No confusion, X5677 works on a 4,1 or 5,1 cMP. X5678 does not. This has been documented numerous times on this forum.
Lou
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
No confusion, X5677 works on a 4,1 or 5,1 cMP. X5678 does not. This has been documented numerous times on this forum.
Lou
No, no, confusion is on me, since Apple obviously isn't using stepping (B1 on both) and CPUID (206C2 both again) for CPU identification in EFI Firmware.
I know the one works and the other one doesn't.
Just wondering how many people have actually tested a X5687 in a Mac Pro? I think most people have been going off the one report it did not work. but that may have been a fluke... (ie something else was halting the system) if the CPUs are nice and cheap it would be worth it to get a pair and try em in a couple different 5,1s (say a single CPU and dual CPU machine and a real 5,1 and a flashed 4,1)
Because the 5687 is so cheap (relatively), therefore someone already tested it (reported in other forums) long time ago. Even the expensive 5698 also had some people bought them and tested.
I built the list from a series of searches here at MR and elsewhere on the Internet. If a CPU was provided stock by Apple, listed as an upgrade from a third party (such as OWC), or confirmed by any user in any forum as working, I added it to the list. (I also included two CPUs that are proven not to work, since people regularly asked about them here and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately I cannot remember specifics for any particular CPU. However, since I was only searching for Mac Pro CPUs, I think all of the Xserve entries came from people posting in this very thread, so you might be able to find that information from earlier posts in the thread.
I just wanted to say thanks for the contributors on this thread (both in their comments and to the guys that wrote software and tried this stuff first.)
I just upgraded my 2009 2.66 W3520 quad (purchased new the minute they went on sale) to a 3.46 W3690 6-core. Flashing was fairly simple (took me a couple of tries) but the CPU upgrade was so simple I regret I didn't do it earlier. In reality, the machine was working fine for me, but when I saw that you could get the W3690's on eBay for < $200 I figured I may as well go all-in.
Of course, I could still use an upgraded graphics card... but hey... one thing at a time.
In real world use, it's probably not going to be very noticeable. I used to do a lot of video conversions with handbrake and one test file was about 90% faster. (44 minutes vs. 23 min with the new processor). I still record OTA television with EyeTV and send that to iTunes for my Apple TV so that should help quite a bit... although the EyeTV software isn't optimized for multi core.
The whole process took about 20 minutes. Funny it took me 7 years to try it out. Glad I waited for the price though!
I just upgraded my 2009 2.66 W3520 quad (purchased new the minute they went on sale) to a 3.46 W3690 6-core. Flashing was fairly simple (took me a couple of tries) but the CPU upgrade was so simple I regret I didn't do it earlier. In reality, the machine was working fine for me, but when I saw that you could get the W3690's on eBay for < $200 I figured I may as well go all-in.
Of course, I could still use an upgraded graphics card... but hey... one thing at a time.
In real world use, it's probably not going to be very noticeable. I used to do a lot of video conversions with handbrake and one test file was about 90% faster. (44 minutes vs. 23 min with the new processor). I still record OTA television with EyeTV and send that to iTunes for my Apple TV so that should help quite a bit... although the EyeTV software isn't optimized for multi core.
The whole process took about 20 minutes. Funny it took me 7 years to try it out. Glad I waited for the price though!
I have just moved house and am going to renovate, and I've been using a 2013 macbook air to run the 3d software Sketchup, and as the house plan grew, the notebook started to bog down.
MY Mac Pro screen failed in the middle of my move, so I thought it was time to fix and and use it for the Sketchup software. Good news was that the digital cable failed. Strange - my laser printer USB cable also failed after the move. The monitor is a Eizo ColorEdge CG243W, which is an accurate colour monitor.
The mac is a 5.1, a dual 2010 (late) 2.4MHZ. I put lots of RAM in it when I bought it, but I bought the RAM from the USA (I am in Australia) and it was a great price, until I realised it was 1033 Mhz RAM. Oh well - no difference with my twin 4 core 2.4 CPUs. I also run a few drives, one being an SSD, although that is run in the spare CD tray space.
