Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 31, 2013, 11:00 PM   #1
fiberman
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
ECC or NON-ECC?

I have a mid 2010 Mac Pro with a quad core 2.8Ghz processor and 4 gigs of 1066 ram. I'd like to upgrade my ram to 32 gigs and the processor to a six core Sandy Bridge 3930. However, after reading the specs for that particular processor on the Intel website, i found out that it requires non-ecc ram, which is opposite of what the current processor requires. Will someone please help clarify this for me? Maybe that particular processor model is the wrong one for a Mac. I'm very impressed with its specs and I would really like to upgrade, but I'm not sure which way to go. Any help will be appreciated.
fiberman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2013, 11:27 PM   #2
jav6454
macrumors G5
 
jav6454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Normally, Apple has special CPUs made for their Macs, if your Mac has ECC, you can use ECC, using non-ECC just eliminates the advantage. That is all.

However, mixing is usually and mostly not allowed. I would stick with ECC if your Mac Pro came with ECC RAM. It also depends on the motherboard, the BIOS, the chipset, the processor, and the memory type can all affect the final answer.

I personally would stick to what came. There are people who have used nonECC and have success stories.
__________________
Al MacBook 2.4GHz Late '08 | 5 S⃣ | Macross Click Me
jav6454 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2013, 11:55 PM   #3
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan


I'd love to read that bit of marketing BS. Got any links to an Apple or Intel press release?

I still would have a hard time swallowing that though.

Maybe Apple could "egg on" Intel to release a standard non-special already designed, died, and manufactured model in a faster clock or something but that's about it. Now they have called dibs on several non-special Intel products in order to procure the first x-number of lots - but that's a pretty different thing. Apple is not in the business of designing CPUs and there's probably not anyone working at apple qualified to do so at the same level as Intel.


Last edited by Tesselator; Apr 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2013, 11:57 PM   #4
jav6454
macrumors G5
 
jav6454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post


I'd love to read that bit of marketing BS. Got any links to an Apple or Intel press release?

I still would have a hard time swallowing that though.

Maybe Apple could "egg on" Intel to release a standard non-special already designed, died, and manufactured model in a faster clock or something but that's about it.

Proof its wikipedia, but it has appropriate references.
__________________
Al MacBook 2.4GHz Late '08 | 5 S⃣ | Macross Click Me
jav6454 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 12:04 AM   #5
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by jav6454 View Post
Proof its wikipedia, but it has appropriate references.


I said Apple or Intel. Wiki gets way too much stuff wrong way too often!

And all that says is that the chip was a slower clock - and used in Apple iMac.

A perfect example of Wiki foolishness is before us even here. In the article you reference they say lower clock and in the referenced article they say: "Intel released an Apple-only Exxx chip on April 28, 2008 that increased the clock rate to 3.06 GHz as well as increasing the Front Side Bus to 1066 MT/s, and changed the Cache to 6 MB shared L2. While it is used in desktop computers and has an E8xxx name, it uses the same packaging as mobile CPUs and is therefore considered a Penryn and not Wolfdale." And of course no one is saying why it was Apple only. I suppose the only reason is because Apple bought all of them and perhaps contracted for exclusive rights to it. Apple more than likely didn't have anything to do with it's design specification. Again however, I'd love to read that from Apple or Intel.


Last edited by Tesselator; Apr 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 12:09 AM   #6
PowerPCMacMan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PowerPC land
Almost all Xeon processors require ECC memory, but you may also use NON-ECC memory just that you will eliminate the error checking capability of the memory. As Tessalator and others pointed out.. Don't mix ECC and NON-ECC as this is not desirable and probably won't work.

Most PC's use NON-ECC memory unless they are server grade machines at which that point they use ECC memory..

The best rule of thumb: While ECC comes shipped as the de facto memory in each Mac Pro, you can still use NON-ECC, just don't mix them.

As far as speed of memory, unless you are doing anything requiring number crunching, scientific calculations and or extreme video rendering, you won't visually see a difference between 1066 and 1333.. The same can be said for 1600 and 1333, respectively.
PowerPCMacMan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 03:26 AM   #7
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiberman View Post
I have a mid 2010 Mac Pro with a quad core 2.8Ghz processor and 4 gigs of 1066 ram. I'd like to upgrade my ram to 32 gigs and the processor to a six core Sandy Bridge 3930. However, after reading the specs for that particular processor on the Intel website, i found out that it requires non-ecc ram, which is opposite of what the current processor requires. Will someone please help clarify this for me? Maybe that particular processor model is the wrong one for a Mac. I'm very impressed with its specs and I would really like to upgrade, but I'm not sure which way to go. Any help will be appreciated.
how are you going to put a socket 2011 processor in a socket 1366 board
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 03:29 AM   #8
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
how are you going to put a socket 2011 processor in a socket 1366 board
Heh, I missed that bit all together... I read the title and the 1st reply only. That'll teach me to skim.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 11:42 AM   #9
fiberman
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Thanks for all your replies. I also didn't realize the difference in the processor form factor. Sorry. What would be the most compatible hexacore then?
fiberman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 11:50 AM   #10
GP-SE
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiberman View Post
Thanks for all your replies. I also didn't realize the difference in the processor form factor. Sorry. What would be the most compatible hexacore then?
w3690
w3680
GP-SE is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 03:44 PM   #11
PowerPCMacMan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PowerPC land
UNLESS, you are coming from the 2.8 Quad... I wouldn't get the w3690.. its percentage in performance is quite nil compared to the w3680. 3.33 and 3.46 don't seem a lot apart in terms of performance... but if its heavy encoding and video rendering you need then that extra 5-10 percent from the w3690 would be beneficial, otherwise the w3680 is the SWEET SPOT and will be cheaper.

The w3690 still demands a high price.. not worth it. The w3680 3.33 6-core is the best and I mean BEST bang for the buck.. You won't be disappointed.
PowerPCMacMan is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC