Mac Pro 1,1 Question

[leftcoast650]

I hate to start a new thread, but after countless hours searching I couldn't find the info I have been looking for so here we go. I just recently got this computer and I have my own photo/video business and notice that the computer can't handle running my video files (1080p-2.7k) and also rendering photos and video takes a lot longer then I would like. Mostly I use the CS6 Suite (Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere) While currently the computer is running 2 x 3 Ghz Intel Xeon (5160), 16GB RAM, ATI 5770. What's an ideal processor upgrade I could do? Is there anything else you could suggest? Btw I got a 6201 on the geekbench test.

Thank you.

 

[justperry]

I am not solving your problem here but my Mac Mini 2012 Base Model has 6800 on Geekbench.

Now, I know this is only Geekbench and yours will most likely be faster with heavy Video loads but it says something.

A Mac Mini Server 2012 would most likely be faster than your MP 1.1

If you earn your money with it I would at least think about investing some money in a more recent Mac.

 

[Tesselator]

You're already running

• Intel Xeon (5160) (4 cores @ 3.0Ghz right?),
• 16GB RAM,
• ATI 5770.

So there's no hardware upgrade that's going to help. (Well, maybe a 570 for some CUDA clocks but...)

LR is a dog on any machine. You can go for CaptureOne or something to fix that one up. Photoshop itself is also 2 to 3 times faster than LR4.x Bridge is between 8 and 22 times faster - depending on the task. (these are actually tested times BTW).

And you don't need a "more recent mac" for photo editing. I'm very into photography and edit 100's to 1000's of images in a session and the machine I use for that is a MacPro1,1 8x2.67GHz cores, 32GB RAM, and a 8800GT card. It's your tuning... I can /almost/ guarantee that if you were to migrate your current set-up over to the newest MacPro5,1 you would still have lag issues.

My site: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/
Or start from here: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/


Just some of my equipment:

​

And my Mac with slower specs than yours edits photos at about the same speed as the maxed out MacPro4,1.

Geekbench is the lamest benchmark on the planet. I know it got popular somehow but its "score" is both inaccurate and virtually meaningless. My GB scores for example, can vary from minute to minute or day to day by as much as 600 points. It's OK-ish for looking at the various component tests individually tho. For example I can see that my RAM (or at least the bank GB used) is operating at normal speeds for this machine:

• Memory Section: Stdlib, Write single-threaded scalar, 1497, 3.10 GB/sec

and so on...

But as an indication of general performance GB is almost a complete failure.


.

 

[GermanyChris]

I hate to start a new thread, but after countless hours searching I couldn't find the info I have been looking for so here we go. I just recently got this computer and I have my own photo/video business and notice that the computer can't handle running my video files (1080p-2.7k) and also rendering photos and video takes a lot longer then I would like. Mostly I use the CS6 Suite (Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere) While currently the computer is running 2 x 3 Ghz Intel Xeon (5160), 16GB RAM, ATI 5770. What's an ideal processor upgrade I could do? Is there anything else you could suggest? Btw I got a 6201 on the geekbench test.

Thank you.

x5355's, x5365, e5345's would be the common processors.

with 5355's I get 10,480 Geekbench

with 5345's I get 9200 or so

Folks with 5365 are geting about 11K

If you think that would be beneficial great. 5365's are still in the hundreds price wise for the processors. 5355's can be had for less than $100 and 5345's less than $50

 

[Macsonic]

You're already running

• Intel Xeon (5160) (4 cores @ 3.0Ghz right?),
• 16GB RAM,
• ATI 5770.

So there's no hardware upgrade that's going to help. (Well, maybe a 570 for some CUDA clocks but...)

LR is a dog on any machine. You can go for CaptureOne or something to fix that one up. Photoshop itself is also 2 to 3 times faster than LR4.x Bridge is between 8 and 22 times faster - depending on the task. (these are actually tested times BTW).

And you don't need a "more recent mac" for photo editing. I'm very into photography and edit 100's to 1000's of images in a session and the machine I use for that is a MacPro1,1 8x2.67GHz cores, 32GB RAM, and a 8800GT card. It's your tuning... I can /almost/ guarantee that if you were to migrate your current set-up over to the newest MacPro5,1 you would still have lag issues.

