1,1 CPU upgrade

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,588
Paris/Montreal
I've read and read and read on the subject, and watched many videos about upgrading the 1,1. 5365s are fairly cheap on ebay so I'm very, VERY tempted to get a pair and finally do it. My current model is a factory dual-core 3.0 bought in late 2006, or early 2007 I'm not sure... 16GB ram, Apple-sold HD5770 (purchased a couple years later) + SSD 250GB (purchased late 2015). This mac runs great, I've installed all OS iterations from 10.5 to 10.11x. on it.

Upgrading the CPUs might be a nice (and only ;)) way to give it a proper speed boost right now.

But few things are worrying me, mostly these 3:

- power consumption (150W per CPU from what I've gathered - should I worry?)
- temps - I'm guessing they will go higher after the upgrade?
- since the 1,1 heatsinks were designed for slower CPUs, could it be an issue?

I'm maniac about my temps, even with the stock CPUs I'm regularly checking istatsmenus when encoding a video for example, or when I'm working on a heavy ProTools project etc... This is a mac I use daily, I work on it too. I'm very comfortable with taking its insides apart, I've done it for years on all my Macs, though never replaced CPUs except on my old G4...

So.....Am I safe to consider upgrading this puppy in 2016? :)
 

owbp

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2016
717
241
Belgrade, Serbia
I just did it with X5355, 'cause i couldn't find 5365's locally and it was too expensive ordering them from eBay, after shipping, customs and taxes.
- Power consumption shouldn't worry you, 1,1 can handle it with ease.
- Temperatures are about the same when doing "desktop" work since x5365 comes with G0 stepping AFAIK. I bought 5355 SLAEG (G0 also) just because of that. When idling they're pulling same wattage as dual cores do. When they're put to work, temperatures jump quite a bit more than dual cores, but it can be easily managed with custom fan profiles.
You can raise it only by 100RPM if you want your MP to be always cool. I've made custom settings in Macs Fan Control, based on sensors, and my fans are anywhere from stock 500RPM to 1200RPM under extreme load (and by extreme i mean Handbrake doing its thing for few hours straight in a room without air conditioning).

- 1,1's heatsinks do have only two heat pipes (2,1 have 4 or 6?), so they are a bit worse at cooling, but then again - nothing that fan at 100RPMs more can't handle.

I really couldn't be happier with my Mac after CPU and GPU upgrade, running El Capitan.
Only thing left is SSD drive and i can finally enjoy using it while saving some cash for 5,1 :)

P.S. Even after 5355 CPU upgrade, the loudest thing it this machine is still HD7950.
 

Wharfedaler

macrumors newbie
Apr 3, 2012
11
0
Ilkley united kingdom
I just did it with X5355, 'cause i couldn't find 5365's locally and it was too expensive ordering them from eBay, after shipping, customs and taxes.
- Power consumption shouldn't worry you, 1,1 can handle it with ease.
- Temperatures are about the same when doing "desktop" work since x5365 comes with G0 stepping AFAIK. I bought 5355 SLAEG (G0 also) just because of that. When idling they're pulling same wattage as dual cores do. When they're put to work, temperatures jump quite a bit more than dual cores, but it can be easily managed with custom fan profiles.
You can raise it only by 100RPM if you want your MP to be always cool. I've made custom settings in Macs Fan Control, based on sensors, and my fans are anywhere from stock 500RPM to 1200RPM under extreme load (and by extreme i mean Handbrake doing its thing for few hours straight in a room without air conditioning).

- 1,1's heatsinks do have only two heat pipes (2,1 have 4 or 6?), so they are a bit worse at cooling, but then again - nothing that fan at 100RPMs more can't handle.

I really couldn't be happier with my Mac after CPU and GPU upgrade, running El Capitan.
Only thing left is SSD drive and i can finally enjoy using it while saving some cash for 5,1 :)

P.S. Even after 5355 CPU upgrade, the loudest thing it this machine is still HD7950.
So happy to see there was someone that copied my upgrades. They have been working in my modded 1.1 - 1.2 for 3 years with absolutely no problems, with a hd5770 card inside. I stopped at Mavericks, - could have gone further but the speeds i am getting are matching my 3.1 with a hd7950 mac edition 3gb card. I like to flight sim on X-Plane 10 in 64 bit, and with 20 gb ram in both the 1.1 and the 3.1 , I never have those infuriating OOM crashes i get with my windows 8.1 toshiba. I am contemplating filling both with 32 gb ram, but cant see what the performance increase would be, when really I need a decent graphics card in my 1.1 modded machine. Flight simming uses heaps of graphics memory, so would appreciate advice on a ootb graphics cards with a minimum of 4 gb vram ( preferably more) - that would not be throttled by the pci 1.0 slot ( I dont think such a card xists! - so prove me wrong )
 

