Lou
I just ordered a X5690 to save all the other updates I have added to my Mac Pro. (See Sign off).
Thanks to all and Happy New Year.
Bob
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models Mac Pro CPU Compatibility List
- Thread starter ActionableMango
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I just ordered a X5690 to save all the other updates I have added to my Mac Pro. (See Sign off).
Thanks to all and Happy New Year.
Bob
I have a 2007 Mac Pro that I have upgraded to Yosemite using the tools and methods on the forum - a couple of quick questions:
1. The CPU in the machine are the two 3 GHz Quad Core Xeon X5365 chips. Is there any upgrade possible beyond that?
2. Does the RAM in the 2,1 need heatsinks? Thinking of buying a 64gb set and seeing a set on ebay but it has no heatsinks and the RAM modules i got the MP with and the upgrade kit i installed 4 years ago all had the heatsinks
1. The CPU in the machine are the two 3 GHz Quad Core Xeon X5365 chips. Is there any upgrade possible beyond that?
2. Does the RAM in the 2,1 need heatsinks? Thinking of buying a 64gb set and seeing a set on ebay but it has no heatsinks and the RAM modules i got the MP with and the upgrade kit i installed 4 years ago all had the heatsinks
So I got my new to me 2012 dual 2.4 ghz last week and just today I dropped in 2 x5677 @ 3.46ghz. Everything is working great except CPU A seems to be running a little warmer than CPU B, although the max has not gone above about 64 on A after playing x-plane for 30 min (10 FPS better than the original x5645s by the way). Also the last core on CPU B has gone as low as 14 C (55 F), and the room it is in is warmer than that. Should I worry about this? Attached is HW monitor Data, does not show min and max though. Thanks!
Last edited:
except CPU A seems to be running a little warmer than CPU B
That is normal, because the Northbridge module heats CPU A too.
That is normal, because the Northbridge module heats CPU A too.
Thanks! I'll stop worrying then. The low temp is still kind of weird but I have decided to just ignore it.
Playing X-plane is not a good way to stress the CPU / test stability. It can hardly use 2 threads. So, if we assume the workload will be evenly distributed, then only one core is working on each CPU. In this case, the temperature should not go high.
There are lots of software out there can use all cores of your CPU. e.g. Luxmark 3. Select the device that you want to test, and run the stress test for something like 15-30min. Then you will have a stabilised max temperature.
Ok, I am only patient enough for 15 min. I did it under OS X. CPU
Ok thanks for the advice. I did it under OS X. CPU A tdiode max was 75C, PROCHOT under iStat menus was 11C. CPU B maxed out at 59C. Fan RPM for booster 1 and booster 2, which I am assuming are the processor fans, only increased to 1132, normally they are ~1115. I'm assuming all this is normal since my fans did not ramp up correct?
Umm - isn't the old post I linked not sufficient (e.g. steppings w/ TDP)? How would I properly provide the information needed (format, details etc.)?
I assume the intent is to provide idle wattage information for 1,1/2,1 processors so that someone sensitive to heat or power consumption costs could compare and pick appropriate processors, down to the stepping level.
I agree that this could be valuable information to add--but it's a lot of time for me to do this based off of the material provided. The information is spread over multiple sources and to be honest I just don't want to look into it and spend the time pulling it all together into a table right now.
If you are comfortable with BBCODE, you can edit the first post yourself. If you break anything, it's okay, we can revert to a previous revision of the content.
If you are not comfortable with BBCODE, we can wait until I have more free time and I will do it myself. That is probably a couple of months off. Or maybe someone else can volunteer!
I am picturing something like this, but for all CPUs and steppings, and incorporated into the existing 1,1/2,1 table:
Is that what you had in mind too?
Yup.
I wasn't aware I'd have edit rights. If BBCODE is similar to JavaScript and tables, I'd be fine. Will try to look into it more closely during the coming days. Any conventions to mark my changes?
Pretty much, yes.
Yes, just click the EDIT button in the usual place at the bottom of the first post. I'm not familiar with JavaScript tables, so I can't answer that. BBCODE tables are similar to HTML tables.
I'm not aware of any way to mark changes.
Thanks in advance for contributing!
Shouldn't post after midnight
Of course I meant Javascript and HTML tables ...I was thinking of a comment in an agreed format. Though it seems that BBCode does not have any comment tags available (so far), unless the forum admins have some individual implementation in place.
A little later: I've now added a few versions, but reverted back to your last change, ActionableMango. Reason is that I tried to format the table-related source code (for starters the MP 1,1 section) for better readability, only to learn the hard way that where HTML simply ignores the CR & LF control chars, the BBCode parser actually executes them (probably converting to equivalent HTML tags).
Don't know if there's a workaround for that, but as it is, I definitely need more concentration for that source code than I can muster at this time of night. Thus I stop for now, before filling up the history even more (@Admins: Please just remove the versions created by me so far).