My site: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/
Or start from here: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/


Just some of my equipment:




And my Mac with slower specs than yours edits photos at about the same speed as the maxed out MacPro4,1.

Geekbench is the lamest benchmark on the planet. I know it got popular somehow but its "score" is both inaccurate and virtually meaningless. My GB scores for example, can vary from minute to minute or day to day by as much as 600 points. It's OK-ish for looking at the various component tests individually tho. For example I can see that my RAM (or at least the bank GB used) is operating at normal speeds for this machine:

• Memory Section: Stdlib, Write single-threaded scalar, 1497, 3.10 GB/sec

and so on...

But as an indication of general performance GB is almost a complete failure.


.

You are right and I agree about your comment on Geekbench as a "barometer" in cpu performance. it's actually hard to compare in terms of real world performance. BTW your photo equipment collection is awesome

 

[TheEasterBunny]

I hate to start a new thread, but after countless hours searching I couldn't find the info I have been looking for so here we go. I just recently got this computer and I have my own photo/video business and notice that the computer can't handle running my video files (1080p-2.7k) and also rendering photos and video takes a lot longer then I would like. Mostly I use the CS6 Suite (Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere) While currently the computer is running 2 x 3 Ghz Intel Xeon (5160), 16GB RAM, ATI 5770. What's an ideal processor upgrade I could do? Is there anything else you could suggest? Btw I got a 6201 on the geekbench test.

Thank you.

I have a Pro 1,1 with 2x2.66 dual cores (5160) As posted by others the 5365 quads have more power for rendering, but I use PS CS5 and I don't seem to have any issues, my Geek scores are similar to yours. I find that odd, you should have better scores than I do!
I use 2 SSD's in a RAID 0 software type configuration. I also have 3 other 7200RPM drives installed for storage. It seems using all of the drives as scratch disks for PS speeds up PS. The Solid State Drives (SSD) making the biggest difference in PS. This arrangement makes no difference on my Geek scores however. But does make the whole machine snappier in daily processes. I am not a pro photographer, but I do use PS for work.
This link has a speed test for PS. It is an action, that does many things no one would do, but by pushing PS in this way you can try different configs of the "performance" settings in PS to find what is most efficient for you. I consistently get times below 30 seconds with this test, my best time being 26 seconds.
I would try adjusting what you have before I would consider new processors. SSD's help a lot too, especially with PS with scratch disk usage. There is more info about this speed test here. Good luck!

P.S. I would run the test 5 to 10 times without changing any settings to get a mean or average time and then with each setting change do the same, so you have a more accurate idea of the improvements you are getting with the changes. As with all bench marks your mileage varies, but comparing your own machine to your own machine at least gives you an idea.

 

[Omnius]

Just for comparison my dual core 2011 mac mini just geekbenched 6652. That's a pretty substantial difference in geekbench's between us. for further comparison a 2012 quad core mac mini can bench 12815 in 64 bit.

The age of your machine is showing. If you were running a 4,1 or better mac pro, you'd probably see some big improvements.

 

[Ccrew]

Just for comparison my dual core 2011 mac mini just geekbenched 6652. That's a pretty substantial difference in geekbench's between us. for further comparison a 2012 quad core mac mini can bench 12815 in 64 bit.

The age of your machine is showing. If you were running a 4,1 or better mac pro, you'd probably see some big improvements.

Or upgrade the proc's to 5355's to leave the 2011 mini in the dirt and almost match the 2012 Mini for about $100 if it's just a numbers shootout

 

[666sheep]

OP, if you're on 10.7 and you don't mind to throw about $280 in your MP, your best bet will be pair of 5355s (~$80) and GTX 570 ($200 - unflashed, flashed won't work in your MP). These upgrades will significantly improve your Premiere work and maybe a bit LR (CPUs at least).

What storage setup you have now?

 

[Macsonic]

I hate to start a new thread, but after countless hours searching I couldn't find the info I have been looking for so here we go. I just recently got this computer and I have my own photo/video business and notice that the computer can't handle running my video files (1080p-2.7k) and also rendering photos and video takes a lot longer then I would like. Mostly I use the CS6 Suite (Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere) While currently the computer is running 2 x 3 Ghz Intel Xeon (5160), 16GB RAM, ATI 5770. What's an ideal processor upgrade I could do? Is there anything else you could suggest? Btw I got a 6201 on the geekbench test.

