Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 25, 2009, 01:47 PM   #26
Cynicalone
macrumors 68040
 
Cynicalone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Okie land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genghis Khan View Post
You should be banned from the Mac Pro forum for that comment.

People with the 2.93GHz Mac Pro's (or non-base) want/need as fast as is possible. e.g. in my case, if I had a 3.2GHz Pro, i would be able to get renders done at 14% higher resolution in the same time...and that's just better...or i could get them done in 12.5% shorter time...and that's also just better...why not have better?

/rant
My point being that although the 3.2Ghz would be nice to have I don't see it happening. And the 2.93Ghz is very fast capable machine holding off an upgrade on the very low chance Apple will update just doesn't seem worth it to me.

I have the 2.93Ghz Octo right now, if I had the choice I would have went with the 3.2Ghz myself. But for most people the .27Ghz speed bump will be almost unnoticeable for the price.
Cynicalone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 02:19 PM   #27
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
It's nice to know the 3.2GHz Gainestown's will work in DP daughter boards, even with the heat spreaders.

Tutor took on an expensive experiment...err...proposition.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 02:27 PM   #28
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicalone View Post
My point being that although the 3.2Ghz would be nice to have I don't see it happening. And the 2.93Ghz is very fast capable machine holding off an upgrade on the very low chance Apple will update just doesn't seem worth it to me.

I have the 2.93Ghz Octo right now, if I had the choice I would have went with the 3.2Ghz myself. But for most people the .27Ghz speed bump will be almost unnoticeable for the price.
Well it would depend on the price, Intel's pricing makes the 3.2GHz a logical choice over other speeds if processor power is important. Most people also aren't going to notice the .27GHz over the 2.66GHz either, but ~10% is a lot when you are taxing processor power for hour after hour, day after day.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 03:12 PM   #29
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:27 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 03:19 PM   #30
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
Remember Anand's blog says that single CPU i7 mac pro's ( even the 2.93) have heat spreaders.
Any of the Core i7/Xeon W35xx/Xeon 55xx parts available to a user in retail channels have heat spreaders.

Apple had to be an odd ball, and order the 2.93GHz Xeon (X5570) without them.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 03:27 PM   #31
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:27 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 03:45 PM   #32
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:28 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 03:52 PM   #33
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
Pre-nehalem mac pro 3.2 ghz were 130 watt pieces with heat spreaders.
They were actually rated at 150W.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 04:09 PM   #34
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:29 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 04:13 PM   #35
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
Anand's blog says that Apple purchase them without IHS for the 8 cores
I'm going by another member's posts (different thread), that had access to multiple systems (disassembled).

Of the Octo's, only the 2.93GHz came up w/o heat spreader. The 2.26 and 2.66 parts still had them. I didn't have any reason to doubt it, as with all models available, the information would be solid.

I'll take a look at Anand's article.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 04:43 PM   #36
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:31 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 06:34 PM   #37
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutor View Post
My two 2.26 ghz chips were without spreaders.


Independant confirmation is good. Now we need a guinea pig for a 2.66GHz Octo.

Any takers?
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 07:18 PM   #38
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:31 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 09:00 PM   #39
dagomike
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
I think we will see an upgrade, but we haven't so who knows. Maybe there's a technical reason or the chips are still hard to come by or some weird agreement. Anyway I hope not because my procuement went through today for the 2.93!
dagomike is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2009, 09:11 PM   #40
dagomike
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicalone View Post
My point being that although the 3.2Ghz would be nice to have I don't see it happening. And the 2.93Ghz is very fast capable machine holding off an upgrade on the very low chance Apple will update just doesn't seem worth it to me.

