Mac Pro 1,1 5160 to X5355 Upgrade Worth It?

[USSR]

Hey guys. So I have a newly acquired Mac Pro 1,1 ('06) with two 5160 3.0GHz processors. I bought two paired X5355 2.66Ghz CPUs thinking the computer I was getting was going to have the 2.0GHz processors.

I've been reading cases where people upgrade to the X5355s because they run 15 apps at one time and use programs that use a lot of resources. I wouldn't be using my Mac Pro for anything that intense; the occasional use of Lightroom, Counter Strike Source (older game), and internet use.

My question is: is the $200 upgrade to the X5355s worth it to me? Since my computer use isn't very intense, would I even notice a difference? I've upgraded the graphics card and plan to add more ram (thinking about 8 GBs). Any help is appreciated, thanks!

FYI: Geekbench in 32bit mode gives me 6100 with my current setup.

 

[AngryRedTicTac]

For your uses it would likely be a downgrade in day to day operations. Unless you add FCPX or Handbrake to your list the extra cores won't be of use. Stick with your faster clocked 5160s.

 

[USSR]

Thanks for your response, AngryRed. Care to elaborate on why it'd be a downgrade in my case? I'm guessing it's because the extra cores are better for programs that require a lot of rendering & resources, while everyday programs benefit more from the speed of the processor, not number of cores?

Hopefully, this will benefit other users looking to do the same upgrade, as the true benefits of the upgrade aren't really discussed in detail. Thanks!

 

[juanm]

If I remember correctly, with the X5355, I got around 8000-8500 in Geekbench with 8GB of RAM. In this particular case, I'd sell the processors, and get more RAM, or better, an SSD (it will make a huge difference!)

 

[thekev]

Lightroom scales fairly well. If you have to process 1000+ images at a time and you can't get it done overnight currently, it might be worth doing. You don't sound like you're doing that.

If I remember correctly, with the X5355, I got around 8000-8500 in Geekbench with 8GB of RAM. In this particular case, I'd sell the processors, and get more RAM, or better, an SSD (it will make a huge difference!)

Some of you really need to understand where an SSD will and will not help rather than just posting garbage. It opens applications faster, boots faster, reboots faster, and wakes from sleep faster. If you're experiencing significant application performance within a 64 bit application from the use of an SSD, it just means you're low on ram. The OP could benefit from one as a scratch disk. If it's also being used as a boot disk, he needs to plan to keep a lot of free space on it. It will have virtually no effect on his gaming.

Thanks for your response, AngryRed. Care to elaborate on why it'd be a downgrade in my case? I'm guessing it's because the extra cores are better for programs that require a lot of rendering & resources, while everyday programs benefit more from the speed of the processor, not number of cores?

Hopefully, this will benefit other users looking to do the same upgrade, as the true benefits of the upgrade aren't really discussed in detail. Thanks!

The upgrade you mentioned is slower "per core", but has more cores. Your gaming will not scale to eight. Lightroom takes some advantage of it for file processing, but again how much of that are you doing?

 

[USSR]

Thanks guys for your responses!

The upgrade you mentioned is slower "per core", but has more cores. Your gaming will not scale to eight. Lightroom takes some advantage of it for file processing, but again how much of that are you doing?

Like you said, sounds like I'd benefit most from RAM and a SSD. I'm never running multiple programs at a time and I don't do a lot of file processing (I have a DSLR, but I'm not a pro-photographer taking thousands of photos a week, so I'm not in Lightroom too often.) Where I'd like to see some improvement is the speed at which programs open and load, so it sounds like a SSD will help. Thanks again.

 

[thekev]

Thanks guys for your responses!



Like you said, sounds like I'd benefit most from RAM and a SSD. I'm never running multiple programs at a time and I don't do a lot of file processing (I have a DSLR, but I'm not a pro-photographer taking thousands of photos a week, so I'm not in Lightroom too often.) Where I'd like to see some improvement is the speed at which programs open and load, so it sounds like a SSD will help. Thanks again.

It's important to understand what each upgrade provides. The put in an SSD as a blanket statement from so many users is kind of silly. If that mac pro is using the original hard drive, yeah it would be slow by current standards. You might benefit from an SSD or ram. Older mac pros are becoming kind of pointless though unless you do make use of things like PCI cards and the additional drive bays. If something like a logic board fails on one of those old systems, it's still an expensive repair. I wouldn't dump too much money into a 5+ year old machine.

 

[tbmx]

Would the upgrade be worth it coming from 5150's if the primary goal was to increase gaming performance? Many newer games recommend quad cores. Would the performance of true quadcore chips surpass that of two dual cores? I haven't seen a clear answer on this.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

Purchased a 2GHz Mac Pro in 2007, and the Geekbench test ran out at 3,714. Installed a pair of X5355 CPU's, an SSD and an ATI Radeon HD4870 1GB flashed graphics card and increased memory to the 8GB.

Result using Geekbench? 9,214 so will leave it to you to determine if it was worthwhile. Sure was IMHO however. Total costs of CPU's, graphics, SSD and memory was around $600. Was it worth spending the money on?

Yes indeed. Here down under Mac Pro 1.1 still brings around $1,000-$1,500 and later models, say 4.1 $2,000 to $2,500.

 

[USSR]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I've decided to part with the X5355s and wait to possibly upgrade to a SSD.

If someone's interested in the matched pair of X5355s, PM me.

Another factor for me was the fact that I use my MacBook Pro a lot more than my old desktop the Mac Pro is replacing, so I guess I can't justify the upgrade for a computer that won't be used too often.

 

[permarco]

I'm really interested in it, tough I'm not american. Can you please share or PM me the vendor? Last but not least, do I/We need a coupled pair of CPUs (like dual channel memories), or I can buy two x5355 to do the upgrade?!?!?

Thanks and sorry for my poor english !

 

[Neodym]

do I/We need a coupled pair of CPUs (like dual channel memories), or I can buy two x5355 to do the upgrade?!?!?

Generally you should be able to buy and use two x5355 at will - there are no reports about problems with "unmatched" CPU's in a MP.

You may nevertheless want to pay attention to have both CPU's in G0 revision ("SLAEG") to avoid having to manually tweak the fan settings due to (significantly) higher temperatures. See this thread for more details.