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 Aug 19, 2014, 10:31 PM   #1051
DJenkins
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBattis View Post
For cooling the CPU I'm leaning toward Noctua. The NH-D14 SE2011, will fit my case and I'm avoiding fluid which I still see as a win where possible. The downside is that I lose the PCIeX16 slot next to the CPU. As the card will mount in the other one, my thinking is to solve this when/if it ever becomes a problem and accept it as the price of tranquility in the meantime.

RAM has me in a bit of a conundrum. Speed/Timing/Latency . . . I am not fully adept at manipulating these variables. Among others I am looking at the following:

My sense of it is that the Dominator DDR3 1600, might well outperform the Corsair DDR3 2400 and be worth its price (which I will shop harder). Is there any good rule of thumb or hard-equation for solving this?
The NHD14 is awesome but ridiculously huge.
I too agree with avoiding custom water loops, just for the difficulty it would cause if you need to swap components out for replacement or testing etc.

I have however moved over to an all in one Corsair H80i which performs just under that of the Noctua but takes up way less space.
It is slightly noisier as well because of the pump - and the Noctua is just really well designed.

So are you saying the Noctua will block one of your PCI slots? You would have to consider what it might cost in limiting future upgrades. A lot of video editing platforms are starting to leverage dual GPUs - what software are you using?

As far as RAM goes I think frequency might have more of an effect over timings… 1600 is getting a bit outdated and leaves no headroom. Something higher like 1866 can be enabled in BIOS using XMP profiles without the possible headache of overclocking.

I think tightening the timings of your ram is a bit easier than over clocking past it’s rated frequency.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion and somewhat limited experiences. Tutor has been an amazing guide for me and will correct anything I’ve been mistaken on and without doubt add a whole bunch of other useful info!!

It would help to know exactly what kind of video work you are doing and with what software. I spent a lot of time working out the best way to handle editing & monitoring, After Effects, DaVinci grading, Cinema 4D, Octane rendering and ProTools audio production all in one box running OSX. So I definitely agree with your title of ‘Balancing Act’ and hopefully I can help in some way as well
__________________
SpeedMetal: Asus RIVF | 4930K | H80i | 2x GTX780 Classified | 32GB G.Skill RipjawsZ
16TB ATTO RAID10 | 256GB 840PRO SSD OSX 10.9/240GB OCZ PCIeSSD Win7
HeavyMetal: EVGA SR-2 | OSX10.8.5 | GB3 | GB2
DJenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2014, 11:14 PM   #1052
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBattis View Post
... .RAM has me in a bit of a conundrum. Speed/Timing/Latency . . . I am not fully adept at manipulating these variables. Among others I am looking at the following:

$229.99 CORSAIR Dominator Platinum 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMD16GX3M2A1600C7
Cas Latency: 7
Voltage: 1.5V
Multi-channel Kit: Dual Channel Kit
Timing: 7-8-8-24
Model #: CMD16GX3M2A1600C7
_________

$182.99 CORSAIR Vengeance Pro 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200) Desktop Memory Model CMY16GX3M2A2400C11R
Cas Latency: 11
Voltage: 1.65V
Multi-channel Kit: Dual Channel Kit
Timing: 11-13-13-31
Model #: CMY16GX3M2A2400C11R
_____

My sense of it is that the Dominator DDR3 1600, might well outperform the Corsair DDR3 2400 and be worth its price (which I will shop harder). Is there any good rule of thumb or hard-equation for solving this?
I recommend the Vengeance Pro over that particular Dominator ram. Your CPU will support that Dominator ram, but it also supports 1866 MHz ram. That Dominator won't get you to that 1866 MHz Ivy Bridge standard because that particular Dominator ram is 1600 MHz ram.

Ram timing and latency tend to increase as MHz increases to help prevent errors. Using 2400 MHz ram (like that Vengence ram) means that you can clock the ram (as I have down with my Dominator Platinum) at 2133 MHz in bios and still have some overhead to tweak its first few {3-5} parameters in bios (lowering their values to two steps above where stability begins to suffer) to get the benefit of faster timing and lower latency. Moreover, if you have the funds, you could get (what I use) the Dominator Platinum [16 GB - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820233347 or 32 GB - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820233394 ], but it is more expensive. Although I hope that you know that I'll help you to tune whatever ram that you get, the Dominator Platinum would tend to make it a bit easier since that's the ram I have in a number of my systems. Still, I have no significant reason to caution you against getting that Vengeance ram (perhaps to save some cash) and, as always, my offer of assistance to help you to tune it still stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBattis View Post
To answer your question about the 21st/18th Century comparison. Two quick examples that come to mind are the increasing civil unrest and questions about the viability of the food supply. My mind is prone to wandering off in any variety of directions. This is just something I was musing the other night.

-III
Nothing's wrong with that mind of yours. Those are two excellent examples. Plus, musing (and dreams) so long as you remember/record them -> creativity.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 19, 2014 at 11:27 PM.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2014, 08:11 AM   #1053
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJenkins View Post
The NHD14 is awesome but ridiculously huge.
I too agree with avoiding custom water loops, just for the difficulty it would cause if you need to swap components out for replacement or testing etc.

I have however moved over to an all in one Corsair H80i which performs just under that of the Noctua but takes up way less space.
It is slightly noisier as well because of the pump - and the Noctua is just really well designed.

So are you saying the Noctua will block one of your PCI slots? You would have to consider what it might cost in limiting future upgrades. A lot of video editing platforms are starting to leverage dual GPUs - what software are you using?

As far as RAM goes I think frequency might have more of an effect over timings… 1600 is getting a bit outdated and leaves no headroom. Something higher like 1866 can be enabled in BIOS using XMP profiles without the possible headache of overclocking.

I think tightening the timings of your ram is a bit easier than over clocking past it’s rated frequency.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion and somewhat limited experiences. Tutor has been an amazing guide for me and will correct anything I’ve been mistaken on and without doubt add a whole bunch of other useful info!!

It would help to know exactly what kind of video work you are doing and with what software. I spent a lot of time working out the best way to handle editing & monitoring, After Effects, DaVinci grading, Cinema 4D, Octane rendering and ProTools audio production all in one box running OSX. So I definitely agree with your title of ‘Balancing Act’ and hopefully I can help in some way as well
Hello DJenkins,
I agree with you on all points. Also, I too use the Corsair H80i for cooling almost all of my systems and it does not block any PCI-e slots. I'm using the same motherboard that he's planning to purchase. The version of its bios that I'm using (which is not the latest one - simply haven't taken the time to upgrade all 8 of my GUP4 systems yet and my habit is to do all such upgrades at once) allows you to select speeds much higher than 1866 MHz if memory's top speed allows it.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 20, 2014 at 08:16 AM.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2014, 04:08 PM   #1054
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Future Proofing My A**

When we use the phrase,” future proofing” in connection with a computer system, what do we truly mean? I don't believe that any computer system can withstand time's march taking giant steps. The 4 core/ 8 thread i7-975 CPU was discontinued by Intel in 2011 [ http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i...80601975).html ] (about 3 years ago). Can anyone guess the approximate multi-core Geekbench 3 score of my i7-975 system? I built that system in the fall of 2009 (almost 5 years ago) and tested it with Geekbench 2 on December 21, 2011 [ http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/532301 ]. It then got a score of 15,101. I have yet to test it with Geekbench 3. That system is one of my 21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems.

This is how the 4 core/8 thread E5-1620 systems now stack up in Geekbench 3 [ http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...ulticore_score ]. The highest muticore score is listed first. It's 16,743 as of 4:13 p.m. (CST) on August 22, 2014.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 22, 2014 at 04:25 PM. Reason: added cites
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2014, 10:12 PM   #1055
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
When we use the phrase,” future proofing” in connection with a computer system, what do we truly mean?
I run from $500K to $1M per year for hardware spend at work. We'll soon be dropping E5-x6xx v2 systems (the only ones in the MP6,1) to the "near obsolete" category - because by the end of the calendar year we'll have dozens of E5-x6xx v3 systems with AVX2. AVX2 will be huge for our projects, and nobody will want to use the current generation of Xeons once they arrive.

The current Xeons are doomed - totally not "future-proof" at work.

Personally, I bought a Dell T3610 with the E5-1650 v2 CPU (same hex that Apple uses in the MP6,1) in April.

For every system that I've personally purchased - the only reason for replacing it was that it could not support the amount of RAM that I needed.

The T3610 (which I bought with 80 GiB - supports 128 GiB and should support 256 GiB when the 32 GiB DIMMs are here) replaced a Core i7-940 system that was maxed at 24 GiB. The Core i7-940 replaced a Q6600 that maxed at 8 GiB. The Q6600 replaced a Pentium III system that maxed at.....which replaced a Toshiba Satellite Pro that maxed at 40 MiB (8 MiB soldered and a 32 MiB SO-DIMM).

Get the picture?

The most important part (IMO) of future-proofing is that you can add memory. The MP6,1 is a big fail here, with only four slots.

Much less important is raw CPU speed on non-SIMD code - since that's been rather slowly improving.

New instructions (like AVX) are important - because depending on the app that can make newer systems much faster than generic benchmarks predict.
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable

Last edited by AidenShaw; Aug 22, 2014 at 10:22 PM.
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2014, 01:51 PM   #1056
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
The Illusion Of Future Proofing

Future proofing is an impossibility. In 2009, my i7-975 system (aka “WolfCub1”) scored much higher in Geekbench 2 than other 4-core systems, then achieving a Geekbench 2 CPU score of 15,101. That placement is no longer the case under Geekbench 3.

I’ve attached a pic of how my WolfCub1 now performs in Cinebench 15. I also wanted to test the GPU that I had originally placed in it, i.e., a 2009 PowerColor 4890, so I removed my CUDA GPUs and installed that 4890 video card. Among other things, my 4890 video card attained an OpenGL score in Cinebench 15 of 66.49 fps and the i7-975 attained a CPU score is 685. On August 23, 2014 in Geekbench 3 it achieved a single-core score of 3,361 and a multi-core score of 13,157 [ http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/723996 ]. Using the ranking search (today consisting of 116 pages of scores) that I set forth in my last post (# 1054, above), my WolfCub1 would be listed today on page 11 on those 116 pages of scores if the scores are ranked by the highest single-core score being listed first (and, of course, if the i7-975 was named "E5-1620"). My WolfCub1 would be listed today on page 16 of those 116 pages if the scores are ranked by the highest multi-core score being listed first. If I narrow the search to list only E5-1620 v2 systems, my WolfCub1 would be listed today on page 11 on those 110 pages of scores if the scores are ranked by the highest single-core score being listed first. My WolfCub1 would be listed today on page 15 of those 110 pages of scores if the scores are ranked by the highest multi-core score being listed first. Thus, a four-core system that once achieved top Geekbench scores no longer has its no.1 ranking, providing a real life example showing that future proofing is truly an impossibility, unless by using the phrase “future proofing,” one really means - “short-term future proofing.”
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Tutor'sWolfCub1CB15-2014.png
Views:	7
Size:	46.5 KB
ID:	486932  
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2014, 01:56 PM   #1057
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
What One Does With Computing Technology Affects The Illusion of Future Proofing

Hello Aiden,

Your posts (because of their insights, relevance and sound bases) are always welcomed greatly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
I run from $500K to $1M per year for hardware spend at work. We'll soon be dropping E5-x6xx v2 systems (the only ones in the MP6,1) to the "near obsolete" category - because by the end of the calendar year we'll have dozens of E5-x6xx v3 systems with AVX2. AVX2 will be huge for our projects, and nobody will want to use the current generation of Xeons once they arrive.

[Much less important is raw CPU speed on non-SIMD code - since that's been rather slowly improving.

New instructions (like AVX) are important - because depending on the app that can make newer systems much faster than generic benchmarks predict.]

The current Xeons are doomed - totally not "future-proof" at work.
I wish that I had the budget for the hardware that you run! For now, I can only dream about the systems that your posts describe.

I agree with you completely that the sauce that Intel has been basting on it’s CPUs (new feature / instruction sets like AVX and their further/future advances) means that CPU advances have and will have something tasty for making future purchases inevitable. Because I apply my systems to tasks such as 3d and video rendering, my new/later purchases are, however, supplements, not replacements. That's dictated by what I do with my systems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
Personally, I bought a Dell T3610 with the E5-1650 v2 CPU (same hex that Apple uses in the MP6,1) in April. For every system that I've personally purchased - the only reason for replacing it was that it could not support the amount of RAM that I needed.

The T3610 (which I bought with 80 GiB - supports 128 GiB and should support 256 GiB when the 32 GiB DIMMs are here) replaced a Core i7-940 system that was maxed at 24 GiB. The Core i7-940 replaced a Q6600 that maxed at 8 GiB. The Q6600 replaced a Pentium III system that maxed at.....which replaced a Toshiba Satellite Pro that maxed at 40 MiB (8 MiB soldered and a 32 MiB SO-DIMM).

