MP 1,1-5,1 2010 cMP 6-core with X5675 chip

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Has anyone upgraded a 5,1 cMP single CPU with a X5675? I know they came in dual format, however, has anyone upgraded a single CPU format with it?

It rates higher and faster than the W3565, so has anyone tried it out solo? Thoughts?

 

[tsialex]

Has anyone upgraded a 5,1 cMP single CPU with a W5675? I know they came in dual format, however, has anyone upgraded a single CPU format with it?

It rates higher and faster than the W3565, so has anyone tried it out solo? Thoughts?

W5675 don't exists, but if you misspelled X5675, is a supported MP5,1 Xeon. X5677 is a even better one, top supported quad core Westmere Xeon and cheap, works with single and dual CPU trays.

This table has all supported ones:

Mac Pro CPU Compatibility List

Bokkow and I have created a Mac Pro CPU compatibility list. The intent is to cover all relevant and compatible CPU upgrades for all Mac Pros. These are asked about over and over and over again, so I thought it would be nice to have it all in one place. Constructive criticism, corrections to...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[tsialex]

Btw, X56xx processors can be used with dual or single CPU trays, usually they are better binned and cheaper nowadays (there are more servers being decommissioned with X56xx than W36xx) than W36xx versions that can only be used with the single trays.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I meant X5675 and edited my post to reflect that. Is it much better than the W3565 in a single tray?

Forgive the rudimentary question, but what do you mean by binned?

 

[tsialex]

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I meant X5675 and edited my post to reflect that. Is it much better than the W3565 in a single tray?

Forgive the rudimentary question, but what do you mean by binned?

X56xx processors support more RAM than W36xx and usually are cooler than the later since they are better binned.

Binning is the factory process that tests processors from the silicon wafer and grade it accordingly, better processors dyes get higher clocks, all cores enabled, faster QPI links, two QPI channels enabled, while worse processors are clocked down, with cored disabled, slower QPI links or with just one QPI link enabled.

BTW, thread title is still wrong.

 

[MoerBoer]

Yeah, the X5677 are good processors for cheap. I'm running two of those in my 5.1 ( They also support 1333Mhz memory )

Very nice speed for the price.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Thanks, tsialex. Thread title has been corrected. I appreciate the explanation of binning.

The X5675 lists at 95W, so that should be more energy-efficient than the other chips mentioned, correct? That’s a clear advantage on both quietness of processor operation and less power usage and lower electricity bills I’d think. Major factors to consider with cMP models as we well know.

The master processor list you provided lists this dual processor in a single tray format capable of 64GB RAM. Great to know, although 32GB should be plenty adequate for me. That it can be expanded in the future is great to know. Would this be via 4x16GB sticks?

As stated, this chip in a 5,1 with 32GB 1333 RAM with 250GB SSD and 1TB HDD with Radeon 5770. Up against my 2,1 with 3.0ghz 8-core, I’d think it blows away the older machine for immediate performance and long-term viability. Please provide your thoughts on such.

Consider this will act as data server of sorts, with occasional to moderately frequent usage for Adobe PS/AI/AE and occasional video production. It won’t be my daily driver, which is a combo of a maxed out 2012 Mini Server and maxed out 2015 MBP i7 3.1ghz 16GB RAM.
[automerge]1571034987[/automerge]

Yeah, the X5677 are good processors for cheap. I'm running two of those in my 5.1 ( They also support 1333Mhz memory )

Very nice speed for the price.

Thanks, MoerBoer. Please note if I pick this machine up it would be running a X5675 in a single tray. That’s hex core compared to the quad core X5677, both of which run 1333 RAM unless I’m mistaken.

 

[tsialex]

Thanks, tsialex. Thread title has been corrected. I appreciate the explanation of binning.

The X5675 lists at 95W, so that should be more energy-efficient than the other chips mentioned, correct? That’s a clear advantage on both quietness of processor operation and less power usage and lower electricity bills I’d think. Major factors to consider with cMP models as we well know.

The master processor list you provided lists this dual processor in a single tray format capable of 64GB RAM. Great to know, although 32GB should be plenty adequate for me. That it can be expanded in the future is great to know. Would this be via 4x16GB sticks?

As stated, this chip in a 5,1 with 32GB 1333 RAM with 250GB SSD and 1TB HDD with Radeon 5770. Up against my 2,1 with 3.0ghz 8-core, I’d think it blows away the older machine for immediate performance and long-term viability. Please provide your thoughts on such.

Consider this will act as data server of sorts, with occasional to moderately frequent usage for Adobe PS/AI/AE and occasional video production. It won’t be my daily driver, which is a combo of a maxed out 2012 Mini Server and maxed out 2015 MBP i7 3.1ghz 16GB RAM.

Processors only go to the maximum TDP when in full load, power consumption is dynamic. Faster the task is done, faster the CPU goes back to lower power modes. 95W processors are the ones that didn't worked well at 130W TDP. For really lower power usage, see the L versions of Westemere Xeons.

X56xx supports 64GB with 4x16GB DIMMs.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Processors only go to the maximum TDP when in full load, power consumption is dynamic. Faster the task is done, faster the CPU goes back to lower power modes. 95W processors are the ones that didn't worked well at 130W TDP. For really lower power usage, see the L versions of Westemere Xeons.

X56xx supports 64GB with 4x16GB DIMMs.

So the Thermal Design Point would make the X5675 hex core vastly inferior to the X5677 quad core, or just moderately inferior at full load? How about in sub-maximal load, could the 5675 be better than 5677 because of more cores? Energy efficiency and power usage/electric bill is a consideration in my plans but not the priority. I’m trying to balance performance and energy cost given it won’t be my daily driver and can be in sleep mode frequently, if not powered off at times.

If you need further clarification from me on any specifics please let me know. Your help is appreciated!

 

[tsialex]

So the Thermal Design Point would make the X5675 hex core vastly inferior to the X5677 quad core, or just moderately inferior at full load? How about in sub-maximal load, could the 5675 be better than 5677 because of more cores? Energy efficiency and power usage/electric bill is a consideration in my plans but not the priority. I’m trying to balance performance and energy cost given it won’t be my daily driver and can be in sleep mode frequently, if not powered off at times.

If you need further clarification from me on any specifics please let me know. Your help is appreciated!

X5677 is a X5690 with two cores disabled. X5690 is the best Westmere Xeon that works with a Mac Pro. X5677 has the same single core score as a X5690, and thats what make a X5677 processor interesting. Like I said, the faster a task is done, the faster the lower power modes and lower power consumption - clock is dynamic. A X5675 and a X5690 have the same power usage when idle, but a X5690 can clock higher and user more power when needed.

If you won't use massive parallel applications/tasks, most applications are better with more single core speed than more cores, so a X5677 have the same throughput as a X5690 and will be better than a X5675. Only when compressing video or using scientific applications that are massively parallel, a X5675 will be faster than a X5677.

Again, only Lxxx Xeons are really optimised for low power consumption.