I tried to format the table-related source code (for starters the MP 1,1 section) for better readability, only to learn the hard way that where HTML simply ignores the CR & LF control chars, the BBCode parser actually executes them (probably converting to equivalent HTML tags).
I had lots of problems like that too. This is the method that I found to be most successful:
- Click Edit, then click the wrench icon in the upper right "Use BB Code Editor". This toggles from a mix of "BBCODE for tables and WYSIWYG for everything else" to "everything BBCODE".
- Copy all the BBCODE and paste into a decent text editor (Notepad++ or whatever you like), and do all the editing there.
- Paste back into MacRumors and click "More Options...", then "Preview..." This will enable you to experiment with how the changes look, but without actually committing them.
AFAIK only Apple ever used those monstrous heat sinks on their FB-DIMMs. Possibly there is some point with the 800MHz parts in the 3,1 but the 667MHz parts are fine. The FB-DIMMs pulled from Xeon servers are dirt cheap on eBay. I have 56GB of 667MHz parts without massive heat sinks in my 3,1 which had no problems with heat so am sure that you will be OK with your 2,1.
To all you dreamers! No free lunch!
I just installed a new X5690 3.46Ghz processor in my 2010 6-core 3.33 stock Apple Mac Pro. I have to report the geek bench scores are improved slightly but not great. I would not recommend this over a new mac. I am going to let the machine run for several days to see it it burns in and improves but I feel like I have just woke up from a party with a tattoo on my forehead. Fortunately it was not an expensive upgrade and my cMP is running fine.
Will the scores get better when the new cpu burns in?
single core and multi scores.
OLD: 3030 & 12418 NEW: 3085 & 12739
I just installed a new X5690 3.46Ghz processor in my 2010 6-core 3.33 stock Apple Mac Pro. I have to report the geek bench scores are improved slightly but not great. I would not recommend this over a new mac. I am going to let the machine run for several days to see it it burns in and improves but I feel like I have just woke up from a party with a tattoo on my forehead. Fortunately it was not an expensive upgrade and my cMP is running fine.
Will the scores get better when the new cpu burns in?
single core and multi scores.
OLD: 3030 & 12418 NEW: 3085 & 12739
Attachments
Your scores are fine, but could be slightly better. For comparison my 6 core Xeon W3690 3.46 GHz: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/1388689
What do you mean with 'burning in'? Never heard about that topic.
I was being hopeful. However when you have a pro service do the upgrade some test the CPU tray for 8 hrs before sending it back. I just assumed I might have a bad chip.
I have run Geekbench 4 multiple times and the score has been different each time. I even ran the GB test after restarting in safe mode and the scores were 1/2 lower. I also checked Activity Monitor and I see that I have junk running in such as 2 versions of EEventManager running and one is RED(not responding) but taking 0.46 CPU time. So I have some cleanup work to do before getting to disappointed.
I do not trust the geek bench app because it basis it's score too much on gpu. I also did the same thing recently when I upgraded my CPU. But for me the real benchmark was with logic. There is a project out there to test your machine. Before I was maxing out at 70 tracks after the change I was maxing out at 170 so the upgrade was well worth it.
Your single core score performance shouldn't improve much. Going from 3.33GHz to 3.46GHz is a tiny change--only 130MHz difference. I doubt it is noticeable in any real life use.
Burn in is for testing against parts failure when something is first being used. There should be no expectation of a speed increase due to burn in.
So what is the point on updating a 6 year old Mac Pro. Where are the faster processors for the classic Mac Pro? Is the 3,46 Ghz all my machine can handle?
Every individual scenario is different. If someone had a base model quadcore 2.66GHz, they could have a noticeable gain updating to a hexacore 3.46Ghz. You were starting out a hair's breadth away from the top already.
Yes, that's the top speed.
You could go from 6 core to 12 core, but that's very expensive and will only benefit certain software that can take advantage of 12 cores. For example an application like Handbrake would have its time cut in half. But many or most applications wouldn't benefit at all.
Every Geekbench test is different but all in I got 2.7% increase on the single core test and 3.2% on the multicore. Good news the new X5690 processor only cost $200 and I had fun putting it in. The SSD on the Velocity Solo card has been the best investment of all my updates.
NOTE: Since every test run is different I suspect I have garbage in the system that needs to be removed. Sierra is bogging my cMP down.
Bob
Updated first post to add information about Macs Fan Control and to rewrite the 4,1 lidless processor section to make it more clear.
Who has (actually) confirmed that the X5687 doesn't work in the 2012 Mac Pro? This chip is running at 3.6GHz, so it's actually better then the X5690 for regular desktop use and is significantly cheaper. I'd rather have 8 cores @ 3.6GHz then 12 cores @ 3.47GHz because in reality under normal usage I rarely use more then 4 cores. The X5698 would be perfect, but that's a very rare beast.
Everything I see searching Google is second hand hearsay, I have yet to see any first hand accounts to validate this claim.
Everything I see searching Google is second hand hearsay, I have yet to see any first hand accounts to validate this claim.
Last edited: