... .
Someone's written up an upgrade guide with a warning about the higher power draws of the 5680s and 90s (135w over 95w) and system longevity.
Does anyone know if this is a true concern? I have seen several builders doing this upgrade, just wondering how using it in the real world i.e. long video renders might push the system on power draw/heat.
Thanks for any advice
Supplying the necessary power isn't a problem. As for the temps, just install smcFanControl (free from here:
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/23049/smcfancontrol ) and tweak the settings to get the temps in the low 30's at idle; then you're good to good.
Your welcome but in the here and now if needing it ~$200 gets you x5650 that I can guarantee will work as I just put one in my spare 2010 single core last week.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/281255265723?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
----------
This is necro thread revival that Geekbench is from three years ago run today it will likely be higher with the version three being used now.
The dead will rise and, in the case of CPU upgrade discussions, it's often around the 3-4 year period after the birth of the CPU(s) being replaced. I sometimes buy used Sandy Bridge era CPU chips, but as to Nehalems and Westmeres which can be overclocked substantially [
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18356733&overclocking#post18356733 ], I'd recommend considering new ones only, unless you are absolutely sure about their history and most importantly that the chips haven't been overclocked significantly { BTW and paradoxically, the 5680s are better for overclocking than the 5690s }. I buy my 5650s new @ $170 ea from here:
https://www.eoptionsonline.com/CSea...=AND&DisplayMode=List&SearchPartNumbersOnly=0
mac666er, did you run Geekbench with any other apps running? Your score seems a little low. I know Geekbench isn't perfect, but it's been reasonably consistent and useful for me as a quick gauge.
Both the 32-bit (24,547) and 64-bit (27,952) scores are (separately and in pairing) in the range of reasonableness for a Mac Pro. Of course, if it was a Hackintosh, then those Geekbench 2 scores would be considered low [ see, e.g.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/500630 (dual 5680s on a 2010 built EVGA-SR2 system that still runs like a champ)]. While Geekbench 2 and 3 aren't perfect, I've been using Geekbench and Cinebench to tune all of my systems, including setting smcFanControl on my MacPro systems, since 2009 when I did the first successful Nehalem CPU swap on a 2009 MacPro4,1 [
http://blogs.computerworld.com/geekbench_reveals_next_3_3ghz_mac_pro_update ]. Morover, I used both of them (Cinebench and Geekbench) last weekend in tweaking the first 8 core x4 CPUs/32- real core Hackintosh [ see posts nos. 1022 to 1030 here {
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1333421/ } and Geekbench performance here:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/558552 ].
Does anyone knows if an Intel Xeon X5690 3.46GHz processor are compatible with a Mac Pro 2010 with a mono Quad Core 3.2GHz? If I'm asking this question, it is because I know that the Intel Xeon 5600 series are designed for dual-processor, hence my question. In other words, does someone has already successfully tested a X5680 or X5690 Xeon on Mac Pro 2010 with a single CPU?
Thank you.
I haven't tested using a single X5680 or X5690 in a single CPU Nehalem or Westmere era MacPro. The X5690 is mainly comparable to the Xeon W3690 which is designed for only single CPU systems. The x5690s have 2 QPIs [Quick Path Interconnect] (whereas the W3690s have only one QPI - to talk with only other but different components), so that the two CPUs can do things such as talking strategy and supply updates to each other via that additional QPI link (Of course, my E5-4650s in x4 CPU systems have even more QPI links). Moreover, the x5690s can take a little more heat while requiring a little less power than the W3690s [
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/858/Intel_Xeon_W3690_vs_Intel_Xeon_X5690.html ].
Finally, I recommend that anyone considering a Nehalem/Westmere CPU swap on a MacPro think twice (and shun) before using as a replacement any Nehalem/Westmere CPU model whose number doesn't end in a zero, such as one ending in a 7.
