ECC or NON-ECC?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by fiberman, Mar 31, 2013.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2013
    #1
    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.:apple:
     
  2. macrumors G5

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Tesselator, Mar 31, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013

    macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #3
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

    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.

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D
     
  4. macrumors G5

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    Proof its wikipedia, but it has appropriate references.
     
  5. Tesselator, Mar 31, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013

    macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #5
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

    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. ;)

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #7
    how are you going to put a socket 2011 processor in a socket 1366 board
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #8
    Heh, I missed that bit all together... I read the title and the 1st reply only. That'll teach me to skim. :p
     
  9. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2013
    #9
    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?
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    #10
    w3690
    w3680
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #11
    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.
     

Share This Page