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

Upgrade GPU MacPro Mid 2010

tsialex said:
Sapphire Pulse RX-580 and X5677, X5680 or X5690.

You can choose the CPU that fits your pocket, but not the GPU, buy one of the Apple suppprted list, exactly.
Click to expand...
Hi Alex,
now i ordered the CPU. So if I use use both: Premiere Pro and FCX you recommend the Sapphire RX580?
Thanks for your great assistance.
 
It all depends on what you are using your mac for and what features you want to keep.

Under Mojave -

Nvidia (Flashed GTX 780 6GB or Titan 6GB)
1. Boot screens
2. Filevault (whether it's supported or not - it works)
3. Sound/Photo/Video production work that does not depend on Cuda
4. Regular use
5. Light to moderate gaming under windows

AMD (RX 580 8GB, Vega)
1. Sound/Photo and heavy Video production work
2. Moderate to hardcore gaming under windows (hardcore with Vega+)
3. Regular use

Apple does not recommend one brand over the other. They simply listed cards that are compatible with Mojave.
 
I'd like to start off by saying congratulations for owning one of the greatest Macintosh computers ever made.

Definitely upgrade your CPUs as others have stated using the CPU compatibility list on this forum. Note that the 130W TDP chips are going to use more power even when the computer is idle so consider getting a pair of 95W X5675 instead of going for the top performing X5690 chips if power usage is a concern for you. Get an RX 580, you don't need to buy the Sapphire PULSE RX 580 I have an MSI one and it works just fine. Note that you do lose the boot screen with any RX 580 that you buy. You can also go higher and get an RX 590 or Vega 64 but the power requirements make these cards harder to install as you need to steal power from the SATA bus or do power supply mod to properly power these cards.
 
jscipione said:
I'd like to start off by saying congratulations for owning one of the greatest Macintosh computers ever made.

Definitely upgrade your CPUs as others have stated using the CPU compatibility list on this forum. Note that the 130W TDP chips are going to use more power even when the computer is idle so consider getting a pair of 95W X5675 instead of going for the top performing X5690 chips if power usage is a concern for you. Get an RX 580, you don't need to buy the Sapphire PULSE RX 580 I have an MSI one and it works just fine. Note that you do lose the boot screen with any RX 580 that you buy. You can also go higher and get an RX 590 or Vega 64 but the power requirements make these cards harder to install as you need to steal power from the SATA bus or do power supply mod to properly power these cards.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much vor your answer. Will the RX580 be sufficient to edit 4K?
 
Paradiseapple said:
Thank you so much vor your answer. Will the RX580 be sufficient to edit 4K?
Click to expand...
That is a good question. Earlier you stated that you are using FCPX for rendering and that program is designed to work with AMD GPUs for compute. The RX 580 is more than sufficient for 1080p video and is sufficient for 4k video editing but render times will be an issue. You'll be able to scrub and preview no problem. You will definitely want to get The 8gb version over the 4gb version. However for 4k editing you may consider getting either a Vega64 or Radeon VII In order to reduce your render times. I realize that is asking a lot but 4k video editing can be quite demanding. Unfortunately the only way to go any faster than that would be to use Premiere Pro on an Nvidia RTX 2080 but that is a whole different editing program and would cost A LOT more money. So in conclusion I would say that RX 580 8gb is your best bet and it will be a huge improvement over the HD 5870 you currently have. The only question is what the rendering times will be and if it would be worth spending a bunch more money and putting up with a bunch more hassle to reduce them.
 
jscipione said:
That is a good question. Earlier you stated that you are using FCPX for rendering and that program is designed to work with AMD GPUs for compute. The RX 580 is more than sufficient for 1080p video and is sufficient for 4k video editing but render times will be an issue. You'll be able to scrub and preview no problem. You will definitely want to get The 8gb version over the 4gb version. However for 4k editing you may consider getting either a Vega64 or Radeon VII In order to reduce your render times. I realize that is asking a lot but 4k video editing can be quite demanding. Unfortunately the only way to go any faster than that would be to use Premiere Pro on an Nvidia RTX 2080 but that is a whole different editing program and would cost A LOT more money. So in conclusion I would say that RX 580 8gb is your best bet and it will be a huge improvement over the HD 5870 you currently have. The only question is what the rendering times will be and if it would be worth spending a bunch more money and putting up with a bunch more hassle to reduce them.
Click to expand...

I prefer editing on FCPX but my tv station uses premiere now. Would the NVIDIA 1080 or 2080 be very complicated to be build in? I heard that Adobe does not support Cuda on CC 2019 anymore.
 
jscipione said:
Premiere Pro supports some older Nvidia cards on Mac but mostly supports AMD cards using Metal on macOS [0]. If you are going to use Premiere Pro with one of the latest Nvidia cards such as the 1080 or 2080 that pretty much means you have to use Windows too. Well that and the 2080 Nvidia drivers for macOS aren't even out yet.