Thank you.

Not sure if this solves your problem, have you tried reformatting your Mac Pro and do a full clean install of OSX? And try a lower version of Adobe like CS5 or CS4.

 

[Omnius]

Or upgrade the proc's to 5355's to leave the 2011 mini in the dirt and almost match the 2012 Mini for about $100 if it's just a numbers shootout

Better forward compatibility and superior speeds on the drives aren't exactly an irrelevant factor...

Obviously performance would be best improved with a newer pro but the old 1,1 / 2,1 pros are Pro in name only at this point. They were great then, they're merely okay now.

 

[MacinJosh]

Or upgrade the proc's to 5355's to leave the 2011 mini in the dirt and almost match the 2012 Mini for about $100 if it's just a numbers shootout

It's not necessarily an upgrade from 5160 as performance drops significantly on apps that don't utilize more than 4 cores. I consider the 5365 the only viable upgrade to the 5160 and even then you only get a performance gain on multithreaded apps.

 

[GermanyChris]

Better forward compatibility and superior speeds on the drives aren't exactly an irrelevant factor...

Obviously performance would be best improved with a newer pro but the old 1,1 / 2,1 pros are Pro in name only at this point. They were great then, they're merely okay now.

you get one maybe to in a mini I can cram 8 drives in now.

I can put any modern graphics card or even a pair in you cannot put any in.

I have continued expandability going forward you are locked into a laptop.

I can push to 32GB or RAM the mini cannot

My MP is faster then any mini short of a mini server.

There really are more considerations that geekbench scores and SATA revisions .

 

[rcook55]

If I could hop in on this thread. I too have a MP 1,1 currently with 2x2.66. I have available to me 2x3.0 5160's or 2x2.0 5335's. I don't do anything with this box that really requires any horsepower aside from the occasional handbrake encode but I'm a geek and I can so...

If you were to take the time to swap processors out would you go for 4 cores @ 3GHz or 8 cores @ 2GHz? The box has 16Gb of RAM and a GT620 video card.

 

[Tesselator]

If I could hop in on this thread. I too have a MP 1,1 currently with 2x2.66. I have available to me 2x3.0 5160's or 2x2.0 5335's. I don't do anything with this box that really requires any horsepower aside from the occasional handbrake encode but I'm a geek and I can so...

If you were to take the time to swap processors out would you go for 4 cores @ 3GHz or 8 cores @ 2GHz? The box has 16Gb of RAM and a GT620 video card.

I like the 8 core x5355 option best.

But of the 20 or 30 apps I use regularly over 2/3rds are multi-threaded and processor hungry. I see all 8 procs at between 85% and 98% a lot! If I were just web browsing and light photoshopping with a Handbreak once or twice a week I would go for the x5160 chips tho.

Right, it's about 21GHz potential vs. 12GHz potential on something like Handbreak. But non-threaded apps like 1/3 to 1/2 of PS and your web browsers will be a tad bit peppier under the 3.0GHz procs. 3.0 vs. 2.67 is NOT a "significant" difference as others may imply though. Just a tad...



----------

I can push to 32GB or RAM the mini cannot

Actually it's 64GB...

 

[GermanyChris]

I like the 8 core x5355 option best.

But of the 20 or 30 apps I use regularly over 2/3rds are multi-threaded and processor hungry. I see all 8 procs at between 85% and 98% a lot! If I were just web browsing and light photoshopping with a Handbreak once or twice a week I would go for the x5160 chips tho.

Right, it's about 21GHz potential vs. 12GHz potential on something like Handbreak. But non-threaded apps like 1/3 to 1/2 of PS and your web browsers will be a tad bit peppier under the 3.0GHz procs. 3.0 vs. 2.67 is NOT a "significant" difference as others may imply though. Just a tad...



----------



Actually it's 64GB...

Those are expensive DIMM's $250 a pop

http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-ValueRAM-667MHz-FBDIMM-Desktop/dp/B00134A5IY

 

[Omnius]

you get one maybe to in a mini I can cram 8 drives in now.

