TORN 2008 VS 2010

[basslik]

Good evening everyone, hope all having a great evening.

Here's my dilemma. I have a 2008 2.8 / (8) core Mac Pro, 32 ram, XT256 vid.

I just got a hold of a 2010 (4) core Mac pro, 32 ram, 1gig Raedon 5770.

I getting really confused with all these bench mark tests, but it seams to me MHZ throughput is what matters.

Can someone shed some light on the better machine, thanks.

 

[MisterAndrew]

2010 for sure. Still supported by Apple. Latest OS and firmware updates.

 

[basslik]

2010 for sure. Still supported by Apple. Latest OS and firmware updates.

Thanks MisterAndrew, FYI, my purpose for use is for running Pro Tools 9 for audio, and want the best possible use for all cores. DUC forum are mentioning the 2008 *8* core will still be a better option due to the two processors ?

Thanks so much for chiming in.

 

[h9826790]

Thanks MisterAndrew, FYI, my purpose for use is for running Pro Tools 9 for audio, and want the best possible use for all cores. DUC forum are mentioning the 2008 *8* core will still be a better option due to the two processors ?

Thanks so much for chiming in.

All you need is just to buy a ~$100 W3680 / W3690 / X5680 / X5690 for the Mac Pro 2010. Then this single processor 5,1 will run faster (or much faster) than the 8 cores dual processor Mac Pro 2008 in all aspect.

 

[basslik]

All you need is just to buy a ~$100 W3680 / W3690 / X5680 / X5690 for the Mac Pro 2010. Then this single processor 5,1 will run faster (or much faster) than the 8 cores dual processor Mac Pro 2008 in all aspect.

Yes that is something that I'm seriously looking at now, thanks so much.

 

[tsialex]

If you ever need more CPU power to use plugins, you can just buy a dual processor tray and replace the single one.

(2009 logic board with 2009 CPU tray, 2010/2012 logic board with 2010/2012 CPU tray)

 

[joebclash]

Thanks MisterAndrew, FYI, my purpose for use is for running Pro Tools 9 for audio, and want the best possible use for all cores. DUC forum are mentioning the 2008 *8* core will still be a better option due to the two processors ?

Thanks so much for chiming in.

It's been a long time since I ran pro tools 9 but if I remember correctly it was not optimized for dual cpu. I think 10 was the first version that ran well on multiple cpu.

 

[basslik]

It's been a long time since I ran pro tools 9 but if I remember correctly it was not optimized for dual cpu. I think 10 was the first version that ran well on multiple cpu.

YOU FOLKS ARE TRULY GREAT & HELPFUL.
Okay I just did something I always was frustrated with Melodyne, on my 2008 Mac Pro when transferring analyzing a track, it would always quit during transferring, and I would have to start again where it left off. WOW, I just did a track, and with many plugins in the session running already, which I never do, and always use melodyne with no other plugins so it wouldn't strain the computer. Anyhow it rendered the track (FLAWLESSLY), and with many plugins running. I'm sold !. I never saw that with my 2008.

Also I just swapped the SSD driver from the 2008 and fired right up in the 2010, but on the hardware playback engine it still sees *8* cores, and not the quad core for the single processor?. Perhaps that why it takes longer to boot up ?.

Should I do a clean install ? thanks again

 

[tsialex]

YOU FOLKS ARE TRULY GREAT & HELPFUL.
Okay I just did something I always was frustrated with Melodyne, on my 2008 Mac Pro when transferring analyzing a track, it would always quit during transferring, and I would have to start again where it left off. WOW, I just did a track, and with many plugins in the session running already, which I never do, and always use melodyne with no other plugins so it wouldn't strain the computer. Anyhow it rendered the track (FLAWLESSLY), and with many plugins running. I'm sold !. I never saw that with my 2008.

Also I just swapped the SSD driver from the 2008 and fired right up in the 2010, but on the hardware playback engine it still sees *8* cores, and not the quad core for the single processor?. Perhaps that why it takes longer to boot up ?.

Should I do a clean install ? thanks again

That's not 8 real cores, you are seeing the Intel Hyper-Threading. (4 real cores + 4 fake ones)

With dual tray, using hexa processors (6 + 6) you will see 24 cores.

 

[skizzo]

It's been a long time since I ran pro tools 9 but if I remember correctly it was not optimized for dual cpu. I think 10 was the first version that ran well on multiple cpu.

Dual processor runs faster and PT could use both CPUs but your statement is correct that PT was not optimized to its full potential to use both processors WELL until more recent versions. It was spotty feedback at the time but I do recall some people who upgraded from 4core to 8core systems going "wtf?! it's not really twice as fast"

Yes that is something that I'm seriously looking at now, thanks so much.

Don't even bother with having a 4-core CPU if you're using PT. Even if its a dual processor so 8-core total system. When I upgraded from 2.6ghz 4-core to 3.46ghz 6-core on a single processor system I saw my CPU usage go from 80%+ to 40% on the same session. Using some heavy plugins like Superior Drummer 3 and Amplitube 4, I could only use one or two instances of these on the 4-core at 80% CPU. Now I can have several instances (usually 4) of each and still have that halved lower CPU usage

Also I am curious why you're sticking with PT9? Is it hardware compatibility like your interface? Just a FYI I was pleasantly surprised when I was able to update to the latest OS X release and latest PT 2018 release on a 2009 cMP. I upgraded to that from PT8 and there are some very nice improvements made to the program over the last 8 or so years. I did get a new interface but I am still able to use my Digi 003 Rack+ which is quite old (uses firewire 400) yet it is still compatible with the most recent PT version. So now I can aggregate my interfaces and preamps and have 24+ pres/inputs. You should look into upgrading your PT software too if that peaked your interest at all

 

[basslik]

Dual processor runs faster and PT could use both CPUs but your statement is correct that PT was not optimized to its full potential to use both processors WELL until more recent versions. It was spotty feedback at the time but I do recall some people who upgraded from 4core to 8core systems going "wtf?! it's not really twice as fast"



Don't even bother with having a 4-core CPU if you're using PT. Even if its a dual processor so 8-core total system. When I upgraded from 2.6ghz 4-core to 3.46ghz 6-core on a single processor system I saw my CPU usage go from 80%+ to 40% on the same session. Using some heavy plugins like Superior Drummer 3 and Amplitube 4, I could only use one or two instances of these on the 4-core at 80% CPU. Now I can have several instances (usually 4) of each and still have that halved lower CPU usage

Also I am curious why you're sticking with PT9? Is it hardware compatibility like your interface? Just a FYI I was pleasantly surprised when I was able to update to the latest OS X release and latest PT 2018 release on a 2009 cMP. I upgraded to that from PT8 and there are some very nice improvements made to the program over the last 8 or so years. I did get a new interface but I am still able to use my Digi 003 Rack+ which is quite old (uses firewire 400) yet it is still compatible with the most recent PT version. So now I can aggregate my interfaces and preamps and have 24+ pres/inputs. You should look into upgrading your PT software too if that peaked your interest at all

That is great news to hear. Well as I recall, back when PT10 rolled out, AVID stated i7 & i5 was the requirement to run PT10. so I never bothered to keep up at that point. Apparently my processor isn't that level, but I see folks are still having success running the newest version on older Mac machines.

I am still running my Digi003 console, so I see this is viable since you are still using your rack (NICE).

So I should invest in a single 6 (CORE) ?, and which model ?, thanks again for your folks time out of your busy schedule.

 

[skizzo]

That is great news to hear. Well as I recall, back when PT10 rolled out, AVID stated i7 & i5 was the requirement to run PT10. so I never bothered to keep up at that point. Apparently my processor isn't that level, but I see folks are still having success running the newest version on older Mac machines.

I am still running my Digi003 console, so I see this is viable since you are still using your rack (NICE).

So I should invest in a single 6 (CORE) ?, and which model ?, thanks again for your folks time out of your busy schedule.

