MP All Models The "I just ordered/bought/got my new/refurb Mac Pro" thread [Merged]

[Philocetes]

I am getting a geekbench of 2,679/16,354 on my 2009 (flashed to 2010/12) mac pro with an upgrade to dual x5675. I am selling it on craigslist and had a couple of folks say something is wrong with it as it should be over 20k. I note a poster in this thread had a similar situation and received the same feedback. I have done the SMC and PRAM resets. The mac information utility is detecting dual x5675 at 3.06 ghz and the ram is running at 1333--all this indicates a fully operational mac to me. I did note a poster here who had x5690 and was getting over 20k geekbench.

I would love to increase the geekbench on this box, but I don't have any ideas on what more I can do. I can only imagine a hardware issue, but I find it hard to imagine a hardware issue that makes it slow--one would think a hardware issue would break it altogether. So, any suggestions, I will give them a try. Thanks.

 

[h9826790]

I am getting a geekbench of 2,679/16,354 on my 2009 (flashed to 2010/12) mac pro with an upgrade to dual x5675. I am selling it on craigslist and had a couple of folks say something is wrong with it as it should be over 20k. I note a poster in this thread had a similar situation and received the same feedback. I have done the SMC and PRAM resets. The mac information utility is detecting dual x5675 at 3.06 ghz and the ram is running at 1333--all this indicates a fully operational mac to me. I did note a poster here who had x5690 and was getting over 20k geekbench.

I would love to increase the geekbench on this box, but I don't have any ideas on what more I can do. I can only imagine a hardware issue, but I find it hard to imagine a hardware issue that makes it slow--one would think a hardware issue would break it altogether. So, any suggestions, I will give them a try. Thanks.

GeekBench 3 or GeekBench 4?

 

[Philocetes]

GeekBench 3 or GeekBench 4?

4 I ran 3 with an earlier version of osx and the results were comparable.

Geekbench thinks I have a 2012 mac pro. I hope I flashed it with the right update.

 

[h9826790]

4 I ran 3 with an earlier version of osx and the results were comparable.

Geekbench thinks I have a 2012 mac pro. I hope I flashed it with the right update.

May be you should try GeekBench 3 again, and make sure the computer is idle before you run it (e.g via activity monitor).

The results should not be comparable between GB3 and GB4. Also, there should be no "year" info.

 

[Philocetes]

I can take a look. I am seeing the w3690 single having the same performance as my dual x5675. When I looked at benchmarks of the two processors, the 5675 was not that far behind the 3690, but the cost was a big difference. I have done my benchmarks with nothing else running on the mac.

My big question here is: Is there something holding my system back? Some sort of wrong drivers or configuration setting? When I upgraded the cpus, the mac picked them up right away, but I had to do the pram reset before it properly picked up the ram as 1333.

 

[h9826790]

I can take a look. I am seeing the w3690 single having the same performance as my dual x5675. When I looked at benchmarks of the two processors, the 5675 was not that far behind the 3690, but the cost was a big difference. I have done my benchmarks with nothing else running on the mac.

My big question here is: Is there something holding my system back? Some sort of wrong drivers or configuration setting? When I upgraded the cpus, the mac picked them up right away, but I had to do the pram reset before it properly picked up the ram as 1333.

The difference is actually bigger than expected. X5675, 3.06GHz turbo 3.46. W3690 3.46GHz turbo 3.73

Let's consider the base clock.

(3.46-3.06)/3.06 = 13%

However, we are talking about single core performance, so, we should consider the turbo frequency

(3.73-3.46)/3.46 = 8%

And now, what's the actual performance difference in GB4?

(3111-2679)/2679 = 16%

The performance difference here is almost double then what it should be. Of course, 16% is not a huge number, and technically, the single core performance difference should be less then 10%.

Anyway, yes, it's possible to modify some plist file and cause low CPU performance. However, I don't see that happen on your Mac.

Again, if you get similar numbers in both GB3 and GB4, then something is wrong. You should try GB3 again.

Also, may I know where you see your 2009 flashed Mac Pro ident itself as a 2012 model? Any screenshot?

 

[Philocetes]

Thank you for your attention to this. I will fire up the computer tonite and get a screenshot of that GB4 with the 2012 version on it. I have re-run the geekbench a number of times both in gb3 with an older OS and with gb4. Nothing else was running, and the sierra is a brand new standard install with absolutely nothing new installed.

Is there firmware for the 2010 and 2012 cmp different, and could that be a problem? My understanding thus far is they are both '5,1' and the only difference between the models was the cpu/video card, and I had assumed the motherboard and so on was identical. But I will be glad to learn more if that's not correct.

Reviewing your helpful analysis of the performance capabilities of the two processors. I got my pair for $165 while a pair of w3690s was about $400. At 16% difference I thought I hit a nice value point. The thing is, if I am seeing this correctly, I have two xeons which are comparable in geekbench to your single one. It seems like my 2009 should get a geekbench that reflects the two xeons... So, again, if there is something I can do to address that, glad to try it.

 

[Philocetes]

Here is the information I got from running geek4 one more time.

I just checked and on the mac website, there a single efi file for the 2010 and 2012 cmp.

 

[840quadra]

Here is the information I got from running geek4 one more time.

I just checked and on the mac website, there a single efi file for the 2010 and 2012 cmp.

Thanks again for the great system. I have finally finished the 1st steps in getting it ready for some FCP work. Still need to optimize video and such, but I think I have a good start so far.

• 512GB SSD with fresh copy of Sierra installed
• R9 280X Dual-X GPU installed with 3GB

Still need to look into flash options for the GPU, and optimize the OS a little more for FCPx . Will possibly be installing a PCIE SAS card to up the internal drive speeds a bit, but haven't decided yet.

Went from over 2 minutes exporting on the BruceX test, to 27 seconds now. Really happy so far. The clean install appears to have helped up the Geekbench scores to a number closer to what others expect.

 

[Philocetes]

@840quadra great to hear that its working well for you. I really enjoyed meeting you guys and chatting a bit, as I said, I have met some really interesting people on craigslist transactions. As you know, I am down to my planned setup of two cMP. Where did you get the video card, and did you need to install any special drivers to get it working? I will be interested in your adventures in flashing it, if you get that working as well. Sounds like it might be fun to get one of those cards going on my main system.

I just remembered one of the things that makes my video card upgrade more complicated: I have those two monitors that have mini-displayport plugs, so I like to get a video card that supports that. I am looking a bit for adapter cables as well, maybe can bet more flexibility on video cards if I get a way from mini-displayport.

PS: Just found the video card upgrade thread here, I will research that.

 

[0488568]

Just placed 2 orders on eBay to upgrade my 2009 mac pro. I've got 128gb(16*8, 1333mhz, ECC) Hynix ram from a UK seller for 215€ and 2 sets of x5680 for 245€ from a US seller.

I wanted to go with the x5690 but the cheapest I was getting was 420€, there are some Chinese sellers selling cheaper but I just don't trust them.

 

[840quadra]

@840quadra great to hear that its working well for you. I really enjoyed meeting you guys and chatting a bit, as I said, I have met some really interesting people on craigslist transactions. As you know, I am down to my planned setup of two cMP. Where did you get the video card, and did you need to install any special drivers to get it working? I will be interested in your adventures in flashing it, if you get that working as well. Sounds like it might be fun to get one of those cards going on my main system.

I just remembered one of the things that makes my video card upgrade more complicated: I have those two monitors that have mini-displayport plugs, so I like to get a video card that supports that. I am looking a bit for adapter cables as well, maybe can bet more flexibility on video cards if I get a way from mini-displayport.

PS: Just found the video card upgrade thread here, I will research that.

