MP 1,1-5,1 Squeezing the most out of my 5,1

[tsialex]

Maybe I've misunderstood. So I can't upgrade my 4-core to a 6-core, but need to get a faster, but still quad-core?
In that case, the ultimate upgrade will be a 4-core 3.33 GHz X5680, right?

Mac Pro 5,1 single CPU trays accept one Xeon, quad or hexa core. You can upgrade your single tray CPU to a hexa-core Xeon. A single CPU tray works with single or dual socket Xeons, but just one Xeon.

Mac Pro 5,1 dual CPU trays accept two Xeons, quad or hexa. A dual CPU tray only works with dual socket Xeons (L5xxx, X5xxx Xeon models). A dual CPU tray only works with two Xeons installed, you can use just one for tests on socket A, but then you are in fail-safe mode and all fans will be running at full RPM.

X5680 is a hexa core Xeon, all X5680 have six cores. There is no version of a X5680 that is quad-core.

X5690 has a quad core "equivalent", in reality a X5690 that only four cores completed Intel factory validation tests and Intel disabled the failed two during manufacture process, it's then named and sold as X5677.

X5677 has all the benefits of a X5690, but with two less cores. It's the best cost vs benefit processor that you can use with a Mac Pro 5,1.

 

[macstatic]

Thanks for clearing that up ?

How much speed loss can I expect with an X5677 (4-core/3.46) compared to an X5690 (6-core/3.46)?
I will check and compare prices before deciding on anything, but unless the difference is very high I want to get the most efficient CPU upgrade.

 

[tsialex]

Thanks for clearing that up ?

How much speed loss can I expect with an X5677 (4-core/3.46) compared to an X5690 (6-core/3.46)?
I will check and compare prices before deciding on anything, but unless the difference is very high I want to get the most efficient CPU upgrade.

None for single threaded applications, 2/3 for perfectly multithreaded applications.

For benchmark results, check Geekbench site.

 

[macstatic]

Found it. I don't know which apps are multithreaded or only run in single-core mode, but it appears to be worth upgrading the CPU in any case (especially since I already have the faster 1333 RAM).
Here's what Geekbench says for my single processor 2.8 GHz Mac Pro 5,1 (mid-2010):

Processor	Single-core score	Multi-core score
4-core W3530/2.80 GHz	539	2101
4-core X5677/3.46 GHz	683	2642
6-core X5680/3.33 GHz	654	2797
6-core X5690/3.46 GHz	665	3238

Interesting to see that the 4-core X5677/3.46 GHz scores higher in single-core than the 6-core X5690/3.46 GHz. But then I see that there are different result with the same configuration (as far as the processor goes at least), so it's apparently not an exact science.

 

[tsialex]

Found it. I don't know which apps are multithreaded or only run in single-core mode, but it appears to be worth upgrading the CPU in any case (especially since I already have the faster 1333 RAM).
Here's what Geekbench says for my single processor 2.8 GHz Mac Pro 5,1 (mid-2010):

Processor	Single-core score	Multi-core score
4-core W3530/2.80 GHz	539	2101
4-core X5677/3.46 GHz	683	2642
6-core X5680/3.33 GHz	654	2797
6-core X5690/3.46 GHz	665	3238

Interesting to see that the 4-core X5677/3.46 GHz scores higher in single-core than the 6-core X5690/3.46 GHz. But then I see that there are different result with the same configuration (as far as the processor goes at least), so it's apparently not an exact science.

X5677 not having two of the six cores enabled can keep more time on max Turbo (3.73GHz) than a X5690 can.

 

[pertusis1]

I was in the same situation as you a few years ago. The things that made the biggest difference were putting in a faster processor, and a larger solid-state drive for a boot disk.

if you do a lot of video editing, consider a 580 video card, but That may or may not be worth it for you.

 

[macstatic]

X5677 not having two of the six cores enabled can keep more time on max Turbo (3.73GHz) than a X5690 can.

What does this mean in practical terms?
Which situations/software would benefit from an X5677 and likewise an X5670?
I assume there's no reason to consider an X5680? (several years ago I considered a CPU upgrade and there was only talk about the 3.33 GHz X5680).
[automerge]1587804997[/automerge]

I was in the same situation as you a few years ago. The things that made the biggest difference were putting in a faster processor, and a larger solid-state drive for a boot disk.

Cool! Which processor upgrade did you end up with?
Yes, an SSD surely makes the frustrations of booting and opening up apps go smoother.

if you do a lot of video editing, consider a 580 video card, but That may or may not be worth it for you.

I haven't really started up with that yet, and that's a completely new project figuring out how to edit all my home videos, but it may be worth considering.
Could I use an RX-580 with MacOS 10.12 Sierra, and without losing performance (compared to my current setup with an ATI HD 5870) with my legacy apps (Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 6)? I imagine that even without GPU support the much more powerful graphic card in general might make up for that?