Awesome you have a 003 because the latest drivers still work on High Sierra with Pro Tools 2018.X (its up to 2018.7 now) If you were to look at Avids compatibility chart, they will not state that the 002 and 003 family is "qualified" for anything beyond Sierra. Please note there is an important difference between qualified and compatible. Qualified is Avid tested it and gives it their approval, it is very possible to have hardware that works just fine even if it isn't on their qualified list. Even my 2009 cMP isn't on the qualified computer list but we all know it still runs everything well.

So I had a base stock 2009 model which I only maxed out the ram with, which at the time was 8GB (4 x 2GB DIMMS). So that means a 640GB HDD and 2.6GHz Quad core CPU (Nehalm) Here is a list of things I upgraded to make this machine comparable to buying something brand new

CPU: went from stock 2.6ghz 4-core (dont recall the CPU model#) to 3.46ghz 6-core (X5690). This in my opinion was where I saw the biggest improvement in Pro Tools for being able to handle heavy sessions better and overall much more snappy performance. I used an X5690 instead of the W5690 due to you could install more RAM if it were required (W5690 limits you to 48GB where you can get 56GB on X5690). The X CPU can be used in a dual and single CPU system, so if I were to make it a dual CPU system in the future I'd only need one more CPU. The W CPU is only compatible in a single CPU system.

RAM: went from 8GB using 4x 2GB DIMMS, running at 1066mhz to 48GB using 3x 16GB DIMMS, running at 1066Mhz. Please note if I knew better I would have gotten RAM that ran at 1333MHz due to the upgraded CPU allows the faster speed, however it is a very minimal improvement so not a big deal. Using 3 DIMMS is better than 4 because the cMP uses triple channel so when a 4th DIMM is installed you get a slight performance penalty. So my advice here is dont use more than 3 DIMMs unless you NEED more than 48GB of RAM and you likely will only need that unless you use a CRAP LOAD of VIs and samples simultaneously. RAM was actually the first thing I upgraded and saw ZERO improvement in PT8. So this may not help if you are still on PT9. Older versions of PT can only see/use a much more limited amount of RAM, literally only 4GB in PT8. So having more RAM is always great but will not be practical if you are on a PT version that cannot utilize it

Firmware: I think you stated you have a 2010 model which has 5,1 firmware natively. This is good, but if for some reason you have a 2009 model it has 4,1 firmware and needs to be flashed to 5,1 in order to due the above mentioned CPU upgrade. This is the other piece of the puzzle if you wanted to upgrade 1066mhz RAM to 1333mhz

Disks: I always used internal and external HDDs. Until I started reading up on SSDs and finally purchased one. I put a SSD in one of the SATA bays using an 2.5" to 3.5" adapter (got it from OWC). If you can afford it, use SSDs for everything. If that doesn't fit your budget, the best bang for your buck is to use a SSD for at least your startup drive. So this would be the drive that has the OS and applications on it such as Pro Tools. Everything is way more responsive and loads faster. I only use a SSD for my startup drive but lots of people use them for the drives they put samples on. That may not be practical unless you use A LOT of samples simultaneously. I do have my samples on a separate drive but it is just a HDD and it works fine because its only does samples for Superior Drummer 3.

OS: The 5,1 (or 4,1 flashed to 5,1) cMP models are still able to update to the latest HS version and people are even putting Mojave on them. They may not be supported much longer but will likely be able to be update through unofficial means. Regardless you can get to new OS versions that will run newer versions of Pro Tools.

USB 3.0: Since the cMP only had USB 2.0 ports this was a nice addition since I now also use a USB3.0 HDD and interface. Very noticeable difference if you are used to USB 2.0 and FW400/800

GPU: I did add in a newer GPU being a Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB but this has no real world benefit to my knowledge for Pro Tools. The stock GT120 still works just fine, or whatever stock GPU you may have.