I don't have a boot screen yet (not yet flashed), but in my case that isn't a problem. Essentially I slapped it into the pro, fed it power, and booted right into my work.

If you decide to go this route, and go for the same GPU, look for the non OC version that doesn't require a 6 + 8 pin. I had a couple modular ATX power supplies laying around, so I had no concerns with connecting the power leads to the main board. In my case, I have an external 600w corsair power supply feeding energy to my GPU. It is actually quieter than the Mac Pro itself (which is nearly silent on it's own).

While people have run this card off of the internal power supply using adapters, I want to be able to add a 2nd copy of this card at a later date, and know I can't ask that much from the internal supply. I also intend to test out my GTX 780ti that I have sitting idle in my old Hackintosh. I know it won't match the FCPx speeds, however, if it helps a little that will be nice for the CUDA cores for my windows based Folding@Home projects.

 

[Philocetes]

@840quadra, wow. That may be more video card than I need right now, so I will keep studying until I have a better idea of where I want to go with that.

 

[0488568]

What would be a good affordable card to use that comes with passive cooling?

I'm using my original ATI and the fan is driving me crazy.

Thanks!

 

[840quadra]

@840quadra, wow. That may be more video card than I need right now, so I will keep studying until I have a better idea of where I want to go with that.

What graphics cards are in your other systems? They are likely much faster than the GeForce GT 120 that was in this.

What would be a good affordable card to use that comes with passive cooling?

I'm using my original ATI and the fan is driving me crazy.

Thanks!

Passive fan? Do you mean a card that has zero fan installed?

I wouldn't recommend that, as most of those cards will be dog slow, making it more worthwhile to run the Intel graphics Mac Mini.

I have a GTX 650 running in one of my hackintosh systems, and did a test run within my 09 cMP. There aren't any drivers required for this system for normal use, but will need to be flashed for Boot screen. Not the fastest, only does a 1343 in Luxmark, but supports Metal but its fan is dead silent. This is a card that only uses a single 6 pin power addition, and will run just fine on the stock logic board. The Ti version is considerably faster and also cheap.

 

[0488568]

What graphics cards are in your other systems? They are likely much faster than the GeForce GT 120 that was in this.



Passive fan? Do you mean a card that has zero fan installed?

I wouldn't recommend that, as most of those cards will be dog slow, making it more worthwhile to run the Intel graphics Mac Mini.

I have a GTX 650 running in one of my hackintosh systems, and did a test run within my 09 cMP. There aren't any drivers required for this system for normal use, but will need to be flashed for Boot screen. Not the fastest, only does a 1343 in Luxmark, but supports Metal but its fan is dead silent. This is a card that only uses a single 6 pin power addition, and will run just fine on the stock logic board. The Ti version is considerably faster and also cheap.

I'm not looking for the fastest card mind you I have an ATI 4870 that is 7 years old and do not play games on my machine, I have done some light video editing but thats about it. My machine is for app development with some music production. I would definitely prefer a card with no fan.

 

[h9826790]

I'm not looking for the fastest card mind you I have an ATI 4870 that is 7 years old and do not play games on my machine, I have done some light video editing but thats about it. My machine is for app development with some music production. I would definitely prefer a card with no fan.

If you don't need boot screen, and running macOS Sierra, RX460 may be a good choice for you.

Some of them (if not all) have the Mute Fan Technology. Which means the fan won't run until the GPU is above 60C.

So, it's a good balance between and noise and performance. The fan stay silent when you doing music work, and will run as required when editing video.

 

[0488568]

If you don't need boot screen, and running macOS Sierra, RX460 may be a good choice for you.

Some of them (if not all) have the Mute Fan Technology. Which means the fan won't run until the GPU is above 60C.

So, it's a good balance between and noise and performance. The fan stay silent when you doing music work, and will run as required when editing video.

And to be able to boot and I would need to flash the card? Which of these cards is affordable?