I can put any modern graphics card or even a pair in you cannot put any in.

I have continued expandability going forward you are locked into a laptop.

I can push to 32GB or RAM the mini cannot

My MP is faster then any mini short of a mini server.

There really are more considerations that geekbench scores and SATA revisions .

The internal drives in a 1,1 mac pro will operate substantially slower than USB 3.0 drives on a 2012 mac mini.
Not all modern GPUs will work in a 1,1. Many won't work without resorting to hacked firmware.

32gb of RAM on a 1,1 mac pro is almost as expensive as buying a newer used mac pro...

Any mac mini can be made into a mac mini server for a relatively low cost.
There are still some limited reasons which justify using an old mac pro. It's rare that anyone would even attempt to argue a 1,1 mac pro is a cost effective option for most tasks.

The 1,1 and 2,1 mac pros have become pro in name only. They basically look the same and use the same name but their performance is hardly impressive anymore. It's not a bad computer, it's just an old one, which is why we see so many threads about 1,1 and 2,1 pros retiring to home use machines as opposed to continuing their lives as work stations.

 

[GermanyChris]

The internal drives in a 1,1 mac pro will operate substantially slower than USB 3.0 drives on a 2012 mac mini.
Not all modern GPUs will work in a 1,1. Many won't work without resorting to hacked firmware.

32gb of RAM on a 1,1 mac pro is almost as expensive as buying a newer used mac pro...

Any mac mini can be made into a mac mini server for a relatively low cost.
There are still some limited reasons which justify using an old mac pro. It's rare that anyone would even attempt to argue a 1,1 mac pro is a cost effective option for most tasks.

The 1,1 and 2,1 mac pros have become pro in name only. They basically look the same and use the same name but their performance is hardly impressive anymore. It's not a bad computer, it's just an old one, which is why we see so many threads about 1,1 and 2,1 pros retiring to home use machines as opposed to continuing their lives as work stations.

So you have a RAID card and 8 drives in you Mac Mini?

If you have less than a quad core Mac Mini My very old Mac pro is faster.

If you like a couple folks here, your SSD hooked to SATA 3 isn't really faster than their 4 Drive RAID Array.

You naturally had have a nice Fiber Channel card right, Matrox H264 compressor, roxio video capture.

When you can stuff 15+ TB in the box, put a modern graphics card, add a capture card, RAID card, a Blu-Ray Drive along with a DVD drive, eSATA and USB 3 all at the same time. Please let me know..

I like the mini but it's not my MP either

 

[Ccrew]

So you have a RAID card and 8 drives in you Mac Mini?

If you have less than a quad core Mac Mini My very old Mac pro is faster.
I like the mini but it's not my MP either

Yes it's 6 year old technology, but short of Apple trying to deprecate it it's not out to pasture either.

I have a 1.1, , 32gb of mem, cost was free. 2x 5355's were $105, and a Nvidia 560 2gb Superclocked which plugged and ran under 10.7.5 (minus only boot screens) was $125. A pair of cast off 120gb Intel SSD's running RAID 0 for boot were free, trays cost 60 bucks. 2x 1tb HDD's were free So for $290 I have a 8 core, 32gb mem Pro with 2.25 tb of storage. Geekbench at just under 11000

My Quad core MBP goes to to toe with it at $1800 and has less storage, a worse video card, and less memory. Don't discount the old MacPro's unless you have to have the latest and greatest. Short of lack of portability it'll do what a current generation MBP will do which means it'll also match a current gen Mini.

If I need to run FlipFactory to process encodes I'll throw them at my 32 core 256gb mem server sitting in my datacenter, until then....

 

[Omnius]

So you have a RAID card and 8 drives in you Mac Mini?

If you have less than a quad core Mac Mini My very old Mac pro is faster.

If you like a couple folks here, your SSD hooked to SATA 3 isn't really faster than their 4 Drive RAID Array.

You naturally had have a nice Fiber Channel card right, Matrox H264 compressor, roxio video capture.

When you can stuff 15+ TB in the box, put a modern graphics card, add a capture card, RAID card, a Blu-Ray Drive along with a DVD drive, eSATA and USB 3 all at the same time. Please let me know..

