Mac Pro’s 3.0GHz 120w X5472 Processor

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Topper, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #1
    Firstyearprof in his post #43 (thread) shows that the 3.0GHZ processor in the Mac Pro is the X5472 120w processor.

    Is the X5472 Mac Pro noticeably noisier than the 2.8GHz Mac Pro?
    Is it noticeably warmer?
    Is anyone now cancelling their 3.0GHz Mac Pro and ordering the 2.8GHz Mac Pro instead?
     
  2. ErikAndre macrumors 6502a

    ErikAndre

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #2
    PS: A special thank you to Firstyearprof for taking the time to get this information for us.
     
  3. newtech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #3
    Luckily we no longer kill bearers of bad news:D
     
  4. firstyearprof macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    #4
    Thanks for all the kudos. Wow. I feel like a celebrity.

    Here are the temps (in Celsius) for my comp. I've noticed that my RAM is hotter than I'd like so I've used smcFanControl to bump up the lowest fan speed to 750... but one RAM module is always ~ 60 C:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. kirkbross macrumors 6502a

    kirkbross

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    I knew it! I feel vindicated. I had suspicions about this but several people posted how it was next to impossible that it would be the hotter "X" flavor of the 5472 -- for various reasons. Ha!:D

    I still think people who order the 3.0 model in a few months might end up with the E flavor since I think that's all that Intel is making now.
     
  6. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #6
    It wasn't that it was impossible for it to be the X flavour, it was that it was more likely to be the E5472 from the information we had.

    I'm still wondering what the Xserve is using, I'd be very suprised if that was the X5472.
     
  7. newtech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #7
    Sore "winner". ( BTW if you search a bit, I conceded ( quietly ) that it was X5472 a while back based on Geekbench results ).
     
  8. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #8
    It would be nice if someone with a 2.8GHz could show us the same chart so I could compared temperatures.
     
  9. kirkbross macrumors 6502a

    kirkbross

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    Well, I still think we'll both be right in the end. Wasn't the 120W version just the first run or something and from now on they're all 80W?
     
  10. newtech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #10
    I sincerely hope so. :D
     
  11. Reach macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Norway
    #11
    So, maybe those of us that ordered the 8800 would actually get some good for waiting then.. Dump all the x-ones in the first machines shipped with the ATI-cards! :)

    I'm considering cancelling my 3ghz, but need some more info on performance, heat etc..
     
  12. kirkbross macrumors 6502a

    kirkbross

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #12
    Do you have a 3.0 (w/8800GT) on order? Maybe cancel it and wait another week or two and see if anyone posts a screen shot with an E5472. I think the BTO waiting time will even out to 3-4 days pretty soon after 10.5.2 and the the 8800 starts to ship.

    If the 80W version DOES show up in some Mac Pros, waiting seems to be the only course of action to insure you don't end up with an earlier batch X5472.
     
  13. SCLlama macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    #13
    FWIW, my 3.0 is dead quiet. When I first turned it on (With my G5 next to it ON as well), I thought it was a bit loud. Then, I turned my G5 off, and my room went near silent. Especially after swapping the HD for a 750GB Samsung. The stock HD was the only thing that made any significant noise.

    I also gave it a good workout with Logic running a ton of plug-ins/Virtual Instruments for 6-7 hours. After all of that, I touched the front and back of the computer and it was ice cold. This is by no means scientific, but my G5 used to get warm after pushing that hard (relative to the power of the comp) for a while.

    I am not an expert, but I can't imagine I would know the difference if it had the 80w version. Maybe it'll cost me a couple bucks on my energy bill at the end of every other month, but performance wise, I can't imagine the difference is anything anyone would notice. And if it's enough to deter you from going 3.0, you're probably better off going with the 2.8 regardless.
     
  14. Boemer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    #14
    I just change my order from 3Ghz to 2.8Ghz, I didn't like to benchmarks for the 3Ghz in comparison with the 2.8Ghz. And I didn't like they took the 120W version. The difference with the 2.8 Ghz is only less then 400 euro, but they still take the cheaper version (X5472), for 700 euro more.

    Too bad, they said it was almost finished building. I think they are probably only missing the Nvidia card, which has been missing for the last few weeks... At least I saved some money for some extra memory.
     
  15. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #15
    I am scared!

    Thank you for the review.
    Truth is I would probably cancel my 3.0GHz order in favor of the 2.8 but I don't want to wait still yet another couple weeks.

    You are the smart one. That is probably what I should do.

    That's a very good point.
    The X5472 price is $958. The E5472 price is $1022.
    Yet I am paying 800 dollars extra for the cheaper X5472 processor.
    When it comes to the 3.0GHz processor, Apple really is putting the screws to us!
     
  16. Boemer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    #16
    Apple said they updated the macmini with a better processor, without telling everone, well nice of them, but I never bought a macmini. This is going to be my first mac...

    Damn now I have to wait an other 2 weeks extra, my order will first arive on the 6th of March, after having waited for almost 2 months... If I didn't want that nvidia, I would have bought a Mac Pro weeks ago.

    Well I'm surely going to get it with 10.5.2. Can't imagine them taking that long....
     
  17. dcnblues macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    #17
    I started a thread on this, but some douchbag closed it:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=414541

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#5400-series_Harpertown_and_5200-series_Wolfdale
     
  18. MacProUser macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Cologne, Germany
    #18
  19. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #19
    You started two posts on the same subject.
    Your post: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=414528

    Take a look at Eidorian’s post #12. He even provided a chart for you.

    The following is from Wiki:
    Look carefully and you will (may) find that there are two 3.0GHz processors.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Reach macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Norway
    #20
    So, now that people are starting to get their "newer" new Mac Pros, is it still all X's? Could people please check?
     
  21. newtech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #21
    Hmmm.. found the E5472 in a Mac on Geekbench2 ressults


    9757 Xserve (Early 2008) (1 day ago)
    Model: Xserve (Early 2008)
    Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5472 @ 3.00GHz
    Platform: Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
    bivaughn

    And in an Mac Pro 3,1

    8178 MacPro3,1 (11 days ago)
    Model: MacPro3,1
    Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5472 @ 3.00GHz
    Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)


    Houston the E(5472)agle has landed :D
     
  22. Topper thread starter macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #22
    I got your edit.
    That is extremely good news, thank you.
    Where did you find the 8178 Mac Pro?
     
  23. newtech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #23
    Browsed similar on MacPro3,1 in Geekbench2 results site. 8178 is the geekbench2 score.
     

Share This Page