2012 Mac Pro 5,1 and have just finished getting it to its 'final state', yesterday.

I don't use it for real/production work, but I wanted to get it to a good spot, without dropping a ridiculous amount of money.

Mine has the W3565 (4C/8T) with 16GB of RAM and 1TB Samsung 860EVO. I had an unused 5700XT Anniversary Edition GPU, and upgrading the Wi-Fi/BT card to a BCM94360CD, my 'all in' cost was a little under $300USD.

I have it working with Monterey via OCLP, but I have a feeling that's the end of the road for macOS support. I could go to Ventura, but I believe I'd have to drop down to AMD Vega 56/64. That would mean no DSC support, so I would no longer be able to use the 5,1 with my Pro Display XDR or my Apple Studio Display.

I did this as more of a learning project, but I don't think I'd recommend it for most others. Mainly because macOS support will continue to be limited. We are about to start feel the real pain from software dropping support for High Sierra, which means in 3-4 years, Monterey might be almost unusable for modern apps.

Sounds like you're aware of most of these trade-offs, but I'm just pointing it out for those unfamiliar with the potential limitations.
So it seems like you've done, in a way, the opposite of what I did. I also recently bought a 5,1 for... quite a bit less than $300USD... and the original owner had gone full out. 512 gig Apple SSD, 64 gigs of Apple RAM, 2x5770s, dual 6-core Xeons. Must have cost upwards of $8000CAD new? I threw in a random hard drive for Snow Leopard but otherwise I haven't upgraded anything.

My goal was to have a collectible machine that could bridge the gap between a G4 MDD and my 2020 iMac. I originally was thinking about 2011 iMacs, but people here advised against them due to unreliable GPUs. Same with the Mac mini with the discrete GPU.

And so that means I'm stuck with the 5770 and High Sierra. I've actually found High Sierra less bad than I was expecting - I have two current web browsers (not for much longer), for one thing, and a version of MS Office new enough that it can connect to an O365 mailbox. And Steam still works...

But at the same time... what this reveals is the limits of Apple's OS policies. A few weeks before, I dug up a C2Q from the closet, upgraded it from a Q8300 to Q9650 from eBay, and set it up to dual boot XP and Windows 11. (Ironically, it also had a 5770, though I replaced that) Officially, of course, that machine is unsupported for 11. Unofficially, it works just fine and you can run the current version of Office, current web browsers, current version of Steam, etc and you will be able to do so for at least 3-5 years longer. This is a motherboard I bought in fall 2008, now on its third CPU. My 5,1 Mac Pro has 8x the RAM, substantially more CPU performance, a factory SSD, etc, and yet it's a few months away from no longer having a current web browser, it hasn't received an MS Office update in... oh, I dunno, at least three years, etc. And a number of apps I use heavily on my more current Macs - Infuse, Fiery Feeds, etc, all of which have strong iOS/Catalyst/etc ties, don't exist at all in a High Sierra-capable version. That machine would be so much more capable if I could put Monterey or Ventura on it - really, if it had Monterey or Ventura, it could be a daily driver Mac instead of an experimental/collector item.

This also reminds me of a depressing thought experiment I did in another thread. If someone, in late 2005, had bought a Dell with a Pentium D running XP, assuming they formatted their hard drive once to go from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows, they could be crawling Windows 11 (unsupportedly) and a modern web browser well into the second half of the 2020s. It wouldn't be pretty or particularly usable, but it would work. The same person, had they bought a Power Mac G5 (which, especially in its dual-processor models, probably outperformed the Pentium D) on the same day, would have lost the ability to have a modern web browser in, oh, 2011 or 2012?
 

Dayo

macrumors 68020
Dec 21, 2018
2,257
1,279
I'm currently on a cMP 3,1 which I've had since new (see sig). It's currently running DD1 High Sierra which is getting long in the tooth so I'd like to be able to use a more modern OS. For that I'm considering OCLP but that seems more tricky on 3,1s than on 5,1s, hence my thoughts on buying one of them.
Strange thing is that apart from the MP51 possibly being a tad faster, there is nothing you seem to want to do that can't be done with your existing MP31 and in your shoes, I will stick with the old girl; which happily runs everything from Tiger to Ventura.