 

[pertusis1]

I used a 5690 because I was doing a lot of home video editing, but the 5677 is also a big jump from what you have. I would have to defer to others regarding RX580 compatibility with older OS versions. I was switching from 5770 (not 5870), so I noticed a huge video editing speed jump with that. I use FCPX which uses AMD cards well. Not so sure about the Adobe suite.

 

[AlexMaximus]

What does this mean in practical terms?
Which situations/software would benefit from an X5677 and likewise an X5670?
I assume there's no reason to consider an X5680? (several years ago I considered a CPU upgrade and there was only talk about the 3.33 GHz X5680).
[automerge]1587804997[/automerge]


Cool! Which processor upgrade did you end up with?
Yes, an SSD surely makes the frustrations of booting and opening up apps go smoother.



I haven't really started up with that yet, and that's a completely new project figuring out how to edit all my home videos, but it may be worth considering.
Could I use an RX-580 with MacOS 10.12 Sierra, and without losing performance (compared to my current setup with an ATI HD 5870) with my legacy apps (Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 6)? I imagine that even without GPU support the much more powerful graphic card in general might make up for that?

The big argument for the AMD Radeon 580 was its graphic engine Metal, which is required if you want to upgrade to Mojave or later. If you stick with Sierra because of older legacy apps, a 580 is not really necessary. Reading your entries, it sounds to me that you will not upgrade to Mojave anytime soon. In this case, you would stay in the world of available Webdrivers, (Pre- Mojave OSX) which means you can go with a fast Nvidia card as well. I used to have a 980Ti which was a very good card and almost as fast as my current Vega VII.
Your GPU question is really a question of your OSX decision and your usage in the forseeable future.

 

[tsialex]

What does this mean in practical terms?
Which situations/software would benefit from an X5677 and likewise an X5670?
I assume there's no reason to consider an X5680? (several years ago I considered a CPU upgrade and there was only talk about the 3.33 GHz X5680).

X5680 is cheaper and a lot more common than X5690. X5670 is just 2.93GHz.

X5677 having two cores disabled can use Turbo frequencies for more time than a X5690, with single threaded benchmarks and single threaded applications a X5677 have better scores/feel a little bit faster than a X5690.

Please note that this is only valid for single threaded applications and only for a short time - when the temperature rises, Turbo frequencies are disabled.
[automerge]1587842538[/automerge]
Anything multithreaded will work better with the six cores of X5690. Video editing/transcoding, using VMs, and compiling programs are the usual three workflows that will work better with a hexa core Xeon.

 

[macstatic]

I realize that choosing a CPU upgrade (X5690 vs. X5677 vs.X5680) demands a lot of technical in-depth knowledge which I don't have.
Is there a way I can use for instance Activity monitor to analyze what would be most beneficial to me, based on my typical use of the computer?

 

[Macsonic]

I realize that choosing a CPU upgrade (X5690 vs. X5677 vs.X5680) demands a lot of technical in-depth knowledge which I don't have.
Is there a way I can use for instance Activity monitor to analyze what would be most beneficial to me, based on my typical use of the computer?

Activity Monitor only measures which apps are running in your Mac but in my opinion activity monitor cannot be a gauge as to which processor speed is the best for your needs. tsialex explained it very well in his previous post no. 35 on CPU benefits. I think the X5690, X5677 and X5680 are all good choices. Another factor is the softwares, how they respond to certain tasks.

 

[macstatic]

It's the last part (how the software responds to certain tasks) which is the big question as I don't know what are single-threaded or multi-threaded apps.
I don't run any virtual machines, compiling or (at the moment at least) any video editing. The explanation in post 35 is good but I don't know what applies to me.

If Activity monitor won't help, are there other apps which will help what will determine what will be the best CPU choice for my workflow and the apps I use (and how I use them)?

 

[macstatic]

Reading your entries, it sounds to me that you will not upgrade to Mojave anytime soon. In this case, you would stay in the world of available Webdrivers, (Pre- Mojave OSX) which means you can go with a fast Nvidia card as well. I used to have a 980Ti which was a very good card and almost as fast as my current Vega VII.
Your GPU question is really a question of your OSX decision and your usage in the forseeable future.

I'm most likely going to upgrade to and stay at OSX 10.12 because that's as high up I'll go because of Photoshop CS4 compatibility (unless someone can point out a way to make it work with newer OSes, which in my experience I've found to be impossible).
I looked up the Nvidia 980Ti and it appears to be a lot more powerful than my ATI 5870. Would I likely get an overall more efficient computer for anything involving graphics (web browsing, Lightroom, Photoshop etc.)?

 

[kohlson]

It's the last part (how the software responds to certain tasks) which is the big question

So true.
Performance throughput, of which the CPU is an essential part, depends on many things.
- How the app is designed: threading, offloading to GPU, plus much more
- How quickly the data for processing gets into and out of the CPU: networking, disk I/O, RAM, OS, and more

So unless you can find someone to test exactly what you do with exactly the hardware you want, then there is no actual way to tell. Benchmarks are a poor stand-in, but as the saying goes, they beat the alternative (nothing). While user benchmark.com shows a compelling case for the 980Ti, I do not believe it shows CS4 on Mac OS 10.

I think there's been some good advice in this thread. CS4 PS responds well to more single-threaded cycles (GHz). But this can be gated by RAM and disk performance (which is not only speed, but latency and IOPS). See post 35.

Apple has been deprecating support for Nvidia for awhile. Unfortunately, Adobe has really ever shown much love for AMD. Maybe you'll see some more oomph with a 980T1 in this situation, but if I were betting a beer, I would bet against it.

 

[macstatic]

I think there's been some good advice in this thread. CS4 PS responds well to more single-threaded cycles (GHz). But this can be gated by RAM and disk performance (which is not only speed, but latency and IOPS). See post 35.

Apple has been deprecating support for Nvidia for awhile. Unfortunately, Adobe has really ever shown much love for AMD. Maybe you'll see some more oomph with a 980T1 in this situation, but if I were betting a beer, I would bet against it.

Yes indeed some good advice here ?
I've concluded that I have to take Photoshop CS4 as it is (I don't use it professionally, and not even every day so it's no big deal). I should rather concentrate on CPU intensive tasks that I use more often, which will soon be making music with DAW software. I've learnt that the amount of cores and speed is what applies in that case, so going for an X5690 upgrade seems to be the way to go.
I found a nice how-to guide on CPU-upgrading the Mac Pro 5,1 here, but two questions arise (which isn't quite clear in that link): how much heat-conductive paste should I apply, and how do I know when I've tightened the heatsink screws enough? I definitely don't want to over-tighten them (crush the CPU) nor under-tighten (not enough heat conductivity).

As for the graphic card: it appears I might as well save my money when I'm not going past MacOS 10.12 anyway. Actually I recently learnt that in the case of Adobe Lightroom I should disable use of the GPU for better performance (it's only useful for Retina or other high resolution displays).

 

[Snow Tiger]

I'm wondering what I can do to make the most out of my Mac Pro 5,1 (mid-2010), preferrably without spending too much money. Here are my current specs:

- Mac Pro 5,1 (mid-2020), Quad-core 2.8 GHz
- MacOS 10.11.6 El Capitan (will probably upgrade to 10.12.6 Sierra, but not beyond because of 32-bit legacy software I need which won't work with 10.13 or beyond)
- 24 GB RAM (1066 MHz DDR3 ECC) 3 memory slots out of 4 for best performance
- ATI Radeon HD-5870, 1024 MB graphic card
- Silicon Image SIL-3132 SATA RAID PCIe card
- Samsung 830 SSD (128 GB) for OSX and apps (TRIM enabled)
- Seagate ST3000DM001 (3TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB cache, SATA 6 Gb/s) for User files
- Western Digital WDC WD30EZRX (3TB, ??? RPM, 64 MB cache, SATA 6 Gb/s) for Time-machine backups
- Western Digital WDC WD30EZRX (3TB, ??? RPM, 64 MB cache, SATA 6 Gb/s) for Chronosync bootable backups

My immediate plans are:
- replace 3 TB main HDD (file storage) with a 6 TB of some sort
- replace 3 TB backup (Time Machine) HDD with a 8 TB of some sort
- replace 3 TB bootable backup HDD with 8 TB of some sort, or use an external 8 TB HDD instead, for weekly backups (instead of several times a day as now)
- add a USB 3.1 PCIe card (probably a 10 GB/s Sonnet Allegro USB-C (USB3C-2PM-E) or a 5 GB/s Sonnet Allegro (USB3-4PM-E) for external backup, high-speed memory card reader etc.

I can't remember what's connected to the SATA PCIe card, but the previous owner put it there (probably because he had a 5th drive) and I think I might actually have it attached to my 2nd SSDs residing underneath the DVD-drive.
(the 2nd SSD is also a Samsung 830 (128 GB) SSD which I've used as a Photoshop cache drive (but it didn't make any noticeable difference in performance IMHO) so for the time being has been used as a clone-copy for the previous MacOS/OSX version in case I'd change my mind when upgrading to a newer OS).
I've read (in the Mac Pro upgrade guide) that adding a SATA-3 card basically doesn't make much difference if you don't handle large files, which with my SSDs I don't -it's just for MacOS and my apps). Do you agree with this, or not?



PS: I'm not sure if my SIL-3132 card can handle SATA-3 but I'm guessing it just does SATA-2, essentially just adding two SATA ports identical to that of the 4 drive bays.


Apart from everyday stuff (web, mail etc.) I'll be using it for music recording (DAW software) and possibly some light video editing. All for hobby/home use, not professional.
So if there's a bottleneck -where is it?

What's your budget ? And what do you intend the System to be optimized for ? We can add lots of toys

 

[fiatlux]

I went through several upgrades on my MP5,1, and the latest config was as follows:

• Single 6-core 3,33GHz CPU
  • With today's prices on second-hand CPU compatible with the Mac Pro, there little reason not to go for at least a W3680. A W3690 may not be worth the extra expense, but should still be pretty cheap in absolute terms. You don't need a dual-proc enabled X5680 or X5690 on a single processor Mac Pro, but those will work as well (caution: lidded CPUs on the single CPU Mac Pros, unlidded CPUs on the dual CPU ones).
  • Going dual processor requires another CPU board which remains pretty expensive. It is probably cheaper to sell your current Mac Pro and buy a 2nd hand 12 cores Mac Pro. But with a 12 core MP5,1 you're not that far off the CPU perfs of a base MP7,1, at least for what multi-thread performances concerns. Not bad for 10y old computers selling for a lot less than 1000$
• 24 GB of RAM, because I did not need more, but you can get a lot more for relatively little money.
• A 512GB PCIe M.2 SSD on a simple PCIe adapter for my boot drive.
• A 2TB SATA SSD on a SATA III PCIe adapter for my data drive.
  • with today's prices, I might have gone for a second PCIe M.2 SSD (think Intel 660p) on PCIe adapter
  • for the ultimately fast storage experience you could could with a PCIe card holding multiple M.2 SSDs that you put in a RAID set, but those are pretty expensive (cheaper cards without a PCIe switch won't work on a Mac)
• A large & quiet HDD in one of the HDD sledges for Time Machine (I'm partial to WD Green for their silence)
• A USB 3.0 PCIe card
  • you can further future-proof your Mac Pro with a USB 3.2 card if you wish
• An AMD Radeon RX 580, a good perf/price ratio card that gives you Metal acceleration, lets you run Mojave and can still be powered without Pixlas mods
  • It will not show boot screen though for which I needed to keep my old GT120 just in case (I would need to swap the cards as I had no PCIe slot left and Mojave would not fully boot with the GT120 installed - a real PITA).
  • An RX 5600/5700 (XT) will give you even more performance but requires Catalina - which was never trouble free on my MP 5,1 (tried both Open Core and dosdude1's Catalina patcher)

 

[kohlson]

but two questions arise

Get the Technicians Guide.

unlidded CPUs on the dual CPU ones

On 4,1 (2009) models only. See the sticky at the top of the Mac Pro thread.

 

[macstatic]

Get the Technicians Guide.

Ah! Yes, it starts on page 177 (for the mid-2010 guide that is). Thanks. I wasn't aware of it covering CPu upgrades. I noticed it saying
"Every time you remove a processor, even for a few seconds, cover the processor socket with a connector cap. Spare caps are packed with replacement parts."

Is this to secure against static electricity and dust? Do replacement processors usually come with this cap or can it be purchased somewhere?

What's your budget ? And what do you intend the System to be optimized for ? We can add lots of toys

Good question (and hard to answer)
I would say: a general optimization which will be noticeable without spending too much. I don't have a specific budget but will consider every upgrade. More in my comments below

I went through several upgrades on my MP5,1, and the latest config was as follows:

• Single 6-core 3,33GHz CPU
  • With today's prices on second-hand CPU compatible with the Mac Pro, there little reason not to go for at least a W3680. A W3690 may not be worth the extra expense, but should still be pretty cheap in absolute terms. You don't need a dual-proc enabled X5680 or X5690 on a single processor Mac Pro, but those will work as well (caution: lidded CPUs on the single CPU Mac Pros, unlidded CPUs on the dual CPU ones).
  • Going dual processor requires another CPU board which remains pretty expensive. It is probably cheaper to sell your current Mac Pro and buy a 2nd hand 12 cores Mac Pro. But with a 12 core MP5,1 you're not that far off the CPU perfs of a base MP7,1, at least for what multi-thread performances concerns. Not bad for 10y old computers selling for a lot less than 1000$

As this is purely a home-computer used for everyday tasks (email, web etc.) and slightly more CPU intensive tasks (occasional Photoshop work, Lightroom photo-organizing/editing, and soon starting to make music with a DAW of some kind (haven't decided which one) as well as editing home-videos (also haven't decided on the software for that) I see no reason to go dual processor, and will likely be happy with an X5690 upgrade for a long time.

