Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can anyone specify the waternose pliers to use to hold the shaft?(And screwdrivers you used by the way) and were to buy those? it would be useful to people wanting to open the Macpro.

You don't need the pliers, trust me. I've done the upgrade for the first time and couldn't remove the same 2 screws on the memory cage but a gentle brute force is enough. Simply pull the memory cage to the right with one hand(towards back of the Mac) while with the other hand pull the heatsink plastic cover to the left(front of the Mac). It will come off, but be gentle and patient.
Hope this helps.
 
Hi everyone. Great thread! I was wondering if anyone could help. My first gen. Mac Pro has a CPU B fail diagnostic LED lit on the logic board. It's been suggested that I swap CPU A with CPU B, swap heatsinks, reset PRAM- which I've all done with no success. The computer will power on, chime, and just sit at a white/grey screen. I'm to the point now where I'd settle for running just one CPU if possible. I read here that CPU B is the primary one, but since I'm getting a B failure, am I screwed?
 
I'd say it's doubtful that both processors died at the same time. What's the rest of the diagnostic LED's telling you? The things that might be wrong would include bad memory, bad MCH (orthbridge), or corrupted firmware.
 
OK, I must be the only one concerned about this. But I will document my progress anyway...

I have downloaded current Intel update file and found that most recent microcode version for X5365/SLAED X5355/SLAEG stepping G0 (CPUID 0x6FB) is version 0xB9 released on November 5th 2009.

Having researched OS X security model I have discovered that user space application cannot access CPU wrmsr instruction required to initiate the update process. It just causes segmentation fault. So I have created a simple proof-of-concept kernel extension (.kext) that loads manually, updates the CPU and exits. I have to run (load/unload to kernel) it a few (=4) times for the new microcode to "stick". Maybe this is related to the number of cores even though I was under the impression that update is required only once per physical CPU. Anyway, it works if implemented properly. Also, when Mac goes to sleep its CPUs power down and get reset so proper microcode KEXT needs to reinit the upload after each wake up.

I wish some kernel developer gave us some help here... Given the fact that Apple updates EFI microcode very rarely it might be useful to any Intel based Mac.


Hi folks.

Ibodnar,
you're not the only one concerned with this, unfortunately ....
... finally I found someone 'serious' involved in that, in a 'serious' Forum ;)

So, let me ask you: any progress with the microcode 'injection' process?

I bought 2x X5365 on ebay for my MP1,1, different stepping (I cannot check right now which one I have, I'm abroad for work), so different voltages and different core temperatures (and different current drain) under stress/idle.

Obviously I have "unknown processor" under :apple:about menu, but I have something even worse:

1) VmWare Fusion tells me it has troubles running VT-x hardware emulation technology ("a mix on VT-x and not VT-x processors") and I can have JUST 4 cores available for virtual machines (on 8)
2) MS Silverlight pkg is not installing 'cause "not known processors" (ok, I could live without that)
.. other sw with similar problems..

All the 'core' sw and the famous stress-benchmarks (Apple compressor, Lightroom, Adobe CS4, etc.) use all the 8 cores correctly, but I 'feel' OSX needs something in order to work properly with the Xeons I've installed.

For now, let me inject a microcoded 'thanks in advance' for any answers... :D

cheers, fabbio
 
I'd say it's doubtful that both processors died at the same time. What's the rest of the diagnostic LED's telling you? The things that might be wrong would include bad memory, bad MCH (orthbridge), or corrupted firmware.

Thanks for the suggestions. I never considered firmware. How would I go about checking that? It was running fine with 2 dual 2.66. I upgraded to two 3 GHz dual core Xeon 5160s and it powered up and was running then too. I wanted to reinstall the OS ( and didn't have a working optical drive in there at the time) so I booted to target disk mode. Things seemed normal for a few minutes until the FireWire symbol stopped bouncing on screen. That's when I noticed the "CPU B Fail" led was lit. That's the only diagnostic led lit. After that it will only chime and go to the white/grey screen.
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I never considered firmware. How would I go about checking that? It was running fine with 2 dual 2.66. I upgraded to two 3 GHz dual core Xeon 5160s and it powered up and was running then too. I wanted to reinstall the OS ( and didn't have a working optical drive in there at the time) so I booted to target disk mode. Things seemed normal for a few minutes until the FireWire symbol stopped bouncing on screen. That's when I noticed the "CPU B Fail" led was lit. That's the only diagnostic led lit. After that it will only chime and go to the white/grey screen.

Hmmm.... No idea if it's firmware, but you can try. Get an optical drive in there, download the restoration disk, follow the directions.
 
I have a Mac Pro 1,1. Was wondering if the Mac Pro would work if I just use one X5355 (was able to find only one till now)? If so, which one of the sockets would that go into?
 
I have a pair of x5355 CPUs (each is quad 2.66ghz) that i am preparing for sale on ebay. Please PM if interested.
 
Big speed jump?

Hi,

I am hoping that I can get some advice an a subject that you guys clearly know lots more about than me! :)

Here is the situation.

My wife has a Mac Pro 1.1 (early 2007 I think) and she is running a bunch of things on it. Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. We are photographers. For a while now she has been complaining that the machine seems to freeze up a lot while it catches up.

Also attached are two monitors - a 30 inch and a 23 inch cinema displays. We also have three internal drives and two external. A total of around 8 TB. The RAM installed is 5 GB.

My question is twofold:

1. If I buy two xeon quad cores, as per this thread, how much difference will it realistically make?

2. If I don't upgrade, will a video card make much (any?) difference. Or maybe I should do both?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hugh
 
Hi,

I am hoping that I can get some advice an a subject that you guys clearly know lots more about than me! :)

Here is the situation.

My wife has a Mac Pro 1.1 (early 2007 I think) and she is running a bunch of things on it. Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. We are photographers. For a while now she has been complaining that the machine seems to freeze up a lot while it catches up.

Also attached are two monitors - a 30 inch and a 23 inch cinema displays. We also have three internal drives and two external. A total of around 8 TB. The RAM installed is 5 GB.

My question is twofold:

1. If I buy two xeon quad cores, as per this thread, how much difference will it realistically make?

2. If I don't upgrade, will a video card make much (any?) difference. Or maybe I should do both?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hugh

5GB of RAM isn't nearly enough. Before you do anything else, load up on more! Get four more 2GB DIMMs, two more 4GB DIMMs, whatever.

The MacPro1,1 is actually a "Early 2006" model. That should help out with your RAM shopping.

I assume your video card is the stock GeForce 7300? An upgrade there would be useful, but you'll see better results with more memory.

Which CPU(s) do you have in your Mac Pro right now?
 
5GB of RAM isn't nearly enough. Before you do anything else, load up on more! Get four more 2GB DIMMs, two more 4GB DIMMs, whatever.

The MacPro1,1 is actually a "Early 2006" model. That should help out with your RAM shopping.

I assume your video card is the stock GeForce 7300? An upgrade there would be useful, but you'll see better results with more memory.

Which CPU(s) do you have in your Mac Pro right now?

Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to remember it not being the first wave of this model. Hmm, I am sure you are right though, and thanks for the memory pointer. I have attached a grab of the system info.

I assume the memory has to be added in pairs. It came with 2 x 512MB modules when new, and I almost instantly added 2 x 2GB modules, giving me the now total of 5GB.

Yes, GeForce 7300 GT is installed. The CPU's are Dual Core 2.66 (x2)

So more memory will help, but would you also upgrade the processors? If it made enough of a difference I would buy a couple of Xeon 5355's, if it REALLY made a difference I would even buy the Xeon 5365's.

From what I can see they seem easy enough to install you are reasonably handy (I am) I just wonder if it's the right route to take.

Thanks for the feedback, it is much appreciated.

Hugh

maccores.jpg
 
So more memory will help, but would you also upgrade the processors? If it made enough of a difference I would buy a couple of Xeon 5355's, if it REALLY made a difference I would even buy the Xeon 5365's.

Looking at those 5365s on Ebay they go for ~$700 a piece so selling the old MacPro and adding $1400 to it I'd say your looking at current Quad 2.8 money so you would be better off doing that. The 55s go around ~$300 so a $600 upgrade getting close to a current 2.8 refurb the sweet spot I think is these 5345 matched pairs I found on Ebay and if the stepping on these chips matter in a MacPro (no expert but I suspect it does) then you want matched pairs, they go for 300 & 250 respectively which IMHO is your best bang for the buck upgrade if your apps are indeed CPU and not memory bound.


http://cgi.ebay.ca/2x-Intel-Xeon-E5...27?pt=CPUs&hash=item2a0b65c083#ht_4104wt_1141

http://cgi.ebay.ca/2-x-HP-DL380G5-X...30?pt=CPUs&hash=item588ab3e2ae#ht_2969wt_1129
 
1. If I buy two xeon quad cores, as per this thread, how much difference will it realistically make?

Use activity monitor to see how many cores you're using now. At a guess, 8 cores isn't going to make a blind bit of difference compared to 4.

Look to see what's making the computer wait - out of memory, out of CPU, waiting for files to read/write, etc.

At a guess, more memory will help.

I do want to do the dual quad upgrade at some point, but I don't need it yet, it's just an 'oooh ooooh POWER' thing.

2. If I don't upgrade, will a video card make much (any?) difference. Or maybe I should do both?

I don't think Photoshop and Lightroom are particularly GPU dependant.

You also may wish to look at where your data is stored - SATA connections are faster than Firewire, which is faster than USB; the first part of a disk is much faster than the end, etc.

If you use Photoshop, look into making a RAID0 scratch disk. I use the first 15GB of each of my disks to make a 60GB scratch disk that does I/O at 300 MB/s (vs 110 MB/s on my two fastest disks).
 
If you use Photoshop, look into making a RAID0 scratch disk. I use the first 15GB of each of my disks to make a 60GB scratch disk that does I/O at 300 MB/s (vs 110 MB/s on my two fastest disks).

Can you tell me more about that please? I am not getting how you did this. As per the post from Silencio, within 30 minutes I had ordered another 8 GB or RAM. Let's see what that does. :)

Thanks for taking time out to reply to me.

Hugh
 
Can you tell me more about that please? I am not getting how you did this.

Yes. See below.

As per the post from Silencio, within 30 minutes I had ordered another 8 GB or RAM. Let's see what that does.

Waiting for the postman (I have 8GB winging its way to me right now too. Will have 13GB when I install it).

--

RAID0 scratch disk.

You use Disk Utility to make a software RAID0 ('striped') array. You can use all of each disk in the set or just a partition from each. Since I only have internal disks on my Mac Pro, I used a partition.

Preamble:
Since hard drives are circular, the portion at the outside moves faster than the inside. The outside portion is the beginning of the disk, and the more your disk fills up, the closer to the inside it gets and the slower it gets. Use the outside of your disk for stuff you want to be fast, use the inside for backup. See Lloyd Chamber's Mac Performance Guide.

My four disks are partitioned something like this (I have more partitions on disk A/B/C, but they're small and slow and at the back):
A: stripe | system | users backup | media backup
B: stripe | users | system backup | games backup
C: stripe | media | games
D: stripe | Time Machine

'system' is the OS and Applications. 'users' has the home folders of people I like (me), and is full of stuff I create. 'media' is stuff I watch and listen to. The partitions and their order provide the most speed for day-to-day use. 'stripe' is the bit you want, you can ignore the rest of my setup, though I think it's pretty awesome.

The meat:
Each 'stripe' is the first (fastest) 15GB of the disk. In Disk Utility, I assembled them into a RAID0 set (which works out to be 60GB) (look under the 'RAID' tab when you have one of these partitions selected). I called it 'scratch', and in Photoshop made in the primary scratch disk. Word to the wise: If you need to break your RAID set for any reason, set the scratch disk to be something else first, even if you plan on recreating it with the same name before launching PS again: Photoshop freaks out.

Setting this up will require some data-shuffling, so plan it out, use Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper! and test your clones before reformatting/repartitioning (erasing!) your existing disks.

Caveat: The stripped array will bottleneck on the slowest disk in it, so if your computer is doing a lot of disk access on one disk when Photoshopping, your speed boost will be diminished. I tend to not to have my Mac do anything else when Photoshopping.

Since you have two empty internal bays, if you don't need more storage, you may want to find two low-capacity SSDs (cheaper) and use those instead of HDDs. They'll be faster and you don't have to deal with data shuffling and the caveat. The disadvantage is the price and mounting them in the Mac Pro.
 
Last edited:
Yes. See below.



Waiting for the postman (I have 8GB winging its way to me right now too. Will have 13GB when I install it).

--

RAID0 scratch disk.

You use Disk Utility to make a software RAID0 ('striped') array. You can use all of each disk in the set or just a partition from each. Since I only have internal disks on my Mac Pro, I used a partition.

Preamble:
Since hard drives are circular, the portion at the outside moves faster than the inside. The outside portion is the beginning of the disk, and the more your disk fills up, the closer to the inside it gets and the slower it gets. Use the outside of your disk for stuff you want to be fast, use the inside for backup. See Lloyd Chamber's Mac Performance Guide.

