MAC 5.1 VS i7 chips

[jrev]

I have a Mac 5.1 mid 2010 with
2 x 2.4 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
20 GB 1066 MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 MB

I recently tried to upgrade video card to Titan x 12gb Maxwell. The card was nice for some editing but didnt boost render speeds and I pulled it from Machine due to an overheating situation. I've seen ways to upgrade these processors to I believe 3.4ghz. So im wondering because of my Titan is it better to build a PC with the i7 or would the dual 3.4's outperform a custom pc build. and just to be even crazier has anyone heard of a dual i7 build?

I'm just wondering if I should keep sinking cash into the Mac 5.1 for editing or just build a PC thats not gonna run my pockets? I dont "play" or use a bunch of random crap on my mac anymore just Adobe, so going mac/pc doesnt bother me. Im just tired of paying for mac because they design a new product and the software guys aren't caught up to the hardware yet.

I think im looking at this processor
Intel Core i7-8700K 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor - 12 MB - LGA1151 Socket

 

[h9826790]

I have a Mac 5.1 mid 2010 with
2 x 2.4 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
20 GB 1066 MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 MB

I recently tried to upgrade video card to Titan x 12gb Maxwell. The card was nice for some editing but didnt boost render speeds and I pulled it from Machine due to an overheating situation. I've seen ways to upgrade these processors to I believe 3.4ghz. So im wondering because of my Titan is it better to build a PC with the i7 or would the dual 3.4's outperform a custom pc build. and just to be even crazier has anyone heard of a dual i7 build?

I'm just wondering if I should keep sinking cash into the Mac 5.1 for editing or just build a PC thats not gonna run my pockets? I dont "play" or use a bunch of random crap on my mac anymore just Adobe, so going mac/pc doesnt bother me. Im just tired of paying for mac because they design a new product and the software guys aren't caught up to the hardware yet.

I think im looking at this processor
Intel Core i7-8700K 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor - 12 MB - LGA1151 Socket

i7 can't work in dual processor config. Only some Xeon can.

 

[kschendel]

It all depends on what apps you are running, and if they are optimized for multi-thread, multi-core operation. The dual CPU's in the cMP give you up to 12 cores / 24 threads (if CPU upgraded), but single threaded it's significantly slower than the latest CPU's. If your key apps like a lot of cores / threads and you're doing a new build, I'd probably be looking at AMD Threadripper. I have no idea if anyone has tried to make an AMD build into a Hackintosh or if it would even work, so you'd probably have to switch to linux or windows. Or be on the research edge.

 

[nampramos]

There's a hackintosh with those AMD Treadtripper.

Cant remember now where I saw the thread though but looked great.

And from what I read, everything was working fine.

I'm on a similar boat as you.

I just want to run Adobe LR and PS as fast and smooth as possible. Not sure those two apps use the full potential of 2 CPUs and 12 cores...?

 

[mikas]

In Geekbench 8700k seems to top even 2 pcs X5690 in multi-core tests, and even more so in single-core tests. In single-core it will be about double the performance of X5690. If I didn't want/need Mac OS, I might go with 8700k PC. It might cost a little bit more than a fully configured old Mac Pro 2010, but it will have warranty and more years ahead of it. One thing though; 8700k does not support more RAM than 64GB.

But then again, I did just buy 2010 and am upgrading it almost to the max.

 

[h9826790]

It all depends on what apps you are running, and if they are optimized for multi-thread, multi-core operation. The dual CPU's in the cMP give you up to 12 cores / 24 threads (if CPU upgraded), but single threaded it's significantly slower than the latest CPU's. If your key apps like a lot of cores / threads and you're doing a new build, I'd probably be looking at AMD Threadripper. I have no idea if anyone has tried to make an AMD build into a Hackintosh or if it would even work, so you'd probably have to switch to linux or windows. Or be on the research edge.

In Geekbench 8700k seems to top even 2 pcs X5690 in multi-core tests, and even more so in single-core tests. In single-core it will be about double the performance of X5690. If I didn't want/need Mac OS, I might go with 8700k PC. It might cost a little bit more than a fully configured old Mac Pro 2010, but it will have warranty and more years ahead of it. One thing though; 8700k does not support more RAM than 64GB.