Earlier in the thread, Tsialex pointed out how an X5690 would be a better choice than the W3690, so I'll go for that. There's a German seller on eBay who appears reputable and sells complete cMP 5,1 CPU upgrade kits, and they have those.

Dual QPI Xeons, Xeons made for dual socket systems, are much more common than single socket since there are lots of datacenter servers being decommissioned. A W3680 or W3690 is more expensive nowadays than the more or less equivalent X5680 or X5690.

X5680 and X5690 Xeons support more RAM when installed in a single CPU tray, are better binned than W36xx, tolerate higher temperatures and are cheaper than a W3680 or W3690.

Interesting though to hear that a dual processor cMP 5,1 it's not very different from a MP 7,1. And yes, I agree that purchasing a used dual processor 5,1 would be a better option should I decide to take that route at some stage.

• 24 GB of RAM, because I did not need more, but you can get a lot more for relatively little money.

It's been more than enough for now (if I've understood how to decipher Activity Monitor correctly I don't even take advantage of all the RAM). But good to know for later (also the X5690 apparently accepts more RAM than the W3690 -see quote by Tsialex above). I believe when I start using DAW software I'll see the computer demanding more use of its memory.

• A 512GB PCIe M.2 SSD on a simple PCIe adapter for my boot drive.
• A 2TB SATA SSD on a SATA III PCIe adapter for my data drive.
  • with today's prices, I might have gone for a second PCIe M.2 SSD (think Intel 660p) on PCIe adapter
  • for the ultimately fast storage experience you could could with a PCIe card holding multiple M.2 SSDs that you put in a RAID set, but those are pretty expensive (cheaper cards without a PCIe switch won't work on a Mac)

This is interesting stuff which I know little about.
Currently I have two SSDs installed (in one of the drive bays via a 2.5" adapter, the other underneath the optical drive, connected to a cheap PCIe SATA-II card), but understand this isn't the optimal setup.
So the data drive is one of those PCIe cards where you attach a regular 2.5" SSD? I assume the advantage of this is that you get to utilize SATA-III speeds (unlike with the drive bays)? Do you also get one (or several) SATA connectors on that board so you could attach a second SATA-III device (though physically elsewhere in the computer such as in the optical bay)?

And the boot drive is a PCIe card that takes "blade" type SSD boards?

• A large & quiet HDD in one of the HDD sledges for Time Machine (I'm partial to WD Green for their silence)

Yes, I've got a couple of those Green WD drives for backups too. Unfortunately 3 TB just isn't enough any longer, neither for my data drive nor backups so I'm looking into 6 TB and 8 TB replacements. Another discussion entirely trying to find a suitable drive which isn't SMR, causes boot-problems (in a Mac) or is plainly unreliable. Still investigating that.
And then there's the "new" mounting screw layout which in a Mac Pro demands replacement sleds (which OWC makes, but having heard that they don't actually fit very well in a cMP (bulging against the side-panel) I've put purchases of those on hold).

• A USB 3.0 PCIe card
  • you can further future-proof your Mac Pro with a USB 3.2 card if you wish

Check!
I've just purchased one, but not installed it yet. It won't work with my current MacOS 10.11 setup anyway (I plan to upgrade to 10.12 soon). It's a dual-controller (2x ASM3142) 4-port USB 3.2 card which I think should be a good investment: Sonnet Allegro USB-C 4-port PCIe (USB3C-4PM-E).
I initially bought a Sonnet 2-port card and wanted to exchange it for a 4-port, but slower (5Gbps) board, but decided against it and went for this one instead even though it cost quite a bit more, but thinking ahead. I figure the two controllers would come in handy if I replace my external Firewire 800 drive with an external USB 3 two or four-bay external drive for external archives/backups. That's yet another upgrade decision, so $$$$.

• An AMD Radeon RX 580, a good perf/price ratio card that gives you Metal acceleration, lets you run Mojave and can still be powered without Pixlas mods
  • It will not show boot screen though for which I needed to keep my old GT120 just in case (I would need to swap the cards as I had no PCIe slot left and Mojave would not fully boot with the GT120 installed - a real PITA).
  • An RX 5600/5700 (XT) will give you even more performance but requires Catalina - which was never trouble free on my MP 5,1 (tried both Open Core and dosdude1's Catalina patcher)

Good suggestions, but as pointed out earlier (or was it in another thread? I can't remember) I'm still using some legacy software (Photoshop CS4) which won't work beyond MacOS 10.12 so there's probably no benefit in adding a new graphic card (to replace my ATI HD 5870). And those cards wouldn't even work in older OSes, would they?

 

[Snow Tiger]

X5690 has a quad core "equivalent", in reality a X5690 that only four cores completed Intel factory validation tests and Intel disabled the failed two during manufacture process, it's then named and sold as X5677.

X5677 has all the benefits of a X5690, but with two less cores. It's the best cost vs benefit processor that you can use with a Mac Pro 5,1.

But the release of the X5677 predated the X5690 by about a year ... Didn't Intel simply add to the X5677 design to make the X5690 ?

Or did Intel fail to design a Six Core chip ( X5690 ) properly at first and disabled two cores and call it a X5677 , just to get a product out the door ?
[automerge]1588682499[/automerge]

"Every time you remove a processor, even for a few seconds, cover the processor socket with a connector cap. Spare caps are packed with replacement parts."

Is this to secure against static electricity and dust? Do replacement processors usually come with this cap or can it be purchased somewhere?

Both . And bent pins .

You need to purchase the LGA1366 socket protector cap separately , in your case . One for each socket .

Foxconn Intel 5500/5600 LGA1366 Server CPU Socket Protector Pin Cover Supermicro | eBay

Socket: LGA1366 Server CPU Socket Protector Pin Cover. Foxconn CPU Cover. Boardroom Technologies will provide top level service and will do everything in our power to satisfy all your needs.

www.ebay.com

 

[h9826790]

X5677 not having two of the six cores enabled can keep more time on max Turbo (3.73GHz) than a X5690 can.

I believe they both have the same Turbo Boost performance.

For X5690, the Turbo Boost table is 1/1/1/1/2/2. Which means, always Turbo boost to 3.6 GHz (1 step) as long as no thermal constrain (I've test this on my cMP, Turbo boost almost always available).

When only one or two cores are in use, then can further boost to 3.73GHz (2 steps).

For X5677, the Turbo Boost table is 1/1/2/2. Which mean also always Turbo boost to 3.6GHz (1 step) when no thermal constrain.

And same as X5690, X5677 only can boost to 3.73GHz ( 2 steps) when 1-2 cores are in use.

Therefore, when the Mac only use 2 cores or below, the CPU will run at 3.73GHz for both X5690 and X5677.

When the Mac need 3 cores or above, both the X5677 and X5690 will run at 3.6GHz.

Therefore, the X5677 cannot have more Turbo Boost.
[automerge]1588684900[/automerge]

But the release of the X5677 predated the X5690 by about a year ... Didn't Intel simply add to the X5677 design to make the X5690 ?

Or did Intel fail to design a Six Core chip ( X5690 ) properly at first and disabled two cores and call it a X5677 , just to get a product out the door ?
[automerge]1588682499[/automerge]

My understanding, they always start from the biggest chip (in this case, 6 cores). All smaller chip are the cut down from the biggest.

However, the yield rate may not be that high at the early production stage. Therefore, it make sense that Intel release the X5677 before the X5690. As long as there are 4 cores working in the chip, Intel can release them as the X5677.

 

[h9826790]

I realize that choosing a CPU upgrade (X5690 vs. X5677 vs.X5680) demands a lot of technical in-depth knowledge which I don't have.
Is there a way I can use for instance Activity monitor to analyze what would be most beneficial to me, based on my typical use of the computer?

There are many ways to do it. One of the simple way is as follow.

1) Do your normal workflow (or perform your most stressful workflow, if you want to make sure your setup is good even under the most demanding situation) for at least 15 minutes

2) During the most stressful moment, open Terminal, and enter sysctl -n vm.loadavg

3) Terminal then will return you three numbers. This is the Load Average in the last 1, 5, and 15 minute.

So, lets say you see { 6.80 6.59 6.58 }

It means in the last 1 min, your Mac need 6.8 threads to perform all required tasks. In the last 5 min, it need 6.59 threads to fulfil all demands. In the last 15min, the demand is 6.58 threads.

Therefore, If you have a single X5677, there will be 4 cores and 8 threads available. Which is enough to fulfil all the demands. HOWEVER, only 4 cores are real physical cores. Which means, about 2.6 threads are powered by virtual cores. Depends on the actual work load, it may be much slower than normal.

For a X5690, There are 6 cores and 12 threads. Therefore, in worst case, only about 0.8 threads are powered by virtual core. Relatively low chance of having performance impact, but still not "perfect" yet.

However, if you have a dual processor model, and have dual X5677 setup. You will have 8 cores and 16 threads. Therefore, your Mac will able to provide real physical cores to all the tasks you perform, the CPU always run at 3.6GHz (please refer to my reply about Turbo Boost above), no compromise.

For dual X5690, there will be 12 cores, 24 threads. Of course, this setup can also fulfil the most stressful demand. However, you are wasting your money / energy / etc, because even under the most demanding situation, only 6.8 cores are really required, the other cores are just there to share the work load, or even sit idle. They won't improve your work flow's performance.

 

[Snow Tiger]

Ah! Yes, it starts on page 177 (for the mid-2010 guide that is). Thanks. I wasn't aware of it covering CPu upgrades. I noticed it saying
"Every time you remove a processor, even for a few seconds, cover the processor socket with a connector cap. Spare caps are packed with replacement parts."

Is this to secure against static electricity and dust? Do replacement processors usually come with this cap or can it be purchased somewhere?



Good question (and hard to answer)
I would say: a general optimization which will be noticeable without spending too much. I don't have a specific budget but will consider every upgrade. More in my comments below




As this is purely a home-computer used for everyday tasks (email, web etc.) and slightly more CPU intensive tasks (occasional Photoshop work, Lightroom photo-organizing/editing, and soon starting to make music with a DAW of some kind (haven't decided which one) as well as editing home-videos (also haven't decided on the software for that) I see no reason to go dual processor, and will likely be happy with an X5690 upgrade for a long time.

Earlier in the thread, Tsialex pointed out how an X5690 would be a better choice than the W3690, so I'll go for that. There's a German seller on eBay who appears reputable and sells complete cMP 5,1 CPU upgrade kits, and they have those.




Interesting though to hear that a dual processor cMP 5,1 it's not very different from a MP 7,1. And yes, I agree that purchasing a used dual processor 5,1 would be a better option should I decide to take that route at some stage.



It's been more than enough for now (if I've understood how to decipher Activity Monitor correctly I don't even take advantage of all the RAM). But good to know for later (also the X5690 apparently accepts more RAM than the W3690 -see quote by Tsialex above). I believe when I start using DAW software I'll see the computer demanding more use of its memory.



This is interesting stuff which I know little about.
Currently I have two SSDs installed (in one of the drive bays via a 2.5" adapter, the other underneath the optical drive, connected to a cheap PCIe SATA-II card), but understand this isn't the optimal setup.
So the data drive is one of those PCIe cards where you attach a regular 2.5" SSD? I assume the advantage of this is that you get to utilize SATA-III speeds (unlike with the drive bays)? Do you also get one (or several) SATA connectors on that board so you could attach a second SATA-III device (though physically elsewhere in the computer such as in the optical bay)?

And the boot drive is a PCIe card that takes "blade" type SSD boards?



Yes, I've got a couple of those Green WD drives for backups too. Unfortunately 3 TB just isn't enough any longer, neither for my data drive nor backups so I'm looking into 6 TB and 8 TB replacements. Another discussion entirely trying to find a suitable drive which isn't SMR, causes boot-problems (in a Mac) or is plainly unreliable. Still investigating that.
And then there's the "new" mounting screw layout which in a Mac Pro demands replacement sleds (which OWC makes, but having heard that they don't actually fit very well in a cMP (bulging against the side-panel) I've put purchases of those on hold).



Check!
I've just purchased one, but not installed it yet. It won't work with my current MacOS 10.11 setup anyway (I plan to upgrade to 10.12 soon). It's a dual-controller (2x ASM3142) 4-port USB 3.2 card which I think should be a good investment: Sonnet Allegro USB-C 4-port PCIe (USB3C-4PM-E).
I initially bought a Sonnet 2-port card and wanted to exchange it for a 4-port, but slower (5Gbps) board, but decided against it and went for this one instead even though it cost quite a bit more, but thinking ahead. I figure the two controllers would come in handy if I replace my external Firewire 800 drive with an external USB 3 two or four-bay external drive for external archives/backups. That's yet another upgrade decision, so $$$$.




Good suggestions, but as pointed out earlier (or was it in another thread? I can't remember) I'm still using some legacy software (Photoshop CS4) which won't work beyond MacOS 10.12 so there's probably no benefit in adding a new graphic card (to replace my ATI HD 5870). And those cards wouldn't even work in older OSes, would they?

Why not perform a dual macOS install ? Have two partitions on a NVMe M.2 SSD .

macOS 10.12.6 Sierra for just PS CS4 . No current security updates , though . You might consider air gapping .
macOS 10.14.6 Mojave for your daily OS with full security updates .

CS4 will also have CPU based rendering , as GPU compute was too new a technology when this program was first released ( 2008 ) . So you want powerful silicon . Although PS has a bad reputation for being optimized for any hardware configuration .

These OSes will also allow you to have installed a powerful metal GPU for when you do require this .

BTW , there is nothing wrong with OWC's high capacity HDD Carriers ...

Here's a possible configeration for your needs :

Single Processor cMP 5,1 ( factory 2010-12 )
boot ROM 144.0.0.0.0. ( really desirable ) .
X5690 Intel Xeon Six Core @ 3.46 GHz CPU . 90 USD .
48 GB ( 3 x 16 GB ) 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC memory . Tri channel optimized . 80 USD .
RX 570 4GB GPU . Gigabyte Gaming . PCIe Slot 1 . 120 USD .
Standard 8 pin PCIe to dual mini 6 pin PCIe power booster adapter cable . 7 USD .
1 TB Intel 660p NVMe M.2 PCIe SSD . PCIe Slot 2 . 125 USD .
Aquacomputer KryoM.2 M.2 SSD PCIe adapter , with heatsink . 52 USD .
10 TB 3.5" HDD HGST Ultrastar HUH721010ALE600 . PMR tech . avoid power disable versions . 275 USD .
OWC High Capacity 3.5" SATA HDD Carrier . HDD Bay 1 . 25 USD .
WH14NS40 SATA Blu-ray burner . 62 USD .
802.11ac and Bluetooth 4.0 Wireless upgrade with external antennas . 65 USD .
Sonnet four port USB-C Card . PCIe Slot 3 . 140 USD .
External Wireless antennas . PCIe Slot 4 . 000 USD .

Grand total = 1041 USD .

This is a pretty powerful configuration .

 

[amedias]

I believe they both have the same Turbo Boost performance.

For X5690, the Turbo Boost table is 1/1/1/1/2/2. Which means, always Turbo boost to 3.6 GHz (1 step) as long as no thermal constrain (I've test this on my cMP, Turbo boost almost always available).

When only one or two cores are in use, then can further boost to 3.73GHz (2 steps).

For X5677, the Turbo Boost table is 1/1/2/2. Which mean also always Turbo boost to 3.6GHz (1 step) when no thermal constrain.

And same as X5690, X5677 only can boost to 3.73GHz ( 2 steps) when 1-2 cores are in use.

Therefore, when the Mac only use 2 cores or below, the CPU will run at 3.73GHz for both X5690 and X5677.

When the Mac need 3 cores or above, both the X5677 and X5690 will run at 3.6GHz.

Therefore, the X5677 cannot have more Turbo Boost.

Under *normal* conditions this is true, the big but is the 'no thermal constraint' bit, and that's where it get's a little complicated and nuanced.

I've done a fair bit of testing on this recently as part of my aftermarket fan project, and being lucky enough to test a number of different CPUs including the X5677 and X5690 I can confirm that the X5677 does stay on max boost for longer under under some workloads.

'Thermal constraint' on these CPUs manifests mostly in one of two ways

Single/Low-core count spike

High loads for short time periods where individual cores, or a small subset of them are heavily stressed. They reach max turbo but then if the load is sustained, even for a relatively short period and you watch the individual core temps you'll see the loaded cores spike close to their limit even though other cores and the overall die temp is cool. Once the individual cores get hot then the clock drops away from max. You can only get the heat out of the processor so quickly, so even if the heatsink/cooling is sufficient the core can spike in temp to the point of being thermally constrained quicker than the heat can be whisked away.

How the threads are bound can have a big influence here, as if you have two threads locked to the same two cores you'll get a different response to threads starting, completing, and then starting on another core. So the workload plas a big part in this as well, but it is entirely possible to hit thermal issues on a single core.
What I observed is that this happens sooner on the 6 core CPUs that the 4 core at the same clock, presumably a result of more of the die being active and heat contribution from them even when not being specifically stressed.


Multi-core saturation

This is where the CPU is heavily loaded across multiple or all cores continuously. When this happens the CPU will start to drop below max-turbo quite quickly even when overall die temp is kept in check.
As above the individual cores bounce and hover below the thermal limit even when the die itself is not overheating , there's a limit to how quickly you can get the heat out of a processor, but if you're lucky and keep temps in check what you'll see is an all core clock ~3.5GHz or at least bouncing between base clock and 3.6(ish)GHz

This only gets worse as things get heat saturated. You can observe this by watching the individual core temps and the die temp. You'll see cores reach their max temp but still holding a boost, then as the die temp increases the boost drops, and then they all drop to base clock, all the while the individual cores will be sitting at max or just under (as that's the point they throttle). If the CPU die temp continues to climb due to poor or insufficient cooling thermal throttling itself down even further and go lower and lower...

At it's simplest it's a case of 6 Cores running at XGhz will get things to the point of throttling quicker than 4 cores at XGhz. The question is whether you work will be done by then or not ;-)

In real world use though it makes very little difference as most people aren't hammering their machines in such a way, and then they are the difference in outcome is negligible in terms of time saved.