I like the mini but it's not my MP either

In my former occupation I used a number of Mac pros. I've clearly qualified my statements and disclaimed that the 1,1 is neither recycling nor useless but you seem to have a misguided belief that a 1,1 with extensive expensive upgrades is an accurate comparison. Really all you have done is prove my earlier point. It's stunningly expensive to maintain the aging 1,1 and a more ideal solution is more likely a newer Mac Pro, particularly in light of the cost comparison between a new mini and an aged pro with a number of substantial upgrades.

I'm not sure why you're being hostile about it but you really seem to be ignoring the overall point and are going a bit overboard into details that only serve to express a desire to be contrarian while proving my earlier statement regarding consideration of the newer Mac Pro.

 

[Tesselator]

I too think your points are mistaken Omnius.

Mac Mini is $600, $800, and $1,000 for the various BASE configurations respectively. Maybe if you could find the $800 one used with 16GB RAM, one SSD and one 3TB drive for $600 you might almost have a point. Still you wouldn't actually tho.

Unfortunately by the time the mini begins to approach the speed of a $600 upgraded MacPro1,1 Apple wants over $1,600 for it. And I guess no one is selling theirs or $600 anytime soon. Even if they were however you would still be stuck with HD 4000 graphics - and that means it can't do ****...

- just saying...

 

[GermanyChris]

In my former occupation I used a number of Mac pros. I've clearly qualified my statements and disclaimed that the 1,1 is neither recycling nor useless but you seem to have a misguided belief that a 1,1 with extensive expensive upgrades is an accurate comparison. Really all you have done is prove my earlier point. It's stunningly expensive to maintain the aging 1,1 and a more ideal solution is more likely a newer Mac Pro, particularly in light of the cost comparison between a new mini and an aged pro with a number of substantial upgrades.

I'm not sure why you're being hostile about it but you really seem to be ignoring the overall point and are going a bit overboard into details that only serve to express a desire to be contrarian while proving my earlier statement regarding consideration of the newer Mac Pro.

I'm not hostile just bored with the argument, you guys make these about once a week. You assume the people have no idea what a MM is and what it's capable of. Instead of answering the OP's question you went off on the buy a MM tangent.

The upgrade being talked about here are not that expensive $140 gets you 16GB $300 gets you to 32GB, a GTX 570 $250 and a pair of 5355 are less than $50 to $70. The fact that we can discuss this at all make the now 8yo computer more valuable.

Computers are more than there RAM and Processor speed.

 

[Lil Chillbil]

Can a mac mini server run 8 monitors at once and have enough storage capacity to last you for months on end without deleting a single file and can a server mini burn dvds ?



Case closed

 

[Omnius]

Can a mac mini server run 8 monitors at once and have enough storage capacity to last you for months on end without deleting a single file and can a server mini burn dvds ?



Case closed

The storage capacity issue is hardly closed. Externals at USB 3.0 are faster than the SATA 2 inside the 1,1. The monitor difference qualifies as a very niche requirement that would involve an extremely significant investment in an old machine. The only point that matters is, given the specs of the current mini vs the old pro is that it's not really a sound investment to spend an arm and a leg on a 1,1. Particularly given the fact that much newer mac pros can be had for prices on ebay that are relatively cheap and that many parts are significantly cheaper for the newer pro than the older pro(the ram being the classic example).

 

[Tesselator]

Those are expensive DIMM's $250 a pop

http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-ValueRAM-667MHz-FBDIMM-Desktop/dp/B00134A5IY

I thought I already replied to this but don't see it now. Weird.

Anyway, just to clarify I got 8 DIMMs - 32GB total for (about) $250
$250 to $300 is a VERY common price for 8x4 (32GB) that will work on the MacPro1,1 or 2,1...
It should be the case that 64GB is havable for a little more than double that... Like, $600 to $800 all total.
(should be... )

The storage capacity issue is hardly closed. Externals at USB 3.0 are faster than the SATA 2 inside the 1,1.

From the reading I've done they're about the same or SATAII is still faster. From what I've read on benchmark sites they're getting about 180MB/s when all conditions are just perfect. Have you seen benchmarks showing more? I'd be interested in a link if you have. I'm not talking about anything to do with the mini tho - I'm just interested in tested USB 3.0 throughput out of my own interests.