Get the picture?
You've painted that picture clearly and beautifully. Concerning CPUs (whether one purchases or builds a system), future significant CPU growth potential is significantly dictated by whether the initial purchase is for a Tock or Tick model (and, of course, the motherboard and its bios) because of looming socket changes. Unfortunately concerning upgrade potential, the nMP was released just before a looming socket change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
The most important part (IMO) of future-proofing is that you can add memory. The MP6,1 is a big fail here, with only four slots.
The nMP requires me to make too many compromises in lots of important areas. For what I do, advances in GPU compute technology have the greatest ability to give me somewhat of an illusion of future proofing. The ability to add more and faster GPUs offers advantages that help to minimize the limitations inherent in Intel’s certain changes in socket design. GPU computing means that I can continue to make past systems faster compute units because newer GPUs, although built to accommodate faster PCIe technology {take PCIe V3 for example}, can still be harnessed to provide faster render units in systems with even PCIe V1 or V2 slots. So I vote with my dollars, in order of importance to me, for (a) more powerful GPU processors, including faster and larger memory amounts on those GPUs, (b) more PCIe slots for those GPUs, (c) faster, more powerful, and more CPUs offering the most advanced feature sets, (d) faster, larger capacity and more numerous memory units and, of course, more memory slots for the motherboard and (e) faster and larger capacity storage units. Costs, as always in my case, can be deal breakers.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2014, 02:43 PM   #1058
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
The Illusion Of Future Proofing

Future proofing is an impossibility.

...unless by using the phrase “future proofing,” one really means - “short-term future proofing.”
Notice how things like wristwatches are called "water resistant" instead of "waterproof"?

All we can do with computers is "future resistant". All computers will become obsolete eventually - but a "future resistant" computer have a longer useful life before it "hits the wall". (I realize that an old computer is just as fast on old software as when it was purchased - but most of us upgrade applications and add applications, and those often assume a more modern, more powerful system.)

WolfCub1 has lasted 5 years - that's pretty good. If you had purchased the Core i7-940 like I did, you probably would have replaced it earlier. (I replaced the Core i7-940 not because it was slow, but because I hit the wall with only 24 GiB of RAM.)
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2014, 03:18 PM   #1059
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
Notice how things like wristwatches are called "water resistant" instead of "waterproof"?

All we can do with computers is "future resistant". All computers will become obsolete eventually - but a "future resistant" computer have a longer useful life before it "hits the wall". (I realize that an old computer is just as fast on old software as when it was purchased - but most of us upgrade applications and add applications, and those often assume a more modern, more powerful system.)

WolfCub1 has lasted 5 years - that's pretty good. If you had purchased the Core i7-940 like I did, you probably would have replaced it earlier. (I replaced the Core i7-940 not because it was slow, but because I hit the wall with only 24 GiB of RAM.)
Aiden,
Love it! A very close analogy and a lot more accurate phrasing - "future resistant." That nails it. I'm burning that phrasing into my grey matter right now. Thanks again for sharing your wisdom.

P.S. I replace things too when they no longer meet my needs.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2014, 09:36 AM   #1060
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Future Resistant Nehalems/Westmeres

More Geekbench 2 Results Shown By Ranking Scores By System CPU


1) Achieving the highest i7-975 listed system score is my WolfCub2*/ (my only system of this kind), then running OSX.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...975&sort=score
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/532301

2) Achieving the highest W5580 listed system score is my WolfCub1 (my only system of this kind), then running OSX.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...580&sort=score
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/418647

3) Achieving the highest i7-980X listed system score is my WolfPack11, then running OSX. My other two similarly configured and tweaked systems (WolfPacks12 & 13) have not been tested.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...80x&sort=score
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/482108

4) Achieving the highest 2xX5680 listed system score is my WolfPack1, then running OSX,
a) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...680&sort=score
a) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/500630
a) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/334835

and next is my WolfPack2**/, then running OSX,
b) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...680&sort=score
b) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/500492
b) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/416919

and my 2009 —> 2010 MacPro scores higher than all other 2xX5680 listed real MacPro systems (note that a real MacPro with 2xX5680s runs at 3,333 Mhz). My hacked, real 2xX5680 MacPro also scores higher than lots of 2x5690 listed real MacPro systems (note that a real MacPro with 2xX5690s runs at 3,460 Mhz).
c) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...680&sort=score
c) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/422811
c) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...690&sort=score

WolfPacks 3-10 are seven 8-core and one 6-core SandyBridge systems. WolfPacks14-16 will soon be three similarly configured and tweaked W3670 systems.

*/ Here’s how I now classify my systems: A WolfCub has fewer than 6 real cores; a WolfPack has 6 to 24 real cores; a WolfPackAlphaCanisLupus has at least 12 cores and 8 internal double wide GPUs; and a WolfPackPrime has at least 26 real cores (My WolfPackPrime0 and WolfPackPrime1 each have 32 real cores).