 

[basslik]

Awesome you have a 003 because the latest drivers still work on High Sierra with Pro Tools 2018.X (its up to 2018.7 now) If you were to look at Avids compatibility chart, they will not state that the 002 and 003 family is "qualified" for anything beyond Sierra. Please note there is an important difference between qualified and compatible. Qualified is Avid tested it and gives it their approval, it is very possible to have hardware that works just fine even if it isn't on their qualified list. Even my 2009 cMP isn't on the qualified computer list but we all know it still runs everything well.

So I had a base stock 2009 model which I only maxed out the ram with, which at the time was 8GB (4 x 2GB DIMMS). So that means a 640GB HDD and 2.6GHz Quad core CPU (Nehalm) Here is a list of things I upgraded to make this machine comparable to buying something brand new

CPU: went from stock 2.6ghz 4-core (dont recall the CPU model#) to 3.46ghz 6-core (X5690). This in my opinion was where I saw the biggest improvement in Pro Tools for being able to handle heavy sessions better and overall much more snappy performance. I used an X5690 instead of the W5690 due to you could install more RAM if it were required (W5690 limits you to 48GB where you can get 56GB on X5690). The X CPU can be used in a dual and single CPU system, so if I were to make it a dual CPU system in the future I'd only need one more CPU. The W CPU is only compatible in a single CPU system.

RAM: went from 8GB using 4x 2GB DIMMS, running at 1066mhz to 48GB using 3x 16GB DIMMS, running at 1066Mhz. Please note if I knew better I would have gotten RAM that ran at 1333MHz due to the upgraded CPU allows the faster speed, however it is a very minimal improvement so not a big deal. Using 3 DIMMS is better than 4 because the cMP uses triple channel so when a 4th DIMM is installed you get a slight performance penalty. So my advice here is dont use more than 3 DIMMs unless you NEED more than 48GB of RAM and you likely will only need that unless you use a CRAP LOAD of VIs and samples simultaneously. RAM was actually the first thing I upgraded and saw ZERO improvement in PT8. So this may not help if you are still on PT9. Older versions of PT can only see/use a much more limited amount of RAM, literally only 4GB in PT8. So having more RAM is always great but will not be practical if you are on a PT version that cannot utilize it

Firmware: I think you stated you have a 2010 model which has 5,1 firmware natively. This is good, but if for some reason you have a 2009 model it has 4,1 firmware and needs to be flashed to 5,1 in order to due the above mentioned CPU upgrade. This is the other piece of the puzzle if you wanted to upgrade 1066mhz RAM to 1333mhz

Disks: I always used internal and external HDDs. Until I started reading up on SSDs and finally purchased one. I put a SSD in one of the SATA bays using an 2.5" to 3.5" adapter (got it from OWC). If you can afford it, use SSDs for everything. If that doesn't fit your budget, the best bang for your buck is to use a SSD for at least your startup drive. So this would be the drive that has the OS and applications on it such as Pro Tools. Everything is way more responsive and loads faster. I only use a SSD for my startup drive but lots of people use them for the drives they put samples on. That may not be practical unless you use A LOT of samples simultaneously. I do have my samples on a separate drive but it is just a HDD and it works fine because its only does samples for Superior Drummer 3.

OS: The 5,1 (or 4,1 flashed to 5,1) cMP models are still able to update to the latest HS version and people are even putting Mojave on them. They may not be supported much longer but will likely be able to be update through unofficial means. Regardless you can get to new OS versions that will run newer versions of Pro Tools.

USB 3.0: Since the cMP only had USB 2.0 ports this was a nice addition since I now also use a USB3.0 HDD and interface. Very noticeable difference if you are used to USB 2.0 and FW400/800

GPU: I did add in a newer GPU being a Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB but this has no real world benefit to my knowledge for Pro Tools. The stock GT120 still works just fine, or whatever stock GPU you may have.

WOW, skizzo, I'm digging what you did. Man I guess I'll look into upgrading to 2018, since I'm running Lion, Apple is offering me a free upgrade to High Sierra. Will look into the crossgrade from9 to 2018.