Thanks!

 

[840quadra]

I'm not looking for the fastest card mind you I have an ATI 4870 that is 7 years old and do not play games on my machine, I have done some light video editing but thats about it. My machine is for app development with some music production. I would definitely prefer a card with no fan.

Understood!

Yeah I would still highly recommend the 650. It benchmarks (on passmark) a little higher than yours, and in my years with this card, I have never heard anything from it. Bad bearings are common on your card (from what I read), but I don't really see many complaints from the 650.

IIRC, the 7300GT is is one of the fastest fanless cards but it is an absolute dog. It benchmarks in the low 100s versus 1800 for the 650 and I believe 1300 for your card. I don't think it supports metal, and anything that touches OpenCL at this point.

And to be able to boot and I would need to flash the card? Which of these cards is affordable?

Thanks!

You will not see the Grey apple logo when booting, you won't see anything until the OS comes up and you get the login screen, or get to the desktop (if you don't have password accounts) .

Most cases this is fine, but, it will prevent you from seeing the boot menu (option key at startup) if you need to switch startup disks, or boot into recovery mode. Once the card is flashed, this would all work fine.

 

[0488568]

Understood!

Yeah I would still highly recommend the 650. It benchmarks (on passmark) a little higher than yours, and in my years with this card, I have never heard anything from it. Bad bearings are common on your card (from what I read), but I don't really see many complaints from the 650.

IIRC, the 7300GT is is one of the fastest fanless cards but it is an absolute dog. It benchmarks in the low 100s versus 1800 for the 650 and I believe 1300 for your card. I don't think it supports metal, and anything that touches OpenCL at this point.



You will not see the Grey apple logo when booting, you won't see anything until the OS comes up and you get the login screen, or get to the desktop (if you don't have password accounts) .

Most cases this is fine, but, it will prevent you from seeing the boot menu (option key at startup) if you need to switch startup disks, or boot into recovery mode. Once the card is flashed, this would all work fine.

What is an affordable card for flashing?

I'm finding some 6870s in my area for 50€. That seems like a good price right?

 

[h9826790]

And to be able to boot and I would need to flash the card? Which of these cards is affordable?

Thanks!

No, it's 100% plug and play at this moment (N.B. with the current latest macOS Sierra), no flash, no kext edit, no hack, nothing required.

All you lost is the ability to use the boot manager (holding option during boot to choose boot partition). Even the apple logo with the loading bar will show up properly.

 

[0488568]

No, it's 100% plug and play at this moment (N.B. with the current latest macOS Sierra), no flash, no kext edit, no hack, nothing required.

All you lost is the ability to use the boot manager (holding option during boot to choose boot partition). Even the apple logo with the loading bar will show up properly.

Thing is I would like the boot screen in case of a major failure. I've got a lot of crap on this machine and would like to be able to debug in case I need to.

 

[h9826790]

Thing is I would like the boot screen in case of a major failure. I've got a lot of crap on this machine and would like to be able to debug in case I need to.

Not sure what you really need, the screen should still shows the kernel panic message, and recovery partition still avail. The only thing that guarantee lost is the boot manager.

However, I am not sure if it's possible to boot in single user mode with non flashed card. I didn't test it yet.

 

[840quadra]

And to be able to boot and I would need to flash the card? Which of these cards is affordable?

Thanks!

Not sure what you really need, the screen should still shows the kernel panic message, and recovery partition still avail. The only thing that guarantee lost is the boot manager.

However, I am not sure if it's possible to boot in single user mode with non flashed card. I didn't test it yet.

In those cases, just have your original GPU available on a shelf someplace, and pop it in when needed, or, if you don't have other PCIE devices that need the x16 slot, just run both cards.

 

[Philocetes]

What graphics cards are in your other systems? They are likely much faster than the GeForce GT 120 that was in this..

The radeon hd 5770 that came stock with the 2012 mac pro.