But then again, I did just buy 2010 and am upgrading it almost to the max.

I just did some Benchmarks on my 8700K Hackintosh. In fact, the 8700K's multi thread performance is comparable to a dual X5690 system. In fact, my CPU can run at 5.2GHz stably, but I don't like the extra heat and fan noise. Therefore, only run it at 4.8GHz, and this is the 4.8GHz GB4 result.

Even need / want macOS, 8700k still a very nice option. The key is just pick the correct hardware (mainly the motherboard). Follow pastrychef's guide to get the exact same hardware will allow you to boot and run your Hackintosh effortlessly with just 2 steps.

 

[nampramos]

That's a very interesting Hackintosh from "pastrychef".

h9826790 Do you think a similar hack would be possible with the Xeon chips that equip the iMac Pro?

 

[h9826790]

That's a very interesting Hackintosh from "pastrychef".

h9826790 Do you think a similar hack would be possible with the Xeon chips that equip the iMac Pro?

I am quite sure the chip is fine as long as you pick the same series CPU as the iMac Pro is using. However, I really don't know which motherboard is a good option. There is only very very little (or even no) Hackintosh user has this kind of build, so, not enough info to know what's the "correct" hardware to pick.

 

[nampramos]

I should have looked at the price of these Xeon chips the iMac pro has before asking! They are a no go for me.

Do you have thunderbolt 3 on your hackinstosh? I saw that Asus sells a board for that.

 

[h9826790]

I should have looked at the price of these Xeon chips the iMac pro has before asking! They are a no go for me.

Do you have thunderbolt 3 on your hackinstosh? I saw that Asus sells a board for that.

No, my hack only has USB 3.1 Gen 2, but I personally don't need TB.

 

[tpivette89]

I just did some Benchmarks on my 8700K Hackintosh. In fact, the 8700K's multi thread performance is comparable to a dual X5690 system. In fact, my CPU can run at 5.2GHz stably, but I don't like the extra heat and fan noise. Therefore, only run it at 4.8GHz, and this is the 4.8GHz GB4 result.
View attachment 769062
Even need / want macOS, 8700k still a very nice option. The key is just pick the correct hardware (mainly the motherboard). Follow pastrychef's guide to get the exact same hardware will allow you to boot and run your Hackintosh effortlessly with just 2 steps.

Wow... those scores are mind-blowing. More than doubles the single-core score, and scores 2500 more than the multi-core score of my dual X5690 Mac Pro.

 

[nampramos]

It really does look like a great option. I'm just always thinking if a new macOS updates comes out and "breaks" everything.

Price wise, the only really expensive part if using the 8700K is the DDR4, especially if wanting to have 64GB (or even 32GB).

 

[handheldgames]

There's a hackintosh with those AMD Treadtripper.

Cant remember now where I saw the thread though but looked great.

And from what I read, everything was working fine.

I'm on a similar boat as you.

I just want to run Adobe LR and PS as fast and smooth as possible. Not sure those two apps use the full potential of 2 CPUs and 12 cores...?

Both of those apps workflows would also run faster with 128gb of ram, a fast pcie ssd scratch disk and a modern video card.

It really does look like a great option. I'm just always thinking if a new macOS updates comes out and "breaks" everything.

Price wise, the only really expensive part if using the 8700K is the DDR4, especially if wanting to have 64GB (or even 32GB).

great point.

64gb DDR3 4x16gb 2rx4 rdimms ecc: $160
64gb DDR4 4x16gb: $650

 

[nampramos]

Massive difference the RAM.
The 8700K price is very good for the performance one can take out of it. Same for the Asus motherboards.

I still couldn't find real world comparisons for the work I would be doing, and probably won't.

On one hand, the 8700K is much more future proof but running a Hackintosh is always a gamble and have to be constantly patching stuff. On the other hand, the 5,1 maxed-out would be cheaper, run macOS without much trouble but could be obsolete in terms of new macOS versions very soon...