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

Mac Pro 5,1 - E5620 to W5590 CPUs

flowrider

flowrider

macrumors 604
Original poster
Nov 23, 2012
7,326
3,007
Thanks to Thomaspin for his post and blog on how he upgraded his 4,1 machine to use the W5590 (4 core, 3.33 GHz) CPUs:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1609476/

I had been contemplating upgrading to X5570s due to the lower TDP, but Thomasspin's post and blog convinced me that the W5590s would run OK.

My machine is a 2010 5,1 and came with E5620s (4 Core, 2.40 GHz). The Upgrade was far easier than the 4,1 due to the CPU carriers design utilizing the CPU holding mechanism and CPUs that utilize an Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS).

I had never replaced CPUs before, and was somewhat trepidatious about trying this but, I downloaded this excellent Apple Guide:

http://tim.id.au/laptops/apple/macpro/macpro_mid2010.pdf

I printed and bound it, and read and re-read the sections on Heatsink and CPU replacement until I could recite it in my sleep. The Thermal Grease and long 3mm socket arrived in the mail on Wednesday and the CPUs (refurb units sourced from ebay) followed the next afternoon.

I powered down the machine before supper and pulled the power plug. After supper I threw caution to the wind and opened my one month old machine and pulled out the processor tray. Thirty minutes later, all was complete and I powered the machine on. I was greeted by the White LED along with the Start-Up Chime. It appears that I had done it right:eek:

I was somewhat disappointed by the after Geekbench score, I was expecting something closer to 20K, but my results are a solid improvement of 35%.

The machine does run hotter (by 10° to 15°) and I am now using smcFanControl to speed up the fans. According my my UPS my wattage load has increased from about 250 watts to 340 watts.

My Before and After Geekbench scores are attached.

Lou
 

Attachments

  • E5620 Geekbench.jpg
    E5620 Geekbench.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 682
  • My W5990 Geekbench.jpg
    My W5990 Geekbench.jpg
    71.1 KB · Views: 621
First, thanks for your post. I was also thinking about W5590 upgrade since the price has come down recently, but I am a little puzzled at your results on both wattage and GB score. The author of this link mentioned (toward the end of the article) that his W5590 upgrade on an MP4,1 only caused 3℃ temperature increase and a GB score of 20643. Did you happen to get the production or ES version of the W5590? I understand that Nehalem core is less efficient than that of Westmere, but 10° to 15° increase makes me wonder a bit unless you were referring to Fahrenheit instead.
 
^^^^Yes, sorry, I am American and sometimes tend to forget that not all us use the Fahrenheit temp. scale.

Also, IIRC something changed with either the OS or Geekbench about the time of the release of 10.8.3. There was much chatter on various Mac sites about scores going down. As far as my score goes, The Geekbench website shows that the 2009 4,1 Mac Pro with two X5570s (The top processor for the 4,1) scores 17,537 in 64 bit. So, maybe my score is not that far off. But, it also shows my previous configuration (5,1 with 2 E5620s) scores 14,146 where my machine scored 13,579.

Oh, I do have the production version of the W5590, not an engineering sample. The marking on the chip was quite clear.

Don't know if anything I've said makes any sense:confused:

Lou
 
Last edited:
Maybe a little sense after all:eek:

I have OS an 10.7.5 on an external Firewire 400 HDD. I ran Geekbench from the old OS and got the attached score. Much closer to my hoped for goal of 20K.

Lou
 

Attachments

  • W5590 in 10.75 Geekbench.jpg
    W5590 in 10.75 Geekbench.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 424
flowrider said:
I have OS an 10.7.5 on an external Firewire 400 HDD. I ran Geekbench from the old OS and got the attached score. Much closer to my hoped for goal of 20K.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe that changing OS X version would make such an improvement.
 
E5620 to W5590 to X5677 CPUs

I have since upgraded again, this time to X5677. I stayed with 8 cores because for what I do I believe 12 cores would be a waste. Also I thought the 8 fast cores would run cooler and consume less power than 12 fast cores.

Lou
 

Attachments

  • X5677 Geekbench.jpg
    X5677 Geekbench.jpg
    150.9 KB · Views: 395
flowrider said:
I have since upgraded again, this time to X5677. I stayed with 8 cores because for what I do I believe 12 cores would be a waste. Also I thought the 8 fast cores would run cooler and consume less power than 12 fast cores.

Lou
Click to expand...

May i know how much power draw from a single 5677 under full load？（e.g. the average current shows in iStat when running GeekBench stress test) I would like to know how much less power it consume compare to my Hex core (W3690, I assume it's power comsumption is very very close to the 5690).