I have the 2.93Ghz Octo right now, if I had the choice I would have went with the 3.2Ghz myself. But for most people the .27Ghz speed bump will be almost unnoticeable for the price.
Different strokes and all, but the clock rates suggests a 9% increase. All things equal that's significant. Pricing is highly relative to the task and upgrade cycle. That 10% would be pretty valuable over the course of the machine's life.
dagomike is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2009, 11:37 PM   #41
voyagerd
macrumors 65816
 
voyagerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Send a message via AIM to voyagerd Send a message via MSN to voyagerd Send a message via Yahoo to voyagerd Send a message via Skype™ to voyagerd
Tutor,

How did you get the B04 Boot ROM? All the currently shipping Mac Pros have B03.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro / 2.6GHz C2D / 4GB / 750GB SSHD / 8600M GT
SR-2 Hackintosh / Dual Intel® Xeon® X5680@4.3GHz / 48GB RAM / 2x 480GB Intel SSDs / GeForce GTX 780
64GB iPhone 5S, 120GB iPod Classic
voyagerd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 01:57 AM   #42
vailance
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MY
saw someone did replace a quad 2.66ghz uni processor with normal Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition Processor and it works.
__________________
Macbook Aluminum 2.0Ghz
iPhone 3GS 16GB Black 3.1.2 JB'ed
Mac Pro 4,1, Quad 2.66Ghz, 6GB Ram, 4 x 1TB HDDs, GTX285 1GB + GT120 512MB, 2 x 18x Superdrive
vailance is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 02:46 AM   #43
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:32 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 03:04 PM   #44
voyagerd
macrumors 65816
 
voyagerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Send a message via AIM to voyagerd Send a message via MSN to voyagerd Send a message via Yahoo to voyagerd Send a message via Skype™ to voyagerd
If you search your Boot ROM version on Google, you're the only one that comes up!
__________________
15" MacBook Pro / 2.6GHz C2D / 4GB / 750GB SSHD / 8600M GT
SR-2 Hackintosh / Dual Intel® Xeon® X5680@4.3GHz / 48GB RAM / 2x 480GB Intel SSDs / GeForce GTX 780
64GB iPhone 5S, 120GB iPod Classic
voyagerd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 04:15 PM   #45
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
There are others. http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/144495

I guess anyway. You looking at the MP42.0081.B04 there right?

Here's one in China: http://www.xcstar.net/viewthread.php?tid=2979&page=1
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 04:27 PM   #46
voyagerd
macrumors 65816
 
voyagerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Send a message via AIM to voyagerd Send a message via MSN to voyagerd Send a message via Yahoo to voyagerd Send a message via Skype™ to voyagerd
I was looking at what Geekbench lists as the BIOS version.
Apple Inc. MP41.88Z.0081.B04.0903051113

That benchmark that was posted an hour ago does have the same B04 version. Apple must have just started using that version of the ROM in new Mac Pros.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro / 2.6GHz C2D / 4GB / 750GB SSHD / 8600M GT
SR-2 Hackintosh / Dual Intel® Xeon® X5680@4.3GHz / 48GB RAM / 2x 480GB Intel SSDs / GeForce GTX 780
64GB iPhone 5S, 120GB iPod Classic
voyagerd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 05:06 PM   #47
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:34 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 07:15 PM   #48
Cynicalone
macrumors 68040
 
Cynicalone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Okie land
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyagerd View Post
I was looking at what Geekbench lists as the BIOS version.
Apple Inc. MP41.88Z.0081.B04.0903051113

That benchmark that was posted an hour ago does have the same B04 version. Apple must have just started using that version of the ROM in new Mac Pros.
I looked at mine in Geekbench here it is
Apple Inc. MP41.88Z.0081.B04.0903051113

I purchased my Mac Pro on March 30th, but due to the wait on the RAID card it didn't ship until May 15th. Just some info if anyone is curious.
Cynicalone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 08:04 PM   #49
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:34 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2009, 08:31 PM   #50
Tutor
macrumors 65816
 
Tutor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Suburb of Birmingham, AL - Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
clean-up

Clean up

Last edited by Tutor; Aug 29, 2011 at 03:35 AM. Reason: clean-up
Tutor 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

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mac Pro Nehalem upgrade (w3520 -> w3580) problem muonium Mac Pro 16 Oct 29, 2013 11:11 PM
2008 Mac Pro 3.2Ghz for $500 - Good Deal? MacPoulet Mac Pro 15 Apr 26, 2013 02:58 PM
Mac Pro 2.66 Nehalem Upgrade thattallchap Mac Pro 14 Feb 27, 2013 05:49 AM
Which Mac Pro for Logic 9? Harpertown vs Nehalem? Erich Yeung Mac Pro 15 Sep 9, 2012 08:43 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 PM.

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

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