[0] https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/system-requirements.html#gpu-acceleration
Click to expand...
Thank you once more for your great answer. I will go with the 580 now and then see. I think together with a faster CPU I will get quite far
 
Paradiseapple said:
Thank you once more for your great answer. I will go with the 580 now and then see. I think together with a faster CPU I will get quite far
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on Mac video encoding pitfalls and I hope that someone will correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above. For example I've recently noticed that programs including Premiere Pro use Intel QuickSync to quickly render out h.264 and hevc/h.265 which is not supported on Mac Pro (cheesegrater or trashcan) so it falls back to CPU rendering instead. There doesn't appear to be a way to get Premier Pro to use you high powered AMD GPU to render out the output video on Mac. Can somebody chime in and let me know if there is a way to do GPU encoding when outputting h.264 or h.265 without using Intel QuickSync? Note that Premiere Pro will use the GPU to render effects and do previews and all kinds of stuff while editing but I'm wondering about when you are running an export.

In Handbrake 1.2.2 choose h.264 encoding using VideoToolbox option it immediately fails with the message "Encoding Failed." I assume this is because my Mac Pro CPU doesn't support Intel QuickSync which is what VideoToolbox is trying to use. However there are no other GPU encoding options to use my AMD GPU. As I understand it the Intel QuickSync produces low-quality output anyway so you are better off using the CPU rendering even if it does take longer. However Handbrake 1.2.2 on Windows seems to support NVENC encoding using an Nvidia GPU which perhaps can produce higher quality output. There also seems to be an AMD AMF encoding option that is only available on Windows but not Mac.

I haven't tried Adobe Media Encoder but it seems to support similar options as Handbrake, that is Intel QuickSync on Mac (with newer Intel GPU) and Nvidia NVENC or AMD AMF on Windows only. The same options for Davinci Resolve, QuickSync only on Mac, various Nvidia options on Windows.

Is there no way to render GPU accelerated h.264 or h.265 on Mac other than QuickSync? And if so, would it be prudent to forget about trying to encode on macOS and install Windows with Nvidia GPU instead?
 
WHat do you mean with bottom? I just installed the new processor. Before I had 2x2,66 6 core and about 20.800 and now not much more. Is the new processor bad?
[doublepost=1555500560][/doublepost]It’s MP51.0084.B00
 

Attachments

  • CBFCEA90-DAA0-4398-8BC6-94EFD83384C5.jpeg
    CBFCEA90-DAA0-4398-8BC6-94EFD83384C5.jpeg
    5.1 MB · Views: 157
How can I find the update and install it?
[doublepost=1555502154][/doublepost]I feel so stupid. I cannot find high Sierra in the App Store
[doublepost=1555502505][/doublepost]Ok found
[doublepost=1555503714][/doublepost]It’s still the same score on benchmark. Even I installed the firmware update
 
Last edited:
Paradiseapple said:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12824281

Cryyyy, the multicore with the new 3,46 12 core is only 24.000. My old one was 20.800
What´s wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't think that your firmware version is the cause of lower geekbench scores in fact updating your firmware will activate meltdown/spectre patches that will LOWER your geekbench score due to the crippling of unsafe yet performance increasing speculative execution. You should have stuck on the earlier firmware oh well.

Do you perhaps have 1066mhz RAM installed instead of 1333mhz? It should tell you the frequency that your RAM is running at in About This Mac. If the RAM came from the factory it should be 1333mhz in any 5,1 Mac pro even those that shipped with Nehalem Xeons.
 
jscipione said:
You should have stuck on the earlier firmware oh well.
Click to expand...

Apple sent 9 firmware updates since High Sierra developer previews, with tons of corrections and improvements, even if you lose some points on raw CPU performance with SpectreMeltdown corrections, you get double PCIe throughput. Geekbench scores kept almost the same results after firmware corrections.

No one should use pre-Meltdown firmwares nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
Hi friends, the RAM is 6x8=48 of 1333mhz. But I ordered 96 gb. Are some processors better than others or could it be the main Board?
 
Paradiseapple said:
Hi friends, the RAM is 6x8=48 of 1333mhz. But I ordered 96 gb. Are some processors better than others or could it be the main Board?
Click to expand...
Good results should be around 2750 single core/31500 multicore for the 64bit version of Geekbench. Results vary a lot, since it's not just the processor that makes the score.

Did you tried to reset SMC and clear NVRAM three times? If you still have problems, your NVRAM could have multiple memory configs like these: #3212 #3218
 
How can I do these corrections?
[doublepost=1555521055][/doublepost]After resetting still 2794 single core and 24259 multi core. Geekbench costs 16€ if you want 64bit testing. Is it possible that I put too much paste on the processor?
 
Last edited:
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