Currently have 32gigs of ram with a Radeon 7550 1gig, so I think I'm good there.

I have two more memory slots, so what your saying just get one more stick?m, for triple channel, instead of two more ?. and does it have to be 16megs, like the other two sticks?.

Sweet. I'm hunting around for a used Aurora 16 right now. I heard nothing ever band about those convertors, and really neutral to the source.

One more thing about the SSD, which I pulled out of my 2008 MAC, and using for the O.S. like you mentioned. Should I switch use that for my samples, and get another SSD, but this time for the PCI slot, since I read that yields even better speed than the HD bay ?

THANK YOU SIR, thank all of you to take the time to guide me, GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

 

[pl1984]

One more thing about the SSD, which I pulled out of my 2008 MAC, and using for the O.S. like you mentioned. Should I switch use that for my samples, and get another SSD, but this time for the PCI slot, since I read that yields even better speed than the HD bay ?

Unless you're performing a lot of sequential reads and writes my answer would be no. If you're using an older SSD you may want to consider purchasing a newer model. Even then I doubt you'll be blown away by any gains.

 

[kschendel]

You have a single CPU tray in your 2010? Put a W3680 or W3690 in it. The W3690 is marginally faster but not enough to bother if the price difference is more than $20 or so. (Back when I did my 2009, the W3690's were a lot more expensive, but I don't know if that is still the case.) Either CPU will be roughly a third faster doing real work as the original 2.8GHz Nehalem; better than that for very CPU bound tasks. You can get the X models if you like but I'm not sure they would be worth extra money for your situation.

If you have 32 GB memory that's probably fine, I wouldn't fool with it. The triple channel thing is real, but the difference it makes in real life is probably one or two percentage points at best.

For SSD I think I'd stick with inexpensive 2.5" SATA devices for the drive bays. The PCIe units are faster, but most of the difference is on paper except for large sequential transfers or lots of simultaneous I/O. Crucial MX500, ADATA, Mushkin, WD Blue, Patriot Burst at the low end, are the usual suspects for best value in SATA SSD these days. The performance gap between those brands and the Samsung SSD's has narrowed to the point that it's hard to justify the Samsung price premium for most general purpose work.

The 2009-2012 cMP's are beasts and still a good value for a lot of work that can tolerate what is now a relatively slow CPU (even upgraded); they'll run maxed out all week long and not turn a hair. The 2008's have I think fallen behind a bit too far, too slow and too power hungry.

One other thing, you can add a USB 3.0 PCIe card if you haven't already. There's a thread about USB 3.0 adapters somewhere under the Mac Pro topic. I put in a cheap KT4004, not sure if there are better alternatives available now.

 

[skizzo]

WOW, skizzo, I'm digging what you did. Man I guess I'll look into upgrading to 2018, since I'm running Lion, Apple is offering me a free upgrade to High Sierra. Will look into the crossgrade from9 to 2018.

Currently have 32gigs of ram with a Radeon 7550 1gig, so I think I'm good there.

I have two more memory slots, so what your saying just get one more stick?m, for triple channel, instead of two more ?. and does it have to be 16megs, like the other two sticks?.

Sweet. I'm hunting around for a used Aurora 16 right now. I heard nothing ever band about those convertors, and really neutral to the source.

One more thing about the SSD, which I pulled out of my 2008 MAC, and using for the O.S. like you mentioned. Should I switch use that for my samples, and get another SSD, but this time for the PCI slot, since I read that yields even better speed than the HD bay ?

THANK YOU SIR, thank all of you to take the time to guide me, GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

32GBs should be good for Pro Tools (and is actually the Avid recommend amount) but depends on your use. If you want to upgrade in the future get another matching 16GB DIMM or two even if you need all that RAM. I would look into doing the best CPU upgrade your budget allows for first because that will improve performance for PT9 should you stick with the older software. If you update to PT 2018.x make sure to research your plugins, there is a major change going from RTAS, 32 bit AAX, and 64 bit AAX. Meaning you may find you have to spend a lot to purchase or upgrade the plugins you want to run on a newer OS and PT version. On the SSD you're fine with the single SSD unless you do a lot with video. For just running audio sessions I've never had a noticeable bottleneck with read/write speed of my drives. I've never had a PCIe SSD so I cannot speak to what real world improvements that would yield for PT.

