Mac Pro (1,1) Processor Upgrade Recommendations

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by tayloralmond, Apr 15, 2012.

  1. tayloralmond macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #1
    Hello All,

    I have a Mac Pro (1,1) 2xDual 2.66GHz. I've been eying a few Intel processors to swap out for better performance. The ones I've found to be the best deal are the Quad Core L5320's (1.86GHz) which can be purchased used for as low as $17 shipped on eBay...so around $35 for two, obviously. For such a low price, I'd think it's a no brainer to purchase these and have a 2x Quad setup. Does anyone disagree? Also, would I need to purchase any additional parts in order to make this work? Thanks for the help everyone.
     
  2. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #2
    With anything single-threaded or that can't use more than 4 cores, you'll see a massive drop in performance. It's only a good deal if everything you're doing with the machine takes full advantage of all 8 cores.
     
  3. ssgbryan macrumors 6502a

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #3
    I'd go with Xeon 5355's. I have seen them as low as $73.00 on pricewatch.
     
  4. tayloralmond, Apr 15, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2012

    tayloralmond thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #4
    True...it just seemed like such a great deal to nearly double the processing power of my Mac Pro.

    ----------

    I'll keep an eye out for a good deal. I'm just a bit skeptical if it's worth spending $150+ for two 5355's when two 5320's can be had for literally $30.
     
  5. wallysb01 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    #5
    Right, its just $30, but its not really that much of an improvement. You have to use on average 6 cores to make that basically money neutral change worth it. If its me, I don't even bother. Not because of the money, but because of the time. It just won't be worth the labor to swap them out. If you're looking at something that needs to be nearly free, why not the 5345s? Only a .33 GHz hit on the clock, as opposed to the .8 you're looking at.
     
  6. tayloralmond thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #6
    I'll check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.
     
  7. tayloralmond thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #7
    Hey everyone, I ended up going with the L5320 1.86 GHz processors. I ran a quick GeekBench test before/after the upgrade to verify my performance improvement and attached the photos. Also, I'm running OS X on a SSD so I'm sure that helped on both tests. It may not be leaps and bounds better, but for $30, it's a pretty sweet deal.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. peabo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #8
    Your geekbench score only shows what your machine can do at max capacity. I just hope you're using all 8 cores for whatever you'll be doing with the machine or you've essentially paid $30 for a downgrade. For example, your old machine got a geekbench score of 6246 using 4 cores whereas your new machine would only get around 3671.
     
  9. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #9
    WTH? Did you BESL mod? BESL MOD those guys. I did that a month back and it goes out at 8600+ on 64-bit.
     
  10. tayloralmond thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #10
    Any chance you could post a link to a tutorial?
     
  11. Supermacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    #12
    I just got 2x of the Xeon x5365 on ebay for $350 for the pair. There were/are many of them these days.
     
  12. tayloralmond thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #13

    Attached Files:

  13. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #14
    Well done. I just ran Geekbench again and got close to the same. Did the mod a few weeks ago and can't believe it was just $35 to bump this old thing 60+%.
     
  14. tayloralmond thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #15
    That's exactly what I thought. I'd like to have gotten faster processors, but for the money, this is easily the best option.
     
  15. Mengele, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012

    Mengele macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    #16
    What a ripoff.

    Amazon has dual core 3.0GHz CPUs for $33, they will walk all over your 1.86 system in every-day use (meaning the 98% of things you do that don't use all 8 cores).
     
  16. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #18
    Yeah but wouldn't a better choice be like every one else does and pick up 2 X5355's off ebay for a total of $100? Yes single threaded the 5160's would win, but for everything else the 8 cores @ 2.66ghz would crush it. Besides going from 4 cores at 2.66 to 4 cores at 3.0 really isn't worth it. You would go from what maybe a geekbench score of 5200 to maybe 6000? Further the OP overclocked his 1.86's to 2.33ghz in the end, so in the end his processors would be a little slower in day to day tasks but in highly threaded situations would crush the 5160's (i.e. handbrake, FCPX, etc.).
     
  17. Mengele macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    #19
    That would be $100 wasted since there would be no increase in performance for 98% of apps.

    For $66 and 30 minutes labor its 100% worth it!

    Actually it went from 6211 to 6975.
    So my 4x3.0 is only 367 points lower than his 8x1.83 and everything feels faster, not just a few highly multithreaded apps like handbrake.
     
  18. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #20
    You say that and while an individual application running may not take advantage, you can run dozens of apps (as long as you have adequate memory) and they all would be able to run at full speed. Further, many of us use VM's which will take full advantage of multiple processors not to mention I use handbrake on an almost daily basis which does take advantage.

    Just because you have limited needs, does not make it true for the rest of us.

    Again 100 dollars compared to 66 and I have a system that scores 10K instead of less than 7K in geekbench seems worth it.

    ----------

    Further, AGAIN he did the BESL mod to the chips and is now scoring over 9K since they are running at 2.33ghz.
     
  19. Mengele, Aug 11, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012

    Mengele macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    #21
    For those that read this thread at a later date..... Its much better to have a few fast processors than a lot of really slow ones.

    The octo-1.83GHz cpu choice is a very poor option. 98% of normal computer use will actually be slower than the standard 2.66GHz configuration. Its only specialized highly multithreaded apps and people that needlessly run a lot of background apps that might see a small benefit (but each app will still perform slower, limited by the low clock speeds).
    Quad 3.0GHz cpus will result in a much faster real-world machine. Not just one that scores well in synthetic benchmarks or a few highly multithreaded apps.
     
  20. Lesser Evets, Aug 11, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012
  21. Mengele macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    #23
    The driver is easy, Eklind 54630 or Craftsman 47431.

    Again, synthetic benchmarks don't have any relevance to real-world performance.

    Same result, slower app performance for 98% of normal use. :rolleyes:
     
  22. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #24
    And again, for anyone reading this thread at a later date, why would you upgrade from 4 cores at @ 2.66ghz to 4 cores @ 3.0ghz. What benefit is there? Almost none in day to day operations (11% clock speed increase is almost pointless). That small of an increase isn't going to make web browsing, word processing, iTunes any faster. If you really want to unleash the potential of your Mac Pros, then 8 cores at 2.33ghz or better is much better, because this will actually let you do processor intensive (i.e. heavily multi-threaded stuff) much faster than a slight boost in processor speed. In day to day operations, a Xeon processors based on Core2duos at 2.66ghz or 3.0ghz isn't going to be much better.....

    Really what is the point of spending $60+ to go to 4 @ 3.0ghz?

    Going with your belief, then why is anyone buying 8+ core Mac Pros? They are usually clocked lower than the 4-6 Cores? Oh yeah, because people buy Mac Pros to do processor intensive stuff. Otherwise you might as well buy a Mac Mini or iMac.
     
  23. jeffpitman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #25
    Thats the point actually. Web browsing, word processing, and iTunes are single threaded apps, they will not go faster with more cores. 11% boost compaired to 11% decrease is a big change. 8 cores running slower will make all single threaded apps run slower. I for one took the route of going with dual 3Ghz quad cores over dual 2.66 dual cores...wanted to cover both angles.
     

Share This Page