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

[h9826790]

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.
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...

I only tested few CPUs. My own observation, the key is to keep the heatsink clean, then simply spin up the fan a bit, keep the core (diode) temperature below 80°C, then Turbo Boost always available.

Anyway, I can confirm that the native fan profile may not good enough to keep the Xeon at max Turbo Boost. That's why I mentioned "thermal constrain" in my last post. And only "almost" always available. This is actually for using native fan profile, and for those who never clean the Mac.

The cMP cooling system (hardware) itself definitely good enough, but to keep max Turbos Boost always available, we need to manage the fans by ourselves.

 

[tsialex]

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]

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.

While the Turbo Boot algorithm is the same for X5677 or X5690, the die is the same and so with the two cores disabled still conducting the heat generated, X5677 has less thermal constrains than X5690 and that's what I'm talking about.

 

[fiatlux]

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?

I used an OWC Mercury Accelsior S card for my 2.5” SSD data drive. That one has no extra connector but, of course, you could go for a regular SATA III adapter card and wire your SATA disks internally (you will need to get the SATA power from the ODD or HDD bays).

For what the boot drive concerns, yes, it is an SSD blade on a simple cheap PCIe adapter (SSD blades already have a PCIe electrical interface, not just the same mechanical interface). Mine is an older SSD with AHCI control. Newer PCIe SSDs have long switched to NVME which Is better suited to low-latency SSDs, but you will need at least High-Sierra to boot from an NVME SSD.

 

[macstatic]

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 .

Yes, that's a possibility, but I can see this being a hassle.
For instance: I typically organize/edit my photos with Adobe Lightroom 6 (which may possibly work with OSX 10.14), and now and then I further edit them (from within Lightroom) with Photoshop. In this case I would have to save the file first, reboot into OSX 10.11/10.12, edit it there, reboot back into 10.14 and transfer the file back into Lightroom. Not a very efficient workflow.
Then there's the question of saving files between two OSes and possibly also two different disk systems.

I understand I'm in the minority here, "resisting" to upgrade to the latest OS, but the point of having a computer is to run apps, isn't it? And if I can't run the apps that I've purchased there's no point in having the latest, trendiest OS
And paying for app upgrades just to be able to run the latest OS doesn't quite make sense to me (besides, Photoshop is now only available as a subscription these days as far as I know, which I'm not interested in). As for security: common sense goes a long way, and a lot can be done with firewalls and various settings. And security breaches pop up all the time, even in the latest OS.

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

Is this a benefit only for those running heavy graphic-intensive software or will it give an overall more efficient computer in general?

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

This, this, this and this posting tells of an unprecise design of those carriers/sleds and the results of this. Maybe they've just been unlucky with a bad batch, but the photos in one of the postings shows the differences.

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 .

Indeed!!! Wow. Your post has been bookmarked in case I some day need to go all the way with this. Very useful information. Thanks! ?
A couple of questions regarding the above:
1) what does the boot ROM 144.0.0.0.0. do, and how do I upgrade (if needed)? System Profiler tells me I have version MP51.0089.B00
2) You suggested a HGST drive without the power disable feature. Do they come in different versions or is this a jumper setting on the drive?
3) you suggested a Bluetooth upgrade: is this to eliminate the interference when you insert a USB-3 card or for other reasons?
[automerge]1588760007[/automerge]

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.

Thanks.
I've tried it under the situations when I feel an upgrade could help (i.e. when Lightroom takes forever to create previews). The highest numbers I've gotten so far are:
{ 3.63 3.46 2.83 }

More typically something like this:
{ 2.03 1.88 1.83 }

 

[h9826790]

I've tried it under the situations when I feel an upgrade could help (i.e. when Lightroom takes forever to create previews). The highest numbers I've gotten so far are:
{ 3.63 3.46 2.83 }

More typically something like this:
{ 2.03 1.88 1.83 }

That means your normal workflow isn't "CPU multi thread demanding". Going for more cores most likely won't help anything.

But you can always benefit from faster CPU. A single X5677 is actually good enough for you. But if don't mind to pay a bit more, or want to have a bit more buffer (you can utilise 3.63 cores out of 4 at some stage, that's ~90% utilisation rate already), then you can go for W3690 or X5690.

I know some people prefer W3680 or X5680, because that last ~3.6% performance difference may cost another 100% money. This is your own choice. But remember, you can almost always benefit from that extra 3.6% performance (the cMP is very very CPU single thread performance limiting). And 3.6% means "you can save about 1 day every month" (if a task need 30 days to finish, now you can finish it in about 29 days with that extra 3.6% performance)

 

[macstatic]

Seems like for a long-term investment, the X5690 is the way to go.
I'll give that command a go when I try out a DAW with many effects.
OK, so now I know that the bottleneck for those Lightroom operations where I've been twiddling my thumbs are elsewhere. Perhaps the hard drive, but then I do recall having had those previews created on an SSD without much difference...
Another possibility is that Lightroom is just plain slow at things.

 

[h9826790]

Seems like for a long-term investment, the X5690 is the way to go.
I'll give that command a go when I try out a DAW with many effects.
OK, so now I know that the bottleneck for those Lightroom operations where I've been twiddling my thumbs are elsewhere. Perhaps the hard drive, but then I do recall having had those previews created on an SSD without much difference...
Another possibility is that Lightroom is just plain slow at things.

LR's optimisation is quite bad indeed. Capture One seems works better in macOS.

 

[Snow Tiger]

Then there's the question of saving files between two OSes and possibly also two different disk systems.

Well , in a true media editing station , you would have dedicated data drives . In a cMP , it is recommended to use Mac OS Extended ( HFS+) for both internally and externally connected data drives . Possibly , you would consider a FAT of some sort in a mixed platform environment . But you definitely should avoid APFS file systems for any connected data drives for performance reasons in a cMP . With installing modern macOSes on a cMP you are required to use APFS , but only on the boot device ( you are permitted to have different file systems on the other drives in the same System ) . You should not use a boot device to store data for performance and ease of System administration purposes . But many Mac users do and it's the default configuration from Apple these days .
[automerge]1588766826[/automerge]

As for security: common sense goes a long way, and a lot can be done with firewalls and various settings. And security breaches pop up all the time, even in the latest OS.

Security through obscurity is a fool's dream . And I service workstations with older OSes , too . Some of my clients really like 10.6.8 Snow Leopard for running older programs . My advice to them is to air gap ( realistically , this means no internet ) and run third party virus scans on data transfer operations .

 

[Snow Tiger]

Is this a benefit only for those running heavy graphic-intensive software or will it give an overall more efficient computer in general?

Metal is necessary to run modern macOSes in an efficient manner , regardless of task . It is possibly to run ( but not install ) modern macOSes with non-metal GPUs , but overall performance is greatly reduced .

Metal is a combination of UI and Compute GPU features wrapped up into a single API .

 

[Snow Tiger]

1) what does the boot ROM 144.0.0.0.0. do, and how do I upgrade (if needed)? System Profiler tells me I have version MP51.0089.B00

Upgrade your current SATA drive's macOS to the latest build of Sierra 10.12.6 . Download a copy of the Mojave installer from an Apple server onto this drive . Remove your non-metal GPU . Install a compatible metal GPU . Run the installer . You should get a message window saying you need to update firmware . Follow the instructions . Do not remove power from your System or interrupt the process , or you will risk bricking your Mac . Once the firmware update ( only one firmware update straight from MP51.0089.B00 to 144.0.0.0.0 is needed ) has been completed , you can run the installer and choose a destination drive . I would advise performing a fresh install on a new , high performance drive ( NVMe M.2 ) .

boot ROM 144 will give you basically high performance PCIe slots and NVMe drive boot support . It probably also improves System stability and security .

 

[fiatlux]

Metal is necessary to run modern macOSes in an efficient manner , regardless of task . It is possibly to run ( but not install ) modern macOSes with non-metal GPUs , but overall performance is greatly reduced .

Well, (the unpatched version of) Mojave would not even boot with my GT120 if I remember well, but even if it ran, it would indeed be pretty unbearable. For illustration, my old 2010 Mac Mini (with 8 GB of RAM and an SSD) is pretty zippy under High Sierra. I once tried installing Mojave with a patcher for unsupported machines and the interface became unbearably slow.

 

[h9826790]

Well, (the unpatched version of) Mojave would not even boot with my GT120 if I remember well, but even if it ran, it would indeed be pretty unbearable. For illustration, my old 2010 Mac Mini (with 8 GB of RAM and an SSD) is pretty zippy under High Sierra. I once tried installing Mojave with a patcher for unsupported machines and the interface became unbearably slow.

Unpatched Mojave can boot with GT120, just no acceleration.

 

[Snow Tiger]

You suggested a HGST drive without the power disable feature. Do they come in different versions or is this a jumper setting on the drive?

power disable is a built in , permanent reset feature of some HDDs . There is no jumper to disable the power disable feature .

The feature utilizes the third pin ( of the 15 pins ) of the power portion of the SATA connector . This is the PWDIS pin .

SATA connectors have 7 data ( signal ) + 15 power pins , for a total of 22 pins .

The power disable feature can be disabled by neutralizing this third power pin , say , by placing a small piece of Kapton tape to cover only this third pin .

[automerge]1588774037[/automerge]

Well, (the unpatched version of) Mojave would not even boot with my GT120 if I remember well, but even if it ran, it would indeed be pretty unbearable. For illustration, my old 2010 Mac Mini (with 8 GB of RAM and an SSD) is pretty zippy under High Sierra. I once tried installing Mojave with a patcher for unsupported machines and the interface became unbearably slow.

A boot ROM v. 144 cMP with only an EFI GT 120 GPU will boot retail Mojave .

You just will not like the performance and audio-visual files are not likely to playback properly .

It's weird not to be able to playback a MP3 file just because the wrong GPU is installed .

 

[fiatlux]

Unpatched Mojave can boot with GT120, just no acceleration.

Strange, I am pretty sure it would not boot, even if the GT120 sat unused in the second slot next to the main RX580 card. Or maybe that was only the case with the patched version of Catalina I used for a little while?

 

[Snow Tiger]

you suggested a Bluetooth upgrade: is this to eliminate the interference when you insert a USB-3 card or for other reasons?

It's nice to have an upgraded wireless System in a cMP , because factory shipping WiFi and BT is ten year old technology . You'll have an ability to connect to modern devices and also have improved performance . You can also get Continuity feature set support and improved signal strength with external antennas .

If you are getting EMI because of an USB card , you might consider some strategically placed copper foil tape and insulate that if necessary to prevent shorting . Apple has been known to install this tape in their Systems . it looks like this :

 

[h9826790]

Strange, I am pretty sure it would not boot, even if the GT120 sat unused in the second slot next to the main RX580 card. Or maybe that was only the case with the patched version of Catalina I used for a little while?

It can boot with just the GT120, but NOT with GT120+RX580.

 

[macstatic]

Lots of info and good suggestions!
I'm currently looking into a replacement (Affinity Photo) for Photoshop CS4 in case I want/need to upgrade my OS.
UPDATE: I've just tested and found out that CS4 on a pre-installed boot drive will still work when upgrading it to 10.13. I had lots of trouble upgrading my test-SSD from 10.12 to 10.13 but it more or less works now, so we'll see how that goes. Until then I'm happily running 10.11 on my main boot drive.
... so it appears I can have my cake AND eat it (upgrade to a newer OS and continue using CS4) while I'm trying to see if Affinity Photo can fully replace it (it's 50% until 20th of May in case others are interested as well) ?

Metal is necessary to run modern macOSes in an efficient manner , regardless of task .

Does this apply to a 2010 Mac Pro as well or only the most recent, top of the line current Macs?
Regarding the new Metal compatible graphic cards and a dual boot system as suggested earlier: I thought those cards only worked with more recent OSes, so how do I solve that if I boot into say 10.9 or 10.11 when I usually have for instance 10.14? Two graphic cards and reconnecting the display cables?

I used an OWC Mercury Accelsior S card for my 2.5” SSD data drive. That one has no extra connector but, of course, you could go for a regular SATA III adapter card and wire your SATA disks internally (you will need to get the SATA power from the ODD or HDD bays).

As stated above I've been having problems upgrading my test-SSD from 10.12 to 10.13, and one of the causes might be because it's mounted in the lower optical bay and attached to a SIL-3132 SATA-II PCIe card.
Apparently there's some sort of security blocking action in 10.13 which has blocked a lot of things and I believe including the SATA PCIe card.
I've had to re-install 10.13 three times until it finally worked. Now I can boot into 10.13 (by holding down the ALT key, not by using the Startup disk system pref in 10.11 as it doesn't even recognize that SSD -probably because it's converted to APFS as I recently learnt).
Anyway.... my thought is that with a dual SATA-III adapter like that I could attach both my SSDs on that board and gain SATA-III speeds. Of course it has to be bootable and not be reliant on a driver to work.
Strangely the 10.13 SSD still boots (when selecting it with the ALT key down while booting the computer), so somehow it works without a driver. Maybe the driver is just there to add RAID support.

For what the boot drive concerns, yes, it is an SSD blade on a simple cheap PCIe adapter (SSD blades already have a PCIe electrical interface, not just the same mechanical interface). Mine is an older SSD with AHCI control. Newer PCIe SSDs have long switched to NVME which Is better suited to low-latency SSDs, but you will need at least High-Sierra to boot from an NVME SSD.

There had to be a downside to this
This would mean I would have to commit to keeping the computer at 10.13 or higher, and lose the ability to boot into an older OS, should I need to do that. It's the kind of thing you might not have to do for years, then all of a sudden you need to use some old software in order to access some files or whatever... I'd lose that ability.. or maybe I could boot off an external USB or Firewire drive with a pre-10.13 OS on it?

I understand a PCIe adapter with an SSD blade is the ultimate in SSD speed, and I assume two or three such SSDs (or 2-3 partitions) would allow me to boot a lot faster, open apps faster and with my Lightroom catalogs/preview on an SSD like that would gain performance in that area too, but of course at a higher cost.

My two 128 GB Samsung 830 SSDs are still working fine and I don't like disgarding perfectly working gear just because it's not the hottest around, so a driver-less, bootable PCIe board with room for two SATA SSDs might be the way to go for now. This thread mentions a few options.
Another thought.... how about a PCIe card for NVMe SSDs and SATA -that way I could attach my current SATA SSDs to it for now, and when I run out of space/want higher speeds I just insert M.2 SSDs and disconnect the SATA SSDs. Is anything like that available?

Well , in a true media editing station , you would have dedicated data drives . In a cMP , it is recommended to use Mac OS Extended ( HFS+) for both internally and externally connected data drives . Possibly , you would consider a FAT of some sort in a mixed platform environment . But you definitely should avoid APFS file systems for any connected data drives for performance reasons in a cMP .

I've just learnt that upgrading to 10.13 converts the boot drive (if it's an SSD, not HDDs) from HFS to APFS, and this is the second time I've received a warning about not using it. I'm just guessing but it might be one of the reasons I had huge problems upgrading my test-SSD from 10.12 to 10.13. But after the fact I've also learnt how to disable the APFS conversion in 10.13 so it stays with HFS, so maybe that's the way to go. Having been warned about using APFS (at least in certain scenarios) -are there reasons I should consider letting the 10.13 upgrade do its default file-system conversion?

A pure data drive sounds like a good option. How would I set that up in terms of ownership?

 

[VaZ]

It can boot with just the GT120, but NOT with GT120+RX580.

I managed to make this boot fine with both after running into the same issue but all you have to do is switch from the dvi cable in the GT120 to an hdmi cable to the RX 580 and Mojave will load normal and not get stuck at loading.

 

[h9826790]

I managed to make this boot fine with both after running into the same issue but all you have to do is switch from the dvi cable in the GT120 to an hdmi cable to the RX 580 and Mojave will load normal and not get stuck at loading.

So, you mean

1) Connect the DVI cable (or mDP) to the GT120 in order to get boot screen

2) select the boot drive you want on the screen, but not press enter

3) disconnect the DVI cable on the GT120, and connect the HDMI cable to the RX580. At this moment, nothing will be displayed on the screen. However, the boot manager should be still working.

4) Press enter, let the Mac continue boot to the OS.

5) As long as nothing connected to the GT120, and only a HDMI cable connected to the RX580, the cMP will continue to boot to Mojave, and the RX580 will work as expected.

Is this correct?

 

[VaZ]

So, you mean

1) Connect the DVI cable (or mDP) to the GT120 in order to get boot screen

2) select the boot drive you want on the screen, but not press enter

3) disconnect the DVI cable on the GT120, and connect the HDMI cable to the RX580. At this moment, nothing will be displayed on the screen. However, the boot manager should be still working.

4) Press enter, let the Mac continue boot to the OS.

5) As long as nothing connected to the GT120, and only a HDMI cable connected to the RX580, the cMP will continue to boot to Mojave, and the RX580 will work as expected.

Is this correct?

Yes correct exactly like that.
Mojave can restart fine back into itself with the GT120 card installed as long as the hdmi cable is being used in the RX 580 and nothing in the GT120.
Leaving the dvi cable plugged into the GT120 while restarting results in a freeze during trying to load the 32bit GT120 in Mojave it looks like.
I can try with 2 monitors and the 2 cards with those 2 cables and see what that does.

 

[h9826790]

Yes correct exactly like that.
Mojave can restart fine back into itself with the GT120 card installed as long as the hdmi cable is being used in the RX 580 and nothing in the GT120.
Leaving the dvi cable plugged into the GT120 while restarting results in a freeze during trying to load the 32bit GT120 in Mojave it looks like.
I can try with 2 monitors and the 2 cards with those 2 cables and see what that does.

Thanks, this is very important info. Even we can easily make RX580 shows boot screen now, but still quite a few people want to boot GT120 + RX580. I will put this into the Mega thread.

 

[pertusis1]

Yes correct exactly like that.
Mojave can restart fine back into itself with the GT120 card installed as long as the hdmi cable is being used in the RX 580 and nothing in the GT120.
Leaving the dvi cable plugged into the GT120 while restarting results in a freeze during trying to load the 32bit GT120 in Mojave it looks like.
I can try with 2 monitors and the 2 cards with those 2 cables and see what that does.

So simple! Tonight when I get home from work, I am going to give this
a shot. I would like to have sent my 580 to MVC, but can’t afford the downtime.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Macstatic, a lot of issues relate to your CS4. I am not so limited - I have CS6. But I am thinking about Affinity Photo. From the sound of it, it would be worth it for you. It can run on the latest MacOS and you pay once for it like the good old days, plus, its affordable. Their are other packages available as well. That's the route I am planning.

 

[macstatic]

Melbourne Park: Good suggestion!
I actually bought Affinity Photo a few weeks ago (when it was 50% off) as it appears to be a good replacement for Photoshop (at least for home use). Unfortunately I haven't gotten round to learning it properly (it's not a straight replacement for Photoshop so I expect to have to re-learn a bit although the general workflow is more or less the same, as far as I know).

Fortunately Photoshop CS4 still works fine in MacOS 10.13 High Sierra which I've settled at. I found it to be the best compromise OS version for compatibility with older apps as well as getting access to newer apps and a little longer security update support from Apple than older OS versions.
For Photoshop CS4 the solution was to install it in an older OS (I did a clean install of MacOS 10.12 Sierra, installed it there, then upgraded to 10.13 where it still works).
I also replaced my 2.8 GHz 4-core CPU with a 6-core 3.46 GHz and replaced my almost full 4 TB drive with a 10 TB (and a 12 TB Time Machine backup drive). All that should keep the machine going for a while

Back to Affinity Photo; here's a useful link in case you haven't already seen it: Transitioning From Adobe Photoshop to Affinity Photo.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I think I am a bit like you macstatic, although my task is to digitise all my old videos (many hi8 ones, and then the easier digital 8 tapes, mini dv tapes, and then they go to digital cameras and finally lots of phone videos too). First get them onto the computer, then shorten them all and mix the photos. Then work out how to serve them so their accessible.

One bottleneck with using an old machine (mine is a 2010 that I bought in 2012 when Apple were heavily discounting the 2010 version 5,1 they had left in stock in 2012 or 2013). An issue with drives is I am wondering about power draw and heat. Video puts more work load on everything. I have four drives at the moment - an SSD in the spare CD drive area using that connection; the original 1TB drive which has a Windows partition on it, a 4 TB Western Digital Black drive and a same branded Green 2TB drive.

I have to use Sierra to import the videos I think - not sure if High Sierra will do that. I managed to get iMovie 6 not my Mac Pro and it was able to import the non digital videos. I also have the Pro version of Quicktime 7, and that imports the videos as well - but when the tape stops without me being there, the video will not be saved, while iMovie 6 will stop the camera and the video data will not be lost.

The muscle work will need a graphics card - but I don't think an RX 580 will work on Sierra. I'll need such a card and a later OS for the better multi-threading version of Final Cut Pro. But ... even the latest version of final cut pro will not see my early iMovies - I think because there is no proper time line. The promise was that Final Cut Pro would import recent iMovie files ...

And I am concerned about lots of disks, the graphics GPUs and heat issues in an old machine. I am considering for back-up using a NAS via ethernet because it won't add heat and it will better serve the videos. I've found that the videos I've made so far cannot be seen in my own house via sharing to an Apple TV 4k+ unless its from a Mojave OS. I think earlier Apple TVs will work though - so Apple gear isn't very compatible any more, not like it used to be.

So I reckon I am going to have to run multiple operating systems, and two GPUs, one not connected at a time, which is a real pain! My Mac Pro will need to be a sheet of teflon I reckon, so I can easily pull it out to access the GPU cables. Running multiple operating systems won't be as easy as it used to be either, due to loosing the first boot screen when using a card like an RX580..

And I originally liked macs because they were simple. Once upon a time.