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
Yes, it usually is for the first guy.
If you get one and it works (or doesn't), let us know. Then everyone that follows won't have to take a shot in the dark.
Damn.
It's just too bad Apple is not more forthcoming with such information.If I do, I will.
Will know soon enough, the seller will come over and we'll both install it together to see if it works. Won't have to buy it if it doesn't work. Anything in particular I should look for or test should it work and boot?
Generally speaking, if the CPU is not compatible the computer won't pass POST.
I know historically with the MP1,1 if you plopped a Clovertown CPU into the MP it would boot and even run, but many people had occasional KP's until later when the firmware update came out. So I guess it is possible to be able to boot without being 100% compatible.
But I don't think that scenario will play out here. That was a microarchitechture change from Woodcrest to Clovertown. In your case it's just a low power chip, not a new architecture.
Obviously I cannot promise anything, but I think if you can boot up you'll be fine.
Last edited:
Before and after I upgraded my 2009 Mac Pro 4,1 to 5,1 and an X5690 3.46Ghz 6 core, I ran geekbench. This has a bunch of tests and should give it a good test to see if it works. If it gets past POST and you can see it in the about this mac, you should be good to go. If it does not show correctly or the geekbench test is slower than what you had you might have a problem
Sorry noob here, Did you just upgrade your Mac Pro 5,1 to a Mac Pro 6,1 with a CPU upgrade?
I don't know what an nMP, cMP or what TDP.
I don't know what an nMP, cMP or what TDP.
nMP = the 2013 cylinder mac pro. I put in a new CPU. TDP stands for thermal design power. A lower TDP results in less heat. Since it works I guess any of the lower TDP ones will.
Sweet success!
I'll add it to the list a bit later. Too busy at the moment. (Anyone else, feel free to do so.)
I hope I never have to open the nMP again. The electronics are so small, I almost feared I was gonna break it.
I just added it to the list.
Last edited:
Hi,
I have a 2009 Mac Pro (with W3520 and 10 RAM) and want to update the processors and RAM.
My questions are:
Will it be better to go with the W3690 or with the X5675?
Will 32GB of RAM work and be usefull and is there a difference when using it with a W or X processor?
Regards Patrick
I have a 2009 Mac Pro (with W3520 and 10 RAM) and want to update the processors and RAM.
My questions are:
Will it be better to go with the W3690 or with the X5675?
Will 32GB of RAM work and be usefull and is there a difference when using it with a W or X processor?
Regards Patrick
W3690 is better if you don't consider the price.
Both CPU support 32GB RAM, so, no difference in this case.
Anyway, I assume you know that you have to flash your 4,1 to 5,1.
The original post says X5687 is not compatible, but GeekBench shows 3 Mac Pro 5,1s with that processor (or 1 with 3 benchmarks).
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=X5687,+MacPro5,1
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=X5687,+MacPro5,1
Last edited:
There are all kinds of Macs listed in Geekbench that don't match actual Mac models. It's probably a hackintosh that identifies itself as a Mac Pro.
If you want to know more about who thinks the x5687 works or not, you might want to see posts in this thread around #250-260. There is some debate, but I don't think it works.
Hi Patrick, over the past month I have installed 2 different CPU's in a Mac Pro 4,1 single processor flashed to 5,1.
Geekbench 4 scores:
W3520 - single core 2521 - multi 8629 - 24Gb RAM - Supports 1066mz Dimms
W3670 - single core 2860 - multi 12809 - 24Gb RAM - Supports 1066mz Dimms - CPU only supports 24Gb RAM
W3680 - single core 3088 - multi 14764 - 24Gb RAM - Supports 1066 and 1333mz Dimms - CPU supports 288Gb RAM, not sure of Mac RAM limit suspect 48gb
Suspect W3690 will only be 5% faster than the W3680
Note memory slot issue on Mac Pro single CPU, 3 CPU channels to handle 4 DIMM slots, memory slots 1 and 2 have a CPU channel each and 3 & 4 share the same CPU channel. This causes a memory slow down if you put a stick in slot 4. RAM COPY SPEED halves in Geekbench tests! Yes 3 x 8Gb sticks ARE FASTER than 4 x 8Gb sticks. Don't use my now spare 4th stick.
1333mz Server Ram Sticks Samsung part number M393B1K70DH0-YH9 work well.
There are 16Gb sticks too.
Last edited:
W3680 only supported up to 24GB officially. 288GB is the X5680's limit, not W3680.
The Max demonstrated limit on cMP with W3680 so far is 56Gb (3x16 + 8). And no one try the 32GB stick with this CPU yet, so the actual limit still unknown at his moment.
The expected speed difference between W3680 and W3690 is 3.9% (multi core), and 3.6% (single core). Most user should not able to tell the real world difference without any help from instruments / monitoring aids.
The 4th stick only slow down the Mac when you really hit the memory bandwidth limit, AND you have enough memory for all process at that moment. In most cases, the system can use the 4th stick (extra memory) as cache to speed up the system (rather than slow down). Of course, it depends on the workflows. If your workflow need to regularly access the same files. Extra memory (cache) will help, because your system now only need to load the data once, and then it can access from the memory when you need the same data again, no need to load from the hard drive anymore. Or if you reboot your Mac few times a day, then the extra memory may not able to help too much, because there is always nothing in the cache.
Of course, the best case would be you only install 3 sticks, and still have enough memory for everything (including cache). However, by considering MacOS now is so good to utilise the memory, memory size is relatively small on Mac, and the apps getting bigger and bigger. It's almost always the more the better now.
Except some process require large memory bandwidth (e.g. Some computation task). I rarely heard that anyone can really feel the 4th stick significantly slow down their cMP. In fact, I doubt if anyone can tell in a double blind test. I tried both 3 sticks s 4 sticks config. I really can't tell the difference in speed in daily
The similar situation also happened on memory speed. 1333 seems quite a bit faster than 1066. However, 1333 match with CL9, and 1066 match with CL7. The real world speed difference is only ~2%, very insignificant for most users. But the benchmarks can shows large difference once the 4th stick is there.
Of course, if you allow your machine to run few % slower on every aspect. It may end up >10% slower overall. But that very last bit of performance (on each single area) usually will cost a lot more. It's the user to decided if that's worth or not.
Last edited:
Thanks!!
I ended up getting a very nice deal for a X5680 and 32GB 1333 RAM (4x8).
Now still in doubt wether I should let the 4th stick in there or just run with 3 sticks of 8GB RAM..
Hello Patrick again (from our discussion at apple.com). Do not overthink it with memory bandwidth. Here is a nice case study about memory:
https://macperformanceguide.com/Mac-Upgrade-CaseStudy-MacPro-Memory.html
Hello again! That's a very nice case study indeed Rudo.ba! Makes it very clear. Since the difference is so little when not needing the full 32, but can be useful when there is more than 24 needed I'll just leave the 4th stick in.
I just want to post for the forums knowledge the X5675 3.06ghz, 6 core, 1333, only 95w runs great in a single CPU mac pro 5,1. I purchased two for delidding and ruined one, whoops. Well the good one runs great alone in a single CPU 2009 upgraded to 5,1. Two X5675's can be purchased on eBay for $120 so $60 each! I'm actually going to upgrade to the W3690 because I ordered it before doing this, if anyone wants to buy the one good x5675 message me. Probably the most performance per watt available and cheap!