**/ The Geekbench 2 scores for WolfPack1 and WolfPack2 are also higher than the highest listed X5690 score of any system running any OS [ http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...ulticore_score ].


BTW - All of the GPUs in my self-builds have also been tweaked for maximum performance: OpenCL (with the help of LuxRender to do so in the case of my AMD/ATI GPUs), CUDA (with the help of Cinebench to do so in the case of my GTX GPUs) and OpenGL (with the help of Cinebench to do so for all of my GPUs). I’ve found that I get the best performance from the CPUs and GPUs in all of my systems by using cooler air conditioning settings and additionally (1) in the case of my cMacPros (a) using SMC fan control and (b) flipping the system by 45 degrees (face down - see pic, below) and (2) in the case of my self-builds using Corsair 80s/100s H20 coolers and SilverStone Raven cases, to keep each system’s internals as cool as possible. The SilverStone Raven case orientation of fans and GPUs help to promote better cooling. I'm trying to mimic it in the pic below. I used support helpers - two of my two firewire drive cases in the pic, below. The Raven's supports, handles and front panel access points are better placed/oriented to pull this off elegantly/gracefully (see 2nd pic). Cooler air comes in at the bottom of the system and warmer air completely exits the system faster because warmer air wants to rise. Doesn't this thermal design also mimic the nMP and nature (cooler air is lower than warmer air) ? Also, that black cable coming out the back of my MacPro, powers the FSP BoosterX5 (in the top optical drive bay - see, also, post #972 here - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...+raven&page=39 ) that helps to power the GTX 480 and GTX 590, now in each of my three 2007 MacPros.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MacPro2,1.JPG
Views:	2
Size:	764.2 KB
ID:	487324   Click image for larger version

Name:	rv03b-inside.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	164.0 KB
ID:	487331  
Attached Images
 
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.

Last edited by Tutor; Yesterday at 01:47 AM. Reason: add photos and related observations
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:37 AM   #1061
Tutor
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Flipping a MacPro 2006-2012

Similar to the increased cooling benefit of the SilverStone Raven [ See further discussion - here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...r#post19517364 ] is the benefit achieved by setting the cMacPro with the face oriented to the floor (using supports for either end, of course). Also note that this is very similar to the cooling system works in the nMP and in a SilverStone Raven case. Having done this to my 2007 MacPro resulted in the following during Cinebench15 testing:
1) Idle temperature drooping from an average of 36 degrees C to a max temp of 31 degrees C during idle;
2) a consistent increase of the OpenGL score by 1.5 frames per second on average (temps did not rise during OpenGL testing);
3) a consistent increase in the CPU (multi-core) score by 8 to 12 CBs (System temp now rises by an average of only 3 degrees during testing - max temp was 34 degrees C during CPU (multi-core) tests );
4) a consistent increase in the CPU (single-core) score by 1 to 2 CBs (System temp now rises by an average of only 1 degree during testing - max temp was 32 degrees C during CPU (single-core) tests); and
5) a consistent MP ratio increase from an average of 7.1x to to an average of 7.36.

I would expect that the effect of flipping the case on CPUs in a 2009-2012 cMP would be greater because the CPUs in those systems have turbo boost potential and one of the factors affecting if, how much and how frequently turbo boosting occurs, is the temperature of the CPU's cores. I haven't tested this yet on my MacPro 4,1 -> 5.1 because I've removed that system's motherboard to do some work on it. But when I test it, I'll post an update of my findings.
__________________
21 tweaked/multiOS rendering systems: oTitan RD TE>58; 86K+ CUDA cores; 13K+ ATI Stream PUs; 206 CPU cores. CB11.5-48.5 Win; CB15-3,791 Win; GB2-58K+ Lnx; GB3-71K+ Lnx/49K+ OSX; LuxMark's Sala-12K+.
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Tags
over clocking, overclocking, swap cpu, under clocking, underclocking

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
maximizing CPU and other resources mbp150 OS X Mavericks (10.9) 3 Nov 10, 2013 07:19 PM
A7 performance - equivalent desktop cpu? heifetz7 iPhone 21 Oct 4, 2013 12:07 PM
Preview in ML, maximizing without maximizing picture, change sidebar side LeandrodaFL Mac Applications and Mac App Store 0 Sep 3, 2013 06:17 PM
Anandtech's review on RMBP 13 up, no surprises on CPU performance magbarn MacBook Pro 22 Nov 14, 2012 12:58 PM
Slow performance on MBP - Flash related (I think) bsod999 MacBook Pro 1 Sep 3, 2012 05:27 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 AM.

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

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