My four disks are partitioned something like this (I have more partitions on disk A/B/C, but they're small and slow and at the back):
A: stripe | system | users backup | media backup
B: stripe | users | system backup | games backup
C: stripe | media | games
D: stripe | Time Machine

'system' is the OS and Applications. 'users' has the home folders of people I like (me), and is full of stuff I create. 'media' is stuff I watch and listen to. The partitions and their order provide the most speed for day-to-day use. 'stripe' is the bit you want, you can ignore the rest of my setup, though I think it's pretty awesome.

The meat:
Each 'stripe' is the first (fastest) 15GB of the disk. In Disk Utility, I assembled them into a RAID0 set (which works out to be 60GB) (look under the 'RAID' tab when you have one of these partitions selected). I called it 'scratch', and in Photoshop made in the primary scratch disk. Word to the wise: If you need to break your RAID set for any reason, set the scratch disk to be something else first, even if you plan on recreating it with the same name before launching PS again: Photoshop freaks out.

Setting this up will require some data-shuffling, so plan it out, use Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper! and test your clones before reformatting/repartitioning (erasing!) your existing disks.

Caveat: The stripped array will bottleneck on the slowest disk in it, so if your computer is doing a lot of disk access on one disk when Photoshopping, your speed boost will be diminished. I tend to not to have my Mac do anything else when Photoshopping.

Since you have two empty internal bays, if you don't need more storage, you may want to find two low-capacity SSDs (cheaper) and use those instead of HDDs. They'll be faster and you don't have to deal with data shuffling and the caveat. The disadvantage is the price and mounting them in the Mac Pro.

Wow, that was a VERY comprehensive response. THANK YOU. I will now set about digesting it all.

Actually, I think I will go the SSD route. I am guessing that you said 2 low capacity as opposed to one higher capacity because it is faster as a striped set up?

Funny, as I said I ordered 8GB too, and OWC emailed me today to say it is shipped. My total will also end up as 13GB!

I really appreciate your help - thanks again!

Hugh
 
Yeah, but also because SSDs get very pricey very quickly as you go up in capacity.

One thing to watch for though is that they will usually cripple the controller on the lower capacity drives so you don't get the same throughput as the larger more expensive ones.
 
You ...

... won´t need a scratch disc for Photoshop: It´s much more effective if you provide enough RAM for the machine, as OSX uses RAM for scratch as long it is available. It does so quite efficiently, I might add. That´s why you will see memory filled up even after minimal usage patterns. Your unused memory space will be huge - check the memory section in "Activity Monitor".

Depending on the image filesizes you work with (multiply its size x4 to roughly get the scratch value), choose accordingly. Depending on your budget I would through as much RAM as possible into it, even maxing it with 32GB. If your image work goes beyond this value, you might consider a fast Intel X25 SSD 128GB/256GB as a secondary scratch disc. I wouldn´t by any means use a harddrive in RAID 0 or whatever for scratch. You loose precious bays in your Mac Pro, generate more heat, noise and vibrations, have double the risk of failure. RAID 0 for scratch, those times are definitely over: SSD rules.

And if all this still holds the breaks on your machine, you might consider upgrading the CPUs and going 2x QuadCore.
 
Sod that for a month of Sundays! Get a SSD, does the job much better than messing about like that :eek:

Yeah, just like I said to do. Personally, I have no spare bays. I have four full hard drive bays and two full optical bays already— striped scratch array is faster than just assigning a partition, and with a little planning no harder than just using the default boot disk. Doing it my way doesn't work if any of your disks are being used for much while you're Photoshopping, but that's usually how it goes for me. Anyway, the I/O is faster than a single SSD, so cheers.
 
Your ...

... best scratch disc for Photoshop is more RAM - up it to 16gb or 32GB. And I/O wise you are right, but you want fast access time, and here any (even mediocre) SSD beats the pants of any HD out there.
 
... best scratch disc for Photoshop is more RAM - up it to 16gb or 32GB. And I/O wise you are right, but you want fast access time, and here any (even mediocre) SSD beats the pants of any HD out there.

CS3 RAM is already maxed out, alas (3GB). Interesting reading the Mac Performance Guide, the author suggests transfer speed is more important than access time for scratch disks, and that the fastest scratch disk is now a pair of OWC Mercury SSDs (used to be four striped HDDs).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.