Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Success: 2006 Mac Pro upgraded - 2 x Xeon 5355 Quad-cores!

No dice :(

Tried each of 5355's alone in socket A (after giving a good air blast and clean) and the Mac won't even boot. I guess it needs both sockets in use.

Will try both sockets again. Maybe I missed something.
 
RitMo9777 said:
No dice :(

Tried each of 5355's alone in socket A (after giving a good air blast and clean) and the Mac won't even boot. I guess it needs both sockets in use.

Will try both sockets again. Maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...

Is socket A the "bottom" socket? If I recall correctly, they are not labeled correctly on the motherboard as far as which socket is really the 'first' socket. I ran my MP 2.66, when I was upgrading the chips, with just one chip at a time. I was doing the BSEL mod on some 1066 fsb chips so I wanted to test them each before I put them together, to make sure I did the taping of the pin correctly. So I know for a fact that the 2.66 original quad Mac Pro can run one socket only, but I believe only the bottom socket. I seem to remember trying what was marked as the 'first' socket and that didn't work, tried the other and it worked fine all by itself.
 
so is it possible to put a quad core in one socket and leave the dual core in the other giving you an upgrade from 4 to 6 cores. I have a 2.66 Mac Pro 1.1 so if I bought a 2.66 quad core X5355 would they run along side each other or would it not work? the reason I ask is it'd be a lot less expensive to just buy one quad core chip rather than a pair. anyway, just a thought

p
 
tobyg said:
Is socket A the "bottom" socket? If I recall correctly, they are not labeled correctly on the motherboard as far as which socket is really the 'first' socket. I ran my MP 2.66, when I was upgrading the chips, with just one chip at a time. I was doing the BSEL mod on some 1066 fsb chips so I wanted to test them each before I put them together, to make sure I did the taping of the pin correctly. So I know for a fact that the 2.66 original quad Mac Pro can run one socket only, but I believe only the bottom socket. I seem to remember trying what was marked as the 'first' socket and that didn't work, tried the other and it worked fine all by itself.
Click to expand...

Socket A is the upper socket.
Socket B is the lower socket.
 
tobyg said:
Is socket A the "bottom" socket? If I recall correctly, they are not labeled correctly on the motherboard as far as which socket is really the 'first' socket. I ran my MP 2.66, when I was upgrading the chips, with just one chip at a time. I was doing the BSEL mod on some 1066 fsb chips so I wanted to test them each before I put them together, to make sure I did the taping of the pin correctly. So I know for a fact that the 2.66 original quad Mac Pro can run one socket only, but I believe only the bottom socket. I seem to remember trying what was marked as the 'first' socket and that didn't work, tried the other and it worked fine all by itself.
Click to expand...

How did the BSEL mod work for you?
 
parkie said:
so is it possible to put a quad core in one socket and leave the dual core in the other giving you an upgrade from 4 to 6 cores. I have a 2.66 Mac Pro 1.1 so if I bought a 2.66 quad core X5355 would they run along side each other or would it not work? the reason I ask is it'd be a lot less expensive to just buy one quad core chip rather than a pair. anyway, just a thought

p
Click to expand...

No, it's not. They need to be the same model, and I've heard rumors they don't need to be the same stepping but I would never suggest running a dual processor system without matching steppings.

bozz2006 said:
How did the BSEL mod work for you?
Click to expand...

It didn't. It would work but my machine locked up at least once a week. I went back to the stock processors and had no problem again, so it wasn't a problem with the machine, purely with the BSEL mod. Those processors just couldn't handle the overclock. I put them back in a different HP server of mine and they're working just fine at their stock speeds.
 
tobyg said:
Is socket A the "bottom" socket? If I recall correctly, they are not labeled correctly on the motherboard as far as which socket is really the 'first' socket. I ran my MP 2.66, when I was upgrading the chips, with just one chip at a time. I was doing the BSEL mod on some 1066 fsb chips so I wanted to test them each before I put them together, to make sure I did the taping of the pin correctly. So I know for a fact that the 2.66 original quad Mac Pro can run one socket only, but I believe only the bottom socket. I seem to remember trying what was marked as the 'first' socket and that didn't work, tried the other and it worked fine all by itself.
Click to expand...