Anyhow, I have a couple of questions:
Is it worth spending double the amount of money on a 2.9Mhz twin 6 core versus a 2.66Mhz twin 6 core?
Secondly, I suspect the biggest gain will be in the GPU. My standard ATX 5770 from what I have seen, is very slow for CAD. I presume that a GTX of some type, will change all that for the CAD Sketchup software?
So, I guess I should first get a GTX card - but which one? And then, get the matched 6 core CPUs? Is the 2.9 worth $200 more than a 2.66? I'm guessing not ... but if i started video rendering the 2.9 would make more sense I guess.
Advise would be greatly appreciated. I intended to buy a new GPU - IMO used ones can have limited lives compared to CPUs, if they have come from gaming youths ...
MY Mac Pro screen failed in the middle of my move, so I thought it was time to fix and and use it for the Sketchup software. Good news was that the digital cable failed. Strange - my laser printer USB cable also failed after the move. The monitor is a Eizo ColorEdge CG243W, which is an accurate colour monitor.
The mac is a 5.1, a dual 2010 (late) 2.4MHZ. I put lots of RAM in it when I bought it, but I bought the RAM from the USA (I am in Australia) and it was a great price, until I realised it was 1033 Mhz RAM. Oh well - no difference with my twin 4 core 2.4 CPUs. I also run a few drives, one being an SSD, although that is run in the spare CD tray space.
Anyhow, I have a couple of questions:
Is it worth spending double the amount of money on a 2.9Mhz twin 6 core versus a 2.66Mhz twin 6 core?
Secondly, I suspect the biggest gain will be in the GPU. My standard ATX 5770 from what I have seen, is very slow for CAD. I presume that a GTX of some type, will change all that for the CAD Sketchup software?
So, I guess I should first get a GTX card - but which one? And then, get the matched 6 core CPUs? Is the 2.9 worth $200 more than a 2.66? I'm guessing not ... but if i started video rendering the 2.9 would make more sense I guess.
Advise would be greatly appreciated. I intended to buy a new GPU - IMO used ones can have limited lives compared to CPUs, if they have come from gaming youths ...
Last edited:
Not very familiar with CAD, so can't comment on the GPU. However, for CPU, if your software can't utilise more then 8 cores (or unable to use them most of the time), the X5677 may be your best choice for upgrade.
The Sketchup website warns that many GPUs are problematic and to check the readme.txt file included with the installation for a list of known good video cards. I'd check that list.
I do not use Sketchup myself, but a quick look online shows that it has a reputation for little to no multicore/multithreading support. People have been complaining about this for years, and by now everyone is assuming that the underlying architecture of the software simply is not suited for multithreading.
Assuming that is true, then having more cores will not help much or at all. What would help is the highest clock speed you can afford, which for a dual CPU machine is the x5677 that h9826790 already recommended.
Thanks guys. Makes sense!
Actually I know that in other platforms, the GPU card makes an enormous difference. I'll get one of those first. Many now work on these machines, without even flashing as once had to be done with non Mac specified GPUs.
I also suspect its not easy to find matched pairs of the x5677 CPUs. Of course, I have a twin CPU 5.1. My typical use of the machine is for hobby photography and I intended to organise and cut down my still on tape both digital and also analogue videos. For that work, the 6 cores would be worthwhile. Photoshop also benefits, although my machine is just fine for photography.
I guess one thing I have to check is the amount of power my machine will be using. A new GPU may increase power supply loads, plus I have several drives ... goodness knows about what power supply if the 5.1's would go down. My previous Mac tower ( a very noisy twin intel machine of the older form factor ) lost its power supply.
You don't need "matched pairs" for the x5677. They only need to be the same stepping, and all x5677 are the same stepping anyway. So the only thing you have to avoid are pre-production engineering samples, which pop up all the time on Ebay.
The MP has a gigantic power supply. The amount of power that the other devices are using in your machine is not relevant even if you have filled all of the slots and bays--it is designed for that.
The power limitation will be how much the GPU itself takes, and whether that exceeds the GPU-specific power lines. Any 2x6-pin card or 1x8-pin card is fine. Some 1x6-pin + 1x8-pin cards are okay too, but not all. I'd avoid all 2x8-pin cards.