Intel state that both 5677 and 5690 may draw up to 130W, which sounds very interesting to me. Same speed, same technology, 2 more cores, but the same power consumption.
 
^^^^Sorry I didn't answer this sooner. CPU - 46 Watts, CPU Front Side Bus Termination - 21 Watts.

Lou
 
^^^^Well, Intel has changed what the leading Alpha means. The change happened when going from the 35XX (55XX) to the 36XX (56XX) series.

In the older series it meant:

E = Enterprise and CPUs with a TDP of 80 Watts
X = Accelerated and CPUs with a TDP of 95 Watts
W = Workstation and CPUs with a TDP of 130 Watts

and in every case the leading numeric after the alpha meant:

3 = for single CPU use only (1 x I/O Bus)
5 = for dual CPU use, but will work in single CPU applications (2 x I/O Bus)

With the later series, the above nomenclature rules stayed constant EXCEPT - The "X" prefix means accelerated (95 or 130 watt TDP) and is only used on CPUs with a 2 x I/O bus. The "W" prefix is now used only in the single CPU series (1 X I/O Bus).

In any case in both series, the meaning of leading numeric after the alpha has remained the same. A "3" for CPUs with a 1 x I/O bus and a "5" for CPUs with a 2 X I/O Bus.

I hope this makes sense to you. It took me awhile to figure it out.

Lou
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Reindeer_Games
flowrider said:
Maybe a little sense after all:eek:

I have OS an 10.7.5 on an external Firewire 400 HDD. I ran Geekbench from the old OS and got the attached score. Much closer to my hoped for goal of 20K.

Lou
Click to expand...

I successfully upgraded my procs today but I'm falling 1000-2000 points short of my expected Geekbench 64bit multi score of around 32000. Do you think it's because I'm running Yosemite?
 
From what I have seen, Geekbench scores are lower since I have upgraded to yosemite. Mostly memory performance scores are quite a bit lower compared to mavericks.
 
JronMasteR said:
From what I have seen, Geekbench scores are lower since I have upgraded to yosemite. Mostly memory performance scores are quite a bit lower compared to mavericks.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm going to boot to my old Lion drive later and run the test from there for comparison. I'll post the results once done.
 
Hmmm - so I booted from the 10.8.5 Lion drive and the Geekbench 64bit multi score is still not quite right at around 30300. Just switched back to Yosemite and I’m getting around 31000. It must be my RAM config of 4x8gb sticks. Will research further.
 
I just did the same thing. Performance as for GeekBench and Cinebench (CPU only) boosted by a meere 33% (but for just 150$...) but heat is greater: I'm encoding with Handbrake at full 1500/1600% CPU and fans are at 3.900 RPM. Regardless this, they're very loud. When I had the two 2,4Ghz CPUs there was no fan noise at all. Anyway, I do not encode everyday and normal tasks don't push the fans, neither a hardly encoded x264 full HD. RAM is now running at 1333, previously at 1067.
Simon
 
majortom67 said:
I just did the same thing. Performance as for GeekBench and Cinebench (CPU only) boosted by a meere 33% (but for just 150$...) but heat is greater: I'm encoding with Handbrake at full 1500/1600% CPU and fans are at 3.900 RPM. Regardless this, they're very loud. When I had the two 2,4Ghz CPUs there was no fan noise at all. Anyway, I do not encode everyday and normal tasks don't push the fans, neither a hardly encoded x264 full HD. RAM is now running at 1333, previously at 1067.
Simon
Click to expand...

Did you upgrade a 4,1 2009 machine? Ifso, did you add the extra thermal pads?
 
So the xeons in the 2010 2.4 8-core mac pro has the IHS?

I want to replace this processors but don't know which processor choose, with IHS o without it...
 
I know this is a little old.

But I have a Mac Pro 4,1 that is a 2.26 Quad Core Xeon. What CPU upgrades are recommended for a single CPU MP?
 
^^^^Much discussion on this very subject on this forum.

W3680, W3690, X5680 or X5690 will all work and fit quite nicely in your 4,1 Mac Pro. They are all six core, and will give your machine a nice boost in performance. Since it's a single CPU 2009 Model, a stock Intel CPU will fit just fine with no modifications needed.

Lou
 
alesi said:
Thank you!

I´ll buy 2x5670... for my mac pro.
Click to expand...

2 x 5670 installed today and running perfect. It was really easy. Almost same temperature than before. 2ºC less on idle and 4-5ºC more under load.

idle:
CPU A: 34ºC
CPU B: 27ºC

Load:
CPU A: 59ºC
CPU B: 51ºC
 
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