Okay, I tried each 5355 alone in socket B (the bottom socket according to the Mac service manual).

On their own, each 5335 works fine and shows in OSX as a 2.66 so the chips seem to be okay (thanks for the tip tobyg :)

But as soon as I put both in together again, I get the bootup error message "Should have two cores but only found one for Die 2"0" etc etc.

Is there a hardware switch or logic board change I need to make somewhere?
 
SUCCESS!!!

I took the two chips out and swapped them in their sockets

Still can't figure out why two identical chips should make a difference as to what socket they're but in anyway, there you go. Guess there must be some subtle difference in them, the way ram modules need to go in a certain order.

Thanks for all your help guys, much obliged. I can finally retire the G5 and look forward to Snow Lep and FC Studio 3!
 
Nice! But I have to admit, I was a bit floored that Apple still uses regular electrolytic capacitors on their $3000 machines. I would've expected nothing but solid cores!
 
RitMo9777 said:
SUCCESS!!!

I took the two chips out and swapped them in their sockets

Still can't figure out why two identical chips should make a difference as to what socket they're but in anyway, there you go. Guess there must be some subtle difference in them, the way ram modules need to go in a certain order.

Thanks for all your help guys, much obliged. I can finally retire the G5 and look forward to Snow Lep and FC Studio 3!
Click to expand...

I bet they are different steppings. Did you write down the SL number from each chip before you put them in? I'm guessing you have to put the older (lower stepping) chip in the first socket, which is really the bottom socket.

I know there is a way to get the CPU stepping in OSX, just don't remember/know how.
 
tobyg said:
I bet they are different steppings. Did you write down the SL number from each chip before you put them in? I'm guessing you have to put the older (lower stepping) chip in the first socket, which is really the bottom socket.

I know there is a way to get the CPU stepping in OSX, just don't remember/know how.
Click to expand...

That makes very interesting reading. CPU-Z will give you all the details. I'm surprised that apparently Apple changed the primary CPU from A to B when they went from IBM to Intel. But that has apparently happened.
 
The stepping issue was in the back of my mind when I bought the CPUs but I (limbs crossed) had hoped they were from the same batch.

Anyway CPU-Z as far as I know is Win only. So...

I tried Intel CPUID and CPU X. Useful info but I could only appear to see four cores, not 8 so I think they were only seeing one CPU.

Tried typing "sysctl -a" into Terminal and then Command-F for "stepping". Again only showed a single stepping value. I thought that perhaps if both chips are the same stepping only a single value is returned?

I then tried the demo version of Hardware Monitor from bresink.de. It confirmed both CPUs are Stepping 7. So the mystery continues!
 
Hi there,

I just bought two used X5350 which are on their way right now.
Despite the bad experience some seem to have had, I'm definitely going to try the BSEL mod (2.66GHz@1066FSB -->3.33GHz@1333FSB :D).

I'm wondering whether anybody here has had any experience with these rare processors. Feel free to post... :)
 
flatfoot said:
Hi there,

I just bought two used X5350 which are on their way right now.
Despite the bad experience some seem to have had, I'm definitely going to try the BSEL mod (2.66GHz@1066FSB -->3.33GHz@1333FSB :D).

I'm wondering whether anybody here has had any experience with these rare processors. Feel free to post... :)
Click to expand...

Nice :) They should work without any problems.
 
I've read about a few people who've done the BSEL mod, and they all report that their machines are flaky afterwards. Maybe they're not doing it right. Don't give up too easy if you experience flakiness!
 
bozz2006 said:
I've read about a few people who've done the BSEL mod, and they all report that their machines are flaky afterwards. Maybe they're not doing it right. Don't give up too easy if you experience flakiness!
Click to expand...

I don't know how you could make it work at all but not do it right. It either should work or it doesn't. Mine would work great for about a week at a time, I could handbrake all cores for 8 hours and then maybe a week later it'd just lock up randomly, even with almost no CPU usage. It was just unstable with those chips using the BSEL mod. But again, I'm running those chips (at their stock speed, without the BSEL mod) in a different server running with VMware ESX server and haven't had any lockups.

Good luck with your BSEL mod. But if your machine starts to lock up or act weird, with or without stressing the cpu's, try them without the BSEL mod and see if it's anymore stable.
 
Spacedust said:
Here is the list of working CPU's in Mac Pro 1.1 2006:

Model Speed (GHz) L2 Cache (MB) FSB (MHz) TDP (W)
.....
5150 2.66 4 1333 65
....
Model Speed (GHz) L2 Cache (MB) FSB (MHz) TDP (W)
...
L5335 2.00 2x4 1333 50
E5345 2.33 2x4 1333 80
X5355 2.66 2x4 1333 120
X5365 3.00 2x4 1333 120
....
Click to expand...

Thanks again for this priceless information. I have a couple questions. I'm assuming that my stock 2.66 is the 5150 above, yes? So My processors are running at 65 watts each. Power consumption is a big deal for me because I run on a battery backup for 2-3 hours a day. As much as I'd like to just 'double my cores' and go 8x2.66, that would also add 80 watts to my power consumption, correct? Frankly, the 2.0's at 50 watts each are almost interesting - really wish I knew how many apps won't but multi-core aware after SL - because those are the ones which would give me a performance hit by downgrading my clock speed, right?

Second question is, can I use the same heatsinks? Most pair auctions I see on eBay are without heat sink... just need that specific screw driver, some thermal paste and I'm good to go for the swap?

I'm back in India, so I'm not in a hurry to buy, I plan to just watch and see what comes up and snatch something cheap on eBay when the chance arrises - but I need a bit of help thinking through which is the best option for me.

Thanks!
 
Originally Posted by Spacedust

Here is the list of working CPU's in Mac Pro 1.1 2006:

Model Speed (GHz) L2 Cache (MB) FSB (MHz) TDP (W)
.....
5150 2.66 4 1333 65
5160 3.00 4 1333 80
....
Model Speed (GHz) L2 Cache (MB) FSB (MHz) TDP (W)
...
L5335 2.00 2x4 1333 50
E5345 2.33 2x4 1333 80
X5355 2.66 2x4 1333 120
X5365 3.00 2x4 1333 120

Here I have added the 5160's that I know work....using them now.
 
tobyg said:
I don't know how you could make it work at all but not do it right. It either should work or it doesn't. Mine would work great for about a week at a time, I could handbrake all cores for 8 hours and then maybe a week later it'd just lock up randomly, even with almost no CPU usage. It was just unstable with those chips using the BSEL mod. But again, I'm running those chips (at their stock speed, without the BSEL mod) in a different server running with VMware ESX server and haven't had any lockups.

Good luck with your BSEL mod. But if your machine starts to lock up or act weird, with or without stressing the cpu's, try them without the BSEL mod and see if it's anymore stable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your replies, folks. If I experience 'flakiness' ;) I'll try those 5350s at stock speed and compare the results to my 5150s. Then I'll decide which way to go, 4x2.66@1333 or 8x2.66@1066.

BTW: My 5350s arrived a few minutes ago. Now I'm waiting for the 35cm long Allen key which I ordered paying 14,81 Euros (incl. VAT & shipping) since they didn't have any that were long enough at my local hardware stores... :(
 
flatfoot said:
Thanks for your replies, folks. If I experience 'flakiness' ;) I'll try those 5350s at stock speed and compare the results to my 5150s. Then I'll decide which way to go, 4x2.66@1333 or 8x2.66@1066.

BTW: My 5350s arrived a few minutes ago. Now I'm waiting for the 35cm long Allen key which I ordered paying 14,81 Euros (incl. VAT & shipping) since they didn't have any that were long enough at my local hardware stores... :(
Click to expand...

I've got the same problem. But I've found and ordered long Eklind keys and now I got whole set ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back