LightBulbFun

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2013
2,336
2,292
London UK
Another guy Rocking a upgraded 1,1 here :) I installed 2 SL9YM (B3) stepping X5355s just fine with out any issues (flashed to 2,1 as well I also Flashed my SMC to the 2,1s SMC to get full recognition of the new CPUs) and even using the stock 1,1 heatsinks my Mac Pro automatically handles temps fine with out any user intervention (even with all 8 cores pegged). ill also post a Link to this experience i had with upgrading my Mac Pro https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/page-5#post-22779503
 

owbp

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2016
717
241
Belgrade, Serbia
would appreciate advice on a ootb graphics cards with a minimum of 4 gb vram ( preferably more) - that would not be throttled by the pci 1.0 slot ( I dont think such a card xists! - so prove me wrong )
Well i don't think you'll have any problem with 7970/R9 280X (3GB that can be flashed for boot screen on 1,1), but you could use 4GB GTX 680 that works with OS X drivers OOB.
 

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,588
Paris/Montreal
Well, it's done. My X5365s are on their way (about $120 can including shipping). :cool:Hopefully it won't take too much time before they get delivered!

Now I need to watch more installation videos and get some thermal paste! :)
 

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,663
7,509
My 2006 Mac Pro is running happily with a couple X5355 SLAEGs, a Radeon HD 5770 Mac edition, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB 850 EVO SSD, and a collection of OS X versions from 10.4.11-10.11.4 (excluding 10.5, 10.8, and 10.10). It's an awesome Mac. @Morpheo, you'll certainly enjoy yours after the upgrade.
 

Babyboi

macrumors regular
Mar 16, 2008
119
6
After reading this thread I learned that I can install operating systems greater than 10.7.5 on the 1,1
 

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,663
7,509

Babyboi

macrumors regular
Mar 16, 2008
119
6
You can, it's just not as simple as installing on a supported Mac. You need a GPU upgrade for decent performance and a supported Mac to obtain an installer from. See this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2006-2007-mac-pro-1-1-2-1-and-os-x-el-capitan.1890435/

It's interesting to to see a decade of OS evolution on the same hardware. :)
View attachment 631402 View attachment 631401
Is the stock GPU from the MacPro 5,1 good enough for simple tasks or should I get something more for after the CPU & OS upgrades?
 

Surrat

macrumors 6502
Jun 20, 2014
478
168
United States
I think people upgrading the 1,1 mac pro's should keep something in mind:

The single core performance of the original type Xeon 5160 3ghz, and the expensive X5365 is exactly the same.
This means that if you dont have more than 4 cores worth of load to run on them, the X5365 give you ZERO improvement.
If your running software that is maxing out all 4 cores on the original cpu's, then sure, upgrade. But if your software just loads down 1 or 2 cores, then going to 8 cores will get you nothing. Also, going to 8 cores that are slower than 3ghz, actually nets you LESS speed in common tasks!

I have three mac pro 1,1 two of them I upgraded to 3ghz 5160, and one has the 2,1 update with X5365 cpu's.
There is absolutely no difference in feel between them when doing common tasks. Two X5365's are in effect, four 5160 cpu's. You dont get more speed, you only get more cores to spread the load. The 3ghz 5160 cpu's are super cheap, I got four of them for $8 each on ebay.

My opinion is that unless you actually need more than 4 cores, the money spent on 8 core upgrades would be better spent on ram, or HD/SSHD/SSD, or better vid card.
 

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,663
7,509
Is the stock GPU from the MacPro 5,1 good enough for simple tasks or should I get something more for after the CPU & OS upgrades?
That would be the Radeon HD 5770, which is the one I'm using. Yes, it's good enough.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors 604
May 3, 2014
7,286
4,374
Kentucky
I made a linear move to 5355s from my original 2.6ghz duals. I've been happy, although it's not a dramatic improvement as I don't do a lot of stuff than can fully utilize 8 cores.

With that said, these 1,1s keep on trucking and I think have probably broken some records for long-term relevancy. I'm running 10.9 on mine, although I could run 10.10 or 10.11. I have an SSD, 16gb of RAM, a 1gb 8800GT from MacVidCards, and of course the mentioned processor upgrades.
 

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,663
7,509
I think people upgrading the 1,1 mac pro's should keep something in mind:

The single core performance of the original type Xeon 5160 3ghz, and the expensive X5365 is exactly the same.
This means that if you dont have more than 4 cores worth of load to run on them, the X5365 give you ZERO improvement.
If your running software that is maxing out all 4 cores on the original cpu's, then sure, upgrade. But if your software just loads down 1 or 2 cores, then going to 8 cores will get you nothing. Also, going to 8 cores that are slower than 3ghz, actually nets you LESS speed in common tasks!

I have three mac pro 1,1 two of them I upgraded to 3ghz 5160, and one has the 2,1 update with X5365 cpu's.
There is absolutely no difference in feel between them when doing common tasks. Two X5365's are in effect, four 5160 cpu's. You dont get more speed, you only get more cores to spread the load. The 3ghz 5160 cpu's are super cheap, I got four of them for $8 each on ebay.