PS - What sample rate(s) and buffer setting(s) do you normal track and mix at? There have been some known issues with using low buffer settings (32 and 64 while on 44.1/48Khz - and 32/64/128 while on 88./96Khz) while running OS 10.13.4. Avid did not qualify HS 10.13.4 because of this. it is usable but CPU % goes crazy and gives you AAE errors at those lowest settings when you have tracks armed. I am still able to use PT 2018 on HS 10.13.4 and 10.13.6 but I haven't messed around enough to really determine if the issue has gotten any better with the release of 2018.7 and being ran on 10.13.6. I am in the middle of making a partition with 10.13.3 on it which was the last OS HS version that Avid qualified for PT 2018. I may even make a partition to see how Sierra 10.12.6 runs PT 2018 (it doesn't have these low buffer errors that High Sierra does) Just thought I'd let you know about that because you may find that disrupting your workflow if you need super super low latency and therefore may want to have a different OS version than the latest 10.13.6

 

[basslik]

32GBs should be good for Pro Tools (and is actually the Avid recommend amount) but depends on your use. If you want to upgrade in the future get another matching 16GB DIMM or two even if you need all that RAM. I would look into doing the best CPU upgrade your budget allows for first because that will improve performance for PT9 should you stick with the older software. If you update to PT 2018.x make sure to research your plugins, there is a major change going from RTAS, 32 bit AAX, and 64 bit AAX. Meaning you may find you have to spend a lot to purchase or upgrade the plugins you want to run on a newer OS and PT version. On the SSD you're fine with the single SSD unless you do a lot with video. For just running audio sessions I've never had a noticeable bottleneck with read/write speed of my drives. I've never had a PCIe SSD so I cannot speak to what real world improvements that would yield for PT.

PS - What sample rate(s) and buffer setting(s) do you normal track and mix at? There have been some known issues with using low buffer settings (32 and 64 while on 44.1/48Khz - and 32/64/128 while on 88./96Khz) while running OS 10.13.4. Avid did not qualify HS 10.13.4 because of this. it is usable but CPU % goes crazy and gives you AAE errors at those lowest settings when you have tracks armed. I am still able to use PT 2018 on HS 10.13.4 and 10.13.6 but I haven't messed around enough to really determine if the issue has gotten any better with the release of 2018.7 and being ran on 10.13.6. I am in the middle of making a partition with 10.13.3 on it which was the last OS HS version that Avid qualified for PT 2018. I may even make a partition to see how Sierra 10.12.6 runs PT 2018 (it doesn't have these low buffer errors that High Sierra does) Just thought I'd let you know about that because you may find that disrupting your workflow if you need super super low latency and therefore may want to have a different OS version than the latest 10.13.6

kschendel & skizzo, very informative *THANKS*

I record at 24bit, 48k, 18 tracks at a time, @ the lowest buffer setting 32, 8 Digi / 8 digimax FS & and two more SPDIF through my PCM90. I'm truly surprised I'm able to achieve that low buffer setting.

Okay I just did something I always was frustrated with Melodyne, on my 2008 Mac Pro when transferring analyzing a track, it would always quit during transferring, and I would have to start again where it left off. WOW, I just did a track, and with many plugins in the session running already, which I never do, and always use melodyne with no other plugins so it wouldn't strain the computer. Anyhow it rendered the track (FLAWLESSLY), and with many plugins running. I'm sold !. I never saw that with my 2008.

Also I just swapped the SSD driver from the 2008 and fired right up in the 2010, but on the hardware playback engine it still sees *8* cores, and not the quad core for the single processor?. Perhaps that why it takes longer to boot up ?.

