5,1 3.46 Quad Core?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by kmckinneync, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. kmckinneync macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    #1
    I am looking at purchasing a 2010 Mac Pro. The seller describes the configuration as a Mac Pro 5,1 Quad Core Xeon. In reviewing eBay listings and other sources for Mac Pro information I'm not seeing this as a typical configuration. I see listings for 12-core 3.46mhz, quad core 3.2mhz, 6-core 3.46, etc... but not much out there on a quad core 3.46 xeon.

    Is this a legitimate configuration for a 2010 Mac Pro tower?

    Any info would be appreciated.

    Thanks!
     
  2. sqhead macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    #2
    Not an official apple released configuration but definitely a possible one using the intel X5677. I upgraded my dual cpu 4.1 using two of them (delided myself), well worth the upgrade, now running 8 cores at 3.46Ghz.
     
  3. now i see it macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    #3
    Personally I wouldn't buy a computer on eBay that's been monkeyed with by replacing the CPU. I would look for a bone stock configuration that hasn't been molested.
     
  4. Snahbah macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    #4
    Agreed. Look for a dual 4.1 or 5.1 and do the processor upgrade yourself. The single processors (depending on your needs) won't give you a big bump. I wen t from a 12 x 2.4 to a 12 x 3.46 for £300. It was pretty frightening but I did it. That's just my POV, I do 3D stuff so cores are a good thing. But 3.46 is not too bad. Hope that''s of some use to you. YouTube is your buddy :)
     
  5. rudo.ba macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    #5
    I use such one 2010, upgraded from W3530 to X5677 (both quad-cores) and serves well. Single chip upgrades to just quad-core are pretty rare, the majority going for 6-cores (W3680/90 or X5680/90). I did it because it was easier to persuade my employer for cheaper quadcore upgrade (not my computer, X5677 for 70 eur, can be found for 50 eur today). I use it for InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat (all CC 2017 versions), Word, Excel, Safari, Mail, IBM Notes. Zero 3D or video work. Older MP 3,1s we have replaced with PCs for about 1500 eur (i7-5930, 32 GB RAM, 500 GB SSD, R9 380/390 or so) last year.

    Here are Geekbench 4 scores for X5677, a popular good (cheap compared to X5690) upgrade for 4,1 and 5,1 eight-core Mac Pros (some single chip Macs also present):
    http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?page=1&q=x5677

    My scores:
    http://browser.geekbench.com/user/108990

    Good cheap upgrade to get more life for existing machine and stay with macOS a few more years, i hope.

    It should be a really good price for 2010 computer to buy, 4 or 6 core.
     
  6. kmckinneync thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    #6
    Thanks all for your replies and the good information.

    rudo.ba, thanks for detailing your use of a Mac Pro with identical configuration. The daily use you describe matches my intended use exactly.
     
  7. Snahbah macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    #7
    Good luck to you, take your time. Touching the processors is, erm, invigorating – but oh so rewarding. All the best :)
     
  8. flowrider macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #8
    I also have upgraded my 5,1 with dual X5677s. So I have a 3.46Ghz 8 core.

    Lou
     
  9. les24preludes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #9
    Same here - upgraded my 4.1 to X5677. Cheap thrills - I needed an angle grinder to remove one of the bolts holding the heatsink. Story is here somewhere - the head stripped.
     
  10. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #10
    I guess that depends on what you mean by legitimate. Apple didn't sell them that way, but it's a compatible CPU and the warranty is long over anyway.
     
  11. kmckinneync thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    #11
    Thanks ActionableMango. Compatible would have been a better choice of terms than legitimate.
     

Share This Page