My opinion is that unless you actually need more than 4 cores, the money spent on 8 core upgrades would be better spent on ram, or HD/SSHD/SSD, or better vid card.
Many commonly-used apps such as web browsers and the OS itself can utilize multiple CPU cores. That's where the 2006 Mac Pro excels, as most newer Macs and iPhones beat it by quite a bit it on single core, even with the 3.0 GHz CPUs. The pair of X5355 SLAEGs was $30, so I thought why not. For apps that need and can use the 8 cores, my decade-old Mac Pro will perform better than some brand-new dual-core Macs.
 

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,588
Paris/Montreal
If your running software that is maxing out all 4 cores on the original cpu's, then sure, upgrade. But if your software just loads down 1 or 2 cores, then going to 8 cores will get you nothing. Also, going to 8 cores that are slower than 3ghz, actually nets you LESS speed in common tasks!
Which precisely why I wanted 5365s instead of 5355s, considering my current model is a dual-core 3.0 GHz. Also, I'm working with lots of VIs in ProTools, to run some of them the more cores I have the better. 8 cores isn't overkill for better realtime performance. I *know* it's gonna be a very noticeable upgrade for what I do. That includes lots of Photoshop work and video editing/encoding as well. Quite honestly can't wait to install these bad boys! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Babyboi

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,588
Paris/Montreal
I'm checking the thermal paste options, it's a new world for me and I'm not sure what to make of it. :p Should I go for a particular brand or look for something specific when it comes to upgrading a 2006 MP? Do I need to apply it only once ?

Quick google search: http://nerdtechy.com/best-thermal-paste-reviews-2016

..So basically the article says that any of the listed products will do - I'm leaning towards the arctic silver 5...?
 

owbp

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2016
717
241
Belgrade, Serbia
Arctic Silver 5 can be a bit tricky to apply if you're doing it for the first time, Arctic MX-4 is easier for handling.

Be sure to have extra long 3mm hex key for disassembly of the heatsinks. I tried once with shorter, L shaped, key and it was real PITA...:(
 

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,588
Paris/Montreal
Arctic Silver 5 can be a bit tricky to apply if you're doing it for the first time, Arctic MX-4 is easier for handling.

Be sure to have extra long 3mm hex key for disassembly of the heatsinks. I tried once with shorter, L shaped, key and it was real PITA...:(
Paste is ordered. Thanks for the tip about the key. :cool:
 

Morpheo

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 26, 2014
1,273
1,588
Paris/Montreal
While I wait for my new CPUs, I'm wondering: is it required that I update the firmware to 2,1 for the x5365s to work/be recognized properly? If so, should I do it before or after the cpu swap? Silly questions maybe, but still... ;)
 

owbp

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2016
717
241
Belgrade, Serbia
It is advisable, just because you would see 3ghz Quad core Xeon on your first boot instead of Unknown. I've been running 2,1 firmware on my 5150s for a few months without any problem.
BTW, it is possible to have only one CPU recognized and/or high temperatures after firmware upgrade. Don't panic, just reboot (maybe clear SMC and NVRAM) and everything will be OK. :)
 

hwojtek

macrumors 65816
Jan 26, 2008
1,397
448
Poznan, Poland
The single core performance of the original type Xeon 5160 3ghz, and the expensive X5365 is exactly the same.
This means that if you dont have more than 4 cores worth of load to run on them, the X5365 give you ZERO improvement.
If your running software that is maxing out all 4 cores on the original cpu's, then sure, upgrade. But if your software just loads down 1 or 2 cores, then going to 8 cores will get you nothing.
Apple begs to differ since 2009. Everything compiled with Xcode will usually make use of all available cores, unless intentionally caped by the developer or no more load - which leaves other cores for other apps and the OS.
 

MagicBoy

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2006
3,909
949
Manchester, UK
You are missing the point hwojtek. For a typical app a 3GHz 5160 won't feel much if any different from a 3GHz X5365. They are both 3GHz on the same architecture.

While computationally intensive apps like video processing, rendering or server type activities can scale well above 4 cores, many apps will typically be locked to a single master thread then spin others off for sub-processes.

Xcode and Grand Central dispatch (assuming it's used) are not a magic shot in the arm to make a single-threaded application run across 8 cores!
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun

hwojtek

macrumors 65816
Jan 26, 2008
1,397
448
Poznan, Poland
It's not, that's quite obvious. Point is, that there is always something happening in the background, apart from the foreground app. If we were to follow your logic exactly, we'd use CPUs with best single-core performance. However, since most (if not all) apps use multiprocessing to some extent and OS X by itself handles multicore/multiprocessor in a very efficient way, the simple effect is: the more cores, the better overall "feel" of the system.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.