Should I do a clean install ? thanks again

Also I was looking at the x5690, little pricey, so I will hunt for w3690, although I keep seeing this Delidding thing, not sure I want to do sugery, don't they just sell the CPU you can just pop in ?

 

[kschendel]

You only need to delid for the 2009 dual CPU tray. 2010-2012 duals and all single CPU trays don't have any delidding issues. You just remove the old CPU, clean things up, pop in the new (carefully!), apply thermal paste, screw it all together and you're done.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to a hardware playback engine reporting cores. Whatever it is, it's probably reporting threads, not cores. With hyperthreading you get 2 threads per core.

 

[basslik]

You only need to delid for the 2009 dual CPU tray. 2010-2012 duals and all single CPU trays don't have any delidding issues. You just remove the old CPU, clean things up, pop in the new (carefully!), apply thermal paste, screw it all together and you're done.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to a hardware playback engine reporting cores. Whatever it is, it's probably reporting threads, not cores. With hyperthreading you get 2 threads per core.

Cool, wow, didn't know the W3690 is the same price of the X5690 roughly. Which CPU is a better choice?

PT play back showing host processors shows 8?, but it has four cores ?. thanks. Is it remembering the processors from the 2008 Mac ?

 

[h9826790]

Cool, wow, didn't know the W3690 is the same price of the X5690 roughly. Which CPU is a better choice?

If same price, better go for the X5690. Same speed, but can support more RAM, can be used in dual processor setup, has higher max temperature, etc.

 

[kschendel]

PT play back showing host processors shows 8?, but it has four cores ?. thanks. Is it remembering the processors from the 2008 Mac ?

Sorry, I don't know what PT play back is referring to. If everything works I wouldn't worry about it.

If you plan on doing the CPU upgrade, you'll be able to tell if whatever-it-is is looking at the current hardware, or remembering something from the past -- the replacement CPU's we're discussing have 6 cores / 12 threads, so if it still says 8, that's a leftover.

 

[skizzo]

Cool, wow, didn't know the W3690 is the same price of the X5690 roughly. Which CPU is a better choice?

PT play back showing host processors shows 8?, but it has four cores ?. thanks. Is it remembering the processors from the 2008 Mac ?

PT "system usage" window shows you HYPER THREADING. This means you have 4 physical cores and 4 "virtual" type cores. You will see this spec normally listed as 4 core/8 threads with associated CPUs. For example when I had a 4 core setup that is what I saw, now with a 6 core setup I see 12 threads. If you were to have a dual processor two 6 core CPUs then you would see 24 threads (you get the picture from here )

Both CPUs are equal in performance but as h9826790 mentioned X5690 has some slight improvements which is why it usually can demand a higher price. So if you found one for around same cost as W5690 I would say that is a good deal.

Also a clean install is always a good thing if you have the time to do it. Just make sure to back up everything prior and check that it was backed up successfully before wiping your drive.

The 2008 and 2010 cMP models have noticeable differences in them so I'm not surprised you are pleased with the upgrade. It is going to be a noticeable improvement right out of the gate for you even before you do any further upgrades/mods. Glad you are happy with it!

 

[basslik]

Thanks for the info *ALL*. Have great holiday weekend.

 

[nigelbb]

If you ever need more CPU power to use plugins, you can just buy a dual processor tray and replace the single one.

(2009 logic board with 2009 CPU tray, 2010/2012 logic board with 2010/2012 CPU tray)

Except dual processor trays are rarer than hen's teeth & even if you can find one they are wildly overpriced.

If you need a dual processor 2009/2010/2012 it's more cost effective to sell your single-CPU system & buy a dual -CPU system

 

[tsialex]

Except dual processor trays are rarer than hen's teeth & even if you can find one they are wildly overpriced.

If you need a dual processor 2009/2010/2012 it's more cost effective to sell your single-CPU system & buy a dual -CPU system

You could say that it's more economical to just get a dual processor Mac Pro then to buy a dual processor tray, but it's not rare. Very sough after, but not rare.