I don't use the OCLP, so I am limited to merely everything from this:

Tiger.jpg

... to this:

MontereyFix.png
RX580 works nicely from Tiger to Mountain Lion even though not accelerated (minor glitches as from Lion). The glitches really become apparent from Mavericks and stay until proper support appears in Sierra. From about Lion, Apple apparently started bloating the OS and tasking the GPU just to run the OS.

Anyway, I fully understand the power of upgrade fever once it sets in (even for another vintage unit) and using the MP51 can definitely be a lot easier as there are simply a lot more users hacking it around. I am thinking upgrade fever has taken hold as you appear to have concluded it would be too tricky to run newer OS on your MP31 without actually trying to ... classic symptom. Nothing wrong with this btw!

2005 Dell for Windows will still run current OS and browser well after 2025 but a 2005 PowerMac lost such in 2012ish.
Think different I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

BeatCrazy

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2011
5,123
4,480
So it seems like you've done, in a way, the opposite of what I did. I also recently bought a 5,1 for... quite a bit less than $300USD... and the original owner had gone full out. 512 gig Apple SSD, 64 gigs of Apple RAM, 2x5770s, dual 6-core Xeons. Must have cost upwards of $8000CAD new? I threw in a random hard drive for Snow Leopard but otherwise I haven't upgraded anything.

My goal was to have a collectible machine that could bridge the gap between a G4 MDD and my 2020 iMac. I originally was thinking about 2011 iMacs, but people here advised against them due to unreliable GPUs. Same with the Mac mini with the discrete GPU.

And so that means I'm stuck with the 5770 and High Sierra. I've actually found High Sierra less bad than I was expecting - I have two current web browsers (not for much longer), for one thing, and a version of MS Office new enough that it can connect to an O365 mailbox. And Steam still works...

But at the same time... what this reveals is the limits of Apple's OS policies. A few weeks before, I dug up a C2Q from the closet, upgraded it from a Q8300 to Q9650 from eBay, and set it up to dual boot XP and Windows 11. (Ironically, it also had a 5770, though I replaced that) Officially, of course, that machine is unsupported for 11. Unofficially, it works just fine and you can run the current version of Office, current web browsers, current version of Steam, etc and you will be able to do so for at least 3-5 years longer. This is a motherboard I bought in fall 2008, now on its third CPU. My 5,1 Mac Pro has 8x the RAM, substantially more CPU performance, a factory SSD, etc, and yet it's a few months away from no longer having a current web browser, it hasn't received an MS Office update in... oh, I dunno, at least three years, etc. And a number of apps I use heavily on my more current Macs - Infuse, Fiery Feeds, etc, all of which have strong iOS/Catalyst/etc ties, don't exist at all in a High Sierra-capable version. That machine would be so much more capable if I could put Monterey or Ventura on it - really, if it had Monterey or Ventura, it could be a daily driver Mac instead of an experimental/collector item.

This also reminds me of a depressing thought experiment I did in another thread. If someone, in late 2005, had bought a Dell with a Pentium D running XP, assuming they formatted their hard drive once to go from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows, they could be crawling Windows 11 (unsupportedly) and a modern web browser well into the second half of the 2020s. It wouldn't be pretty or particularly usable, but it would work. The same person, had they bought a Power Mac G5 (which, especially in its dual-processor models, probably outperformed the Pentium D) on the same day, would have lost the ability to have a modern web browser in, oh, 2011 or 2012?
Different approaches, indeed.

You're aware of Chrome dropping support, but now Firefox is killing off support for Sierra/High Sierra/Mojave: https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/04/firefox-support-older-macos/

Unlike the OP, I don't have any legacy applications that I need to run. But I agree that @pullman should probably keep a secondary (older) machine around for that one purpose and move to Apple Silicon for daily/most use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

VivienM

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2022
496
341
Toronto, ON
You're aware of Chrome dropping support, but now Firefox is killing off support for Sierra/High Sierra/Mojave: https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/04/firefox-support-older-macos/
I don't think that's new per se - I was aware of it when I bought the 5,1 a month or so ago... but yes... that means that in 15 months or less, no more security updates for Firefox from Mozilla. Unless I install Windows 11 or Linux on the 5,1, I suppose... but that defeats the point.

That being said, I expect there will be a lot more web browser options in 2 years for High Sierra than for my poor Snow Leopard partition... or my MDD G4.