Hi,
I wanted to share with you my recent success!
Two weeks ago I received two X5680 and installed them with success without removing the IHS.
I had to adjust twice the CPU B head skin nothing major and since then everything work well!
I'm using this machin for 3D
and Agisoft needs a lot of ram!
Thanks!
I wanted to share with you my recent success!
Two weeks ago I received two X5680 and installed them with success without removing the IHS.
I had to adjust twice the CPU B head skin nothing major and since then everything work well!
I'm using this machin for 3D
and Agisoft needs a lot of ram!Thanks!
Just started a thread about this but figured I'd post it here as well in case more people peruse this thread than the Mac Pro index.
I just had a pair of X5690 SLBVX chips installed in my refurb 5,1, and the fans are going crazy. I've reset the SMC and PRAM to no avail, and just today I got the machine back from the shop - the techs said "the CPUs are not communicating thermal data to the machine", causing the fans to assume a problem and run full-blast. They would not elaborate further on what was causing this lack of communication. I've had a lot of people give me a lot of possible answers, including suggestion that there may be a compatibility issue deeper than "make sure the model number is X5690 SLBVX". Needless to say, I'm at a loss and I'm really hoping there's a solution other than "put back the old chips."
Thanks for listening!
I just had a pair of X5690 SLBVX chips installed in my refurb 5,1, and the fans are going crazy. I've reset the SMC and PRAM to no avail, and just today I got the machine back from the shop - the techs said "the CPUs are not communicating thermal data to the machine", causing the fans to assume a problem and run full-blast. They would not elaborate further on what was causing this lack of communication. I've had a lot of people give me a lot of possible answers, including suggestion that there may be a compatibility issue deeper than "make sure the model number is X5690 SLBVX". Needless to say, I'm at a loss and I'm really hoping there's a solution other than "put back the old chips."
Thanks for listening!
Did you check that BOTH CPU were recognised by the Mac? If only CPU A is recognised. The fan will run at full speed.
Yeah, 'about this mac' shows "2x 3.46GHz..." This means that both are recognized, right?
I cannot remember how many reports there were for most CPUs since in most cases I made the list after finding one verification and stopped there. So I don't know how many reports there were about the x5687.
On the other hand, I really wanted the X5698 to work, so I did a ton of research looking all over and only ever found one report of that. It was on Netkas and I'm fairly certain everyone refers to that one report.
I guess it would be nice to see additional confirmation on those chips, but it would cost money and time--and I think it's a slim hope. Are you volunteering yourself?
I cannot remember how many reports there were for most CPUs since in most cases I made the list after finding one verification and stopped there. So I don't know how many reports there were about the x5687.
On the other hand, I really wanted the X5698 to work, so I did a ton of research looking all over and only ever found one report of that. It was on Netkas and I'm fairly certain everyone refers to that one report.
I guess it would be nice to see additional confirmation on those chips, but it would cost money and time--and I think it's a slim hope. Are you volunteering yourself?
sure if someone wants to donate me a Mac Pro 4,1/5,1 and a X5687/X5698
I built a 6,1 with a E5-2680v2 recently you can add that when you have the chance.
Just finished upgrading for the second time my 2009 Mac Pro. Had to unmount the whole board because the chipset heatsink had come off and its held with plastic studs. Replaced that with metal bolt and nut.
I'm now running 2 X5680 and 64gb of ram. Yay! =D
I'm now running 2 X5680 and 64gb of ram. Yay! =D
Last edited:
That's normal if your fan is at idle, and some loading on the north bridge (e.g. The SSD is working hard). Just a little bit of dust on the heatsink, that thing can easily reach 78. Technically, it's rated up to 105c, but it seems the chip may go unstable around 95c. So, 78c is warm, but nothing danger, and should not give you any trouble.
In my observation, spin up the Booster fan for about 100RPM (from idle) can cool it down for almost 5C. If you worry about that, you may just increase the idle fan RPM a bit.
Anyway, before I make my own fan profile. That chip can work at above 80c for prolong period of time. So, 78 is absolutely OK.
