Does anyone know if there has been an attempt to install intel's 3.73Ghz Xeon into a mac pro?
In theory, there's no reason why it couldn't be done I assume.
In theory, there's no reason why it couldn't be done I assume.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Quad Xeon 3.73Ghz
- Thread starter gammamonk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
gammamonk said:
hehe.. Well, those processors EACH use as much power as TWO 2.66 GHz Xeon 5100-series chips. So two of those would be twice as much heat as the processor bay of the Mac Pro was designed to support.
But, yes, you are correct, theoretically they should work.
But, by all measurements, even the 2.66 GHz Xeon 5100 blows them out of the water in performance. See a review here. (I thought about that, too. It would be fun to have an 'eight' (Hyperthreading, each core shows up as two) processor Mac Pro at 3.73 GHz. If just to throw people for a loop with the screenshots.
Tell you what. Send a Mac Pro my way, and I'll throw in the 3.73 GHz Xeons and let you know what happens. (I have the Xeons at my disposal, just not a Mac Pro.) I'm not even asking to keep the Mac Pro.
They should work, there might be a need for better cooling but I don't think so.
Core 2 Duo processors that go to like 3.7ghz have done so on stock cooling so yeah.
EDIT: Hot damn I just realized its a dempsey, that thing will be very hot, especially in a dual processor setup and really there is no point in putting one of those on a Mac Pro, honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the 2.0ghz Woodcrest gives 3.73ghz Dempsey a run for its money.
Core 2 Duo processors that go to like 3.7ghz have done so on stock cooling so yeah.
EDIT: Hot damn I just realized its a dempsey, that thing will be very hot, especially in a dual processor setup and really there is no point in putting one of those on a Mac Pro, honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the 2.0ghz Woodcrest gives 3.73ghz Dempsey a run for its money.
Chone said:
Definitely a Hot damn
Dempsey is pointless IMHO. Why did they even bother
And according to the tests i've seen including the one linked above, the 2GHz Woody gets pretty close, equals, or even does better than the 3.73 Dempsey in most tests.
And did I mention how much cheaper it is?
Wait, I thought that Dempsey was intel's "Next" chip after Woodcrest. It was a surprise to me that it was already out! Shouldn't it be alot better than Woodcrest?
I'm confused!!!
I'm confused!!!
macgeek2005 said:
Tulsa is the "next" Xeon chip after Woodcrest. It will be the LAST processor based on the NetBurst architecture. And it's pretty close to Woodcrest in terms of performance, although they have higher clockspeeds. Woodcrest is still more energy efficient. The only great thing about Tulsa is that they have caches that range from 4 MB to a whopping 16 MB! And this is an L3 shared cache... :-D Maybe those chips outperform Woodcrest?
fiercetiger224 said:
WHAT??? The LAST processor based on the current architecture?
I thought that Clovertown was after woodcrest.....
macgeek2005 said:WHAT??? The LAST processor based on the current architecture?
I thought that Clovertown was after woodcrest.....
Well, Tulsa was supposed to be released early 2006, but got pushed towards Q3 of 2006 because of pressure from AMD, which they had to shift resources towards Woodcrest. Woodcrest got released in Q2 instead of Q3 of this year. It was supposed to come out AFTER Tulsa, but as I just explained, things got hectic with AMD.
And you're technically right, Clovertown is after Woodcrest. Clovertown is the four-core version of Woodcrest, to be released sometime early 2007 I believe. Hopefully we can throw these in our Mac Pros for an eight-core system. WOOT!
The confusion comes from the fact that there are currently two architectures from intel:macgeek2005 said:
Core: Woodcrest => Clovertown
Netburst: Dempsey => Tulsa => End of Life.
These expressions only make things more confusing. How I perceive it Clovertown is after Woodcrest, regardless of release times.fiercetiger224 said:
Ok, well this discussion has cleared everything up. The 3Ghz is still the best available. That makes me happy. I was wondering why Apple was coming up short-- but they weren't!
I want a Mac Pro. I'm in between jobs and badly need a car tho. Tough luck for me.
I want a Mac Pro. I'm in between jobs and badly need a car tho. Tough luck for me.
steamboat26 said:Wow, so much speed
Never knew there was something faster than the quad 3.0...
There isn't. Look at the link in my previous post. The 3.73 GHz Xeon 5080 gets spanked by the STOCK 2.66 GHz Xeon 5150 in the Mac Pro. The 3.0 GHz Xeon 5160 just makes it even worse.
Xeon 50x0: Dempsey, old, Pentium 4 NetBurst-based core. High clock speeds, high power consumption, high heat load, little performance to say for it. This line is at its end. It has essentially been replaced by Woodcrest, below.
Xeon 51x0: Woodcrest, new, Core 2-based core. Lower clock speeds, lower power consumption, low heat, kicks Xeon 50x0's ass. Clovertown, and all other future Xeons (other than Tulsa, see below) are based on this.
Xeon 70x0: old, Pentium 4 NetBurst-based core for use in more-than-dual-socket systems. Higher clock speeds than Woodcrest, but lower than Dempsey, high power consumption, high heat generation, same performance per clock as Dempsey, but lower clock speeds. Only saving grace right now is that it can be used in 4, 8, or more socket systems. Tulsa is based on this, then Tulsa will be the end for NetBurst. All 4+ socket systems after Tulsa will be based on Core architecture.
Again, even Intel doesn't claim more GHz is better any more. (Heck, their 1.6 GHz dual-core Itanium 2 that just came out spanks even the 3.0 GHz Xeon 5160 in floating point.)
