Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

i7 980x Mac Pro?

R

revilate

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 4, 2011
34
0
Hi everyone,

I've recently acquired a brand new i7 980x CPU (6-core 3.33GHz).
picture4at.png


My Mac Pro is a Xeon X3460 (4-core 2.8GHz; Single CPU), latest model from 2010.
picture5rb.png


I got the 980x for free from a friend who won it in a contest. If I can't throw it in my Mac Pro and get twice the speed I have now, I'll sell it, but I'd prefer to use it.

I know the sockets (1366 LGA match) but since the Xeon is a server processor, I figured I'll probable have to get different RAM.

Anyone have similar experiences or ideas on which RAM I should use for this upgrade? FYI, I'd like to get the fastest memory possible.

- Cheers!
 
I think you have a 3530, not a 3460.

The i7 uses normal DDR3-1066 memory. Theoretically your existing ECC ram will not work with the i7, but at least one person on these forums has tried it and says it will.
 
Well, no, not ANY 240-pin RAM. ECC for example is not supposed to work.

You can plop faster 1333 RAM in there if that's what you really mean. It won't make a difference though.
 
Anyone have any suggestions on what model of RAM sticks I should put in?
 
It works fine and is extremely easy, provided that you buy the tool to remove the heatsink.

I just used normal non-ECC RAM from Crucial.
 
If I were BUYING a CPU, I'd just get the Xeon because the price difference between that and the equivalent i7 is extremely small. But both the OP and brentsg got their i7 CPUs for free, which is a different situation altogether.
 
ActionableMango said:
If I were BUYING a CPU, I'd just get the Xeon because the price difference between that and the equivalent i7 is extremely small. But both the OP and brentsg got their i7 CPUs for free, which is a different situation altogether.
Click to expand...

Presumably you could sell your i7, even if you go it for free. Also sell your existing X3460 and then buy an even better Xeon and not have to worry, right?

Ie you could get the X5660 with roughly what you sell that for, assuming you get close-ish to retail.
 
wallysb01 said:
Presumably you could sell your i7, even if you go it for free. Also sell your existing X3460 and then buy an even better Xeon and not have to worry, right?

Ie you could get the X5660 with roughly what you sell that for, assuming you get close-ish to retail.
Click to expand...

Can't get a better Xeon for that money.

The X5660 isn't better in any way. Only better processors are the ~$1,000 990x or W3690.
 
Not better but you could possibly get a W3680 for same price. Just the Xeon i7-980 variant and they have dropped in price. Not sure what the i7 is worth though. Go cross-grade!
 
derbothaus said:
Not better but you could possibly get a W3680 for same price. Just the Xeon i7-980 variant and they have dropped in price. Not sure what the i7 is worth though. Go cross-grade!
Click to expand...

980x are usually going for around 700-800 USD.

How's the W3680?

I might just sell this i7 and get a W3680...
 
Another option is to sell it, stash away the money in bank for a few months' interest, and put it toward a 2012 Mac Pro :cool:.
 
revilate said:
980x are usually going for around 700-800 USD.

How's the W3680?

I might just sell this i7 and get a W3680...
Click to expand...

Newegg's got them for 599.00 but I think that is new list price. Probably get it cheaper. Cool to pocket 100.00 or so. And also on your quoted chart my W3680 gets 10622 on Passmark so they truly are as close as it can get in performance. Even though the site has all single socket Xeon's appear to perform lower than the i7 counterparts. ???. They are fast enough that I really didn't get too exited for sandy bridge nor even the new E5's.
 
Last edited:
Umbongo said:
Can't get a better Xeon for that money.

The X5660 isn't better in any way. Only better processors are the ~$1,000 990x or W3690.
Click to expand...

I was referring to being better then the X3460, not the i7. Then you can just have a more piece of mind that everything (i.e. ECC RAM, and more RAM than 24 GB) will work. Though yes, the X5660 was maybe a poor choice, you really pay for that 2 DP capability.
 
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15082335#post15082335

The tests geekbench on the Internet, my upgraded mac pro(4.1-quad core 2.66 -> 5.1 6-core i7 980x) xeon of faster on 1260 points, the maximum of mc561 2400 MHz (8 cores) and closer to the Mac Pro 2660 MHz (8 cores), losing his 460 points, which is understandable, for the simple arithmetic, 3333 * 6 / 8 = 2500 + ~ 100 MHz due to the fact that all nuclei in the 6-core processor on a single processor, rather than two as in the 8 core, so the communication between cores faster. That is 6 cores of 3.33 8 cores are similar to 2600, which explains the slight lag of 8 core 2660 and a significant advance 8 core 2400.

Excuse me for bad English, but I hope that is clear.
 
Last edited:
Tutor said:
i7 980x CPU really shines when you can tweak it: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/482108 Mine is underclocked slightly, but turbo biased. That chip was intended for tweakers.
Click to expand...

Sorry to unearth this old topic but, since I am about to upgrade a Mac Pro with a Core i7 980X, I am intrigued by the above post.

The above Geekbench score seems to be obtained on a legitimate Mac Pro (motherboard details) running OS X. How can one tweak an i7 980x on such a machine? I looked for details in the "maximizing CPU perfs" thread but found none.
 
fiatlux said:
Sorry to unearth this old topic but, since I am about to upgrade a Mac Pro with a Core i7 980X, I am intrigued by the above post.

The above Geekbench score seems to be obtained on a legitimate Mac Pro (motherboard details) running OS X. How can one tweak an i7 980x on such a machine? I looked for details in the "maximizing CPU perfs" thread but found none.
Click to expand...

What model Mac Pro do you have? Maybe read Tutor's thread about maximizing CPU performance.

You can program a hackintosh in such a way as to appear like a real Mac Pro to geek bench. There's no way to under clock/over clock on a real Mac Pro 5,1 as of right now. There is a utility on ZDNet to over clock a Mac, but it is an old program and does not support the 5,1.

I would be happy to be wrong about this...
 
mtasquared said:
What model Mac Pro do you have? Maybe read Tutor's thread about maximizing CPU performance.
Click to expand...

I just got a MP 4,1 which I will flash to 5,1.

It was my understanding as well that there was no way to under/overclock a MacPro, apart from the MP 1,1 with the ZDnet utility (I tested it briefly but the drifting clock was too much of a nuisance).

I was just intrigued by the Geekbench log: not only does it report "MacPro5,1" and OS.X 10.6.7, it also contains references to an Apple mobo and an Apple BIOS. I was thinking, maybe something like the BSEL mod would work (isolating CPU pins or similar)...

Oh well, I guess it was too good to be true... :eek:
 
mtasquared said:
What model Mac Pro do you have? Maybe read Tutor's thread about maximizing CPU performance.

You can program a hackintosh in such a way as to appear like a real Mac Pro to geek bench. There's no way to under clock/over clock on a real Mac Pro 5,1 as of right now. There is a utility on ZDNet to over clock a Mac, but it is an old program and does not support the 5,1.

I would be happy to be wrong about this...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you must remain sad for now because you are 100% correct. That's one of my three selfbuild 980s, all of score just shy of 22,000 in Geekbench 2. The three selfbuild 3670s score about 1,000 points less.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for chiming in, Tutor. I'll be reading more of your thread. I'm thinking of building my wife my first hackintosh with all the original parts from my mp 5,1, namely 2.8 GHz w3530, HD 5770, etc. This chip overclocks to a bench of about 12000. We'll see...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back