But... yeah, the 1 OS version per year cadence is brutal on third party app support. I get it - supporting 7 OS versions (Sierra, High Sierra, Mojave, Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, and Ventura... and I suppose Sonoma betas) is... a lot. Many Mac developers only support 3 or so.
In Windowsland, assuming you treat all feature updates of Windows 10/11 as one, they were only supporting 5 - 7, 8, 8.1, 10 and 11.
And even after this announcement, once Sonoma comes out, they'll be supporting five versions of macOS and only two versions of Windows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pullman

Yebubbleman

macrumors 603
May 20, 2010
6,024
2,616
Los Angeles, CA
Thank you so much for your quick, excellent and very relevant replies and comments :)

I'm currently on a cMP 3,1 which I've had since new (see sig). It's currently running DD1 High Sierra which is getting long in the tooth so I'd like to be able to use a more modern OS. For that I'm considering OCLP but that seems more tricky on 3,1s than on 5,1s, hence my thoughts on buying one of them.

I've upgraded my machine several times over the years, with HDDs and SSDs, a Sonnet Tempo and various video cards. I was considering the Mini but I'm fond of the modular design of the MP. I've always enjoyed the flexibility that offers and like to have the PCI slots for further upgrade possibilities. I also use certain older software for my film scanners, which doesn't run on newer machines. The typical image files I edit are perhaps 500MB and my 3,1 handles them well, even when stored on SATA 600 HDDs so I don't think I need a super fast machine.

It's perhaps a bit stupidly nostalgic, but I also like the idea of keeping old machines running. I'm typing this on a 2015 11" MBA which is natively running Monterey and find that pretty cool (I'm a bit silly like that, but then again I only use film when I photograph...).

I find Geekbench scores interesting and know that they don't show the full picture. A 5,1 may possibly double the performance of my current 8-core 3,1. It also seems to me that the Xeons are really stable in use. They just tick along somehow. So that plays into the equation too.

At this point, PCIe is a premium on a Mac (given that your only options are a 2010/12 Mac Pro, a 2019 Mac Pro, or a 2023 Mac Pro with the former being really old, the middle being still pretty expensive, and the latter being similarly expensive. I'm not saying it isn't cool. But, I'd strongly consider whether or not it's truly necessary as it'll be a pain (whether via hacking or spending a ton of money).


Thanks for writing back Vivien. I'm a little bit dependent hardware being able to run 32-bit software (Flexcolor specifically for my film scanner) so I need to be able to boot into an older OS versions to use that which this ties me to older machines for my photography work.

This might sound like a wacky idea, but do you need PCIe for your film scanner (and/or Flexcolor itself)? If not, I'd just get some Mojave-compatible Mac (Late 2013 to Mid 2015 15-inch MacBook Pro [provided any 2015 15-inch MacBook Pro has had the battery recall taken care of]; 2014-2019 27-inch iMac; 2017-2019 21.5-inch iMac) and run that. Then get whatever PCIe-based Mac Pro you want for general use and/or use of modern Photoshop versions.


Do you need PCI-E slots? If not, why not look at the iMac Pro? Its base model CPU will do over twice the performance my 12-core 5,1... and it can run all versions of macOS from High Sierra to Sonoma.

This isn't a bad idea at all, actually. You still get a Xeon-based Mac; you still can run Mojave and you can still (at least for the foreseeable future) dual-boot with the latest macOS release and all on one single machine. A 2019 21.5-inch iMac and a 2019 iMac will also do that same trick (though, I'd either hunt for one that has a high capacity SSD or one with a Fusion Drive that you intend to replace (at least) the hard drive on (as that can yield you two SSDs of whatever size you want). Though, an iMac Pro will probably get a little more time before losing support for a later version of macOS.

I even wonder if it might conceivably stay supported until the last Intel version of macOS...
I'd bet it will. Apple's only reasons to give it the axe before that point would be if they had to drop support for things like those Vega GPUs or something unique to that particular Xeon that prevented Apple from releasing an updated driver. But even that seems unlikely.
 

friendofthai

macrumors newbie
Aug 13, 2023
16
4
Strange thing is that apart from the MP51 possibly being a tad faster
My overclocked Mac Pro 3.1 (overclocked by boot script 3.16->3.79Ghz via FSB with DDR2 400 32Gb) -


... has the same Geekbench score as a single processor Mac Pro 5.1


One might overclock even faster and get a Mac Pro 3.1 which is even faster than a standard Mac Pro 5.1
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.