Mac Pro CPU Compatibility List

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by ActionableMango, Feb 5, 2016.

Thread Status:
The first post in this thread is a WikiPost, and can be edited by anyone with the appropriate permissions.
  1. DPUser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    #26
    I'd like to see a credit for MacEFIRom and Netkas, as without the linked firmware updater, much of what is possible would not be possible.
     
  2. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #27
    You can add X5472, X5450 and X5460 to 3,1 table.
     
  3. NOTNlCE macrumors 6502a

    NOTNlCE

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Location:
    DMV Area
    #28
    Good to know. All I can do is report what I've got. Hope this info helps someone!
     
  4. ActionableMango thread starter macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #29
    Thank you. That's an embarrassing omission on my part, and I've fixed it.
     
  5. NOTNlCE macrumors 6502a

    NOTNlCE

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Location:
    DMV Area
    #30
    A note - the Clovertown CPUs in the chart are all 4 Core CPUs, the L5335s, L5320s, and E5320s are listed as "2 Core" currently.
     
  6. ActionableMango thread starter macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #31
    Thanks, I've fixed it.
     
  7. r6mile macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #32
    Is there any noticeable difference between the stock 2.8 E5462 in the 3,1 Mac Pro and the 3.16 X5460?
     
  8. bokkow macrumors 6502

    bokkow

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #33
    Hard to say, same can be questioned for every CPU that is close to another in terms of cores / clockspeed. I don't think it would be noticeable in everyday use but it would shave off some seconds for other full load tasks.
     
  9. r6mile macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #34
    Thanks - I don't think I'll end up bothering as the costs (and risks of breaking something) is greater than the marginal benefit of a slightly better CPU. I was just curious!
     
  10. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #35
    Depends on usage. In single threaded tasks it's 10% faster than 5462, in multi threaded about 8%.
    There's no practical sense in upgrading 3,1 CPUs at all, except the situation when you have an uniprocessor one.
    Here gain is pretty good.
    https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1835159
     
  11. tampano macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2016
    #36
    Amazing article! I have a 5,1 with a single 2,8 GHz Quad-Core Xeon (W3530?) and I'll definetely study what options I have.

    An idea...it would be interesting if more experienced users could link good places to shop for CPU's.

    Thanks again
     
  12. h9826790 macrumors G3

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #37
    The good link's CPU sell fast. Anyway, some users suggest that get a whole used server and only extract the CPU is cheaper than just buy the CPU. And the CPU in the server most likely never be OCed, always have proper cooling, etc. You can also sell the parts you don't need, which get some money back.
     
  13. tampano macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2016
    #38
    Good point. But this means also researching what servers contain what CPU. Maybe worth investigating, but as a Mac user since too many years my knowledge of other servers is very poor :)
     
  14. nigelbb macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    #39
    In single-threaded performance the fastest 3,1 processor the 3.2 GHz X5482 is 98% of the performance of the fastest Apple configured 5,1 (3.07GHz X5675) & 90% of the performance of fastest possible 5,1 CPU (3.46GHz X5690).

    This demonstrates two things, firstly that the 2008 Mac Pro 3,1 still has very decent performance for today's applications & secondly that Moore's Law ran out of steam some years ago in terms of single stream performance.
     
  15. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #40
    Unfortunately, you can't compare GHz for GHz in that manner. There are lots of other things that figure in to the equation. Here's 3GHz vs 2.93GHz...

    Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 9.59.23 AM.png Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 9.58.27 AM.png
     
  16. flehman macrumors 6502

    flehman

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    #41
    Agreed. I owned a 3,1 and then a 4,1->5,1 and there are pronounced differences in logic board, memory speed, PCIE lanes, etc. that all impact performance. Even the CPUs are significantly different in that they support virtual cores.
     
  17. nigelbb macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    #42
    I wasn't comparing GHz as it doesn't make sense with different architectures. I was quoting benchmark figures for the Xeon processors.

    CPUMark

    Intel Xeon X5482 @ 3.20GHz Single Thread Rating: 1379
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5482+@+3.20GHz

    Intel Xeon X5675 @ 3.07GHz Single Thread Rating: 1405
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5675+@+3.07GHz

    Intel Xeon X5690 @ 3.47GHz Single Thread Rating: 1520
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5690+@+3.47GHz

    Incidentally those two Geekbench results are not comparable as they are two different versions of Geekbench & two different versions of OS X. I was also quoting the X5482 2.2GHz part which has a Geekbench single core score of 1872 which is still 87% of the single core performance of the 2.93GHz X5570 you quote.

    Bottom line the single threaded application performance of the Mac Pro 3,1 is still pretty decent compared to the 5,1 & single threaded CPU performance barely increased in five years.
     
  18. flehman macrumors 6502

    flehman

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    #43
    The 3,1 CPUs run off a 3,1 logic board with 3,1 memory and all the other attending differences. Their performance suffers accordingly compared to a 4,1 or 5,1. Bottom line this affects single core performance, multi core performance, everything. A 3,1 will not fare well against a 5,1 with an upgraded CPU in any context. Enjoy the thin gruel of these benchmarks.
     
  19. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #44
    Believe what you like, but a Mac Pro 3,1 with 3.2GHz X5482 does NOT give 98% the performance of a Mac Pro 5,1 with 3.07GHz X5675. It's not even close.
     
  20. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #45
    Much depends on testing method. In some cases it will be close (where RAM speed does not matter that much), in other it won't.
    Let's take the Cinebench R15 Single Core test: 5482 - 88 pts, 5690 - 111 pts. Hell, 5675 scores 82 pts in this test.
     
  21. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #47
    I was referring to this one, because it lists OS version and machine type, as results may vary a little between platforms and OSes: http://cbscores.com/
     
  22. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #48
    Even there, the X5675 and X5482 were on different OS X versions.
     
  23. nigelbb macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    #49
    I don't know I don't have a 5,1 but all the benchmarks you keep linking to show that the single threaded CPU performance of the 3.20GHz X5482 is pretty comparable to the Xeons in the 5,1 e.g.
    X5670 97-99
    X5482 88
    i.e. the 5482 is 90% of the performance of the X5670 That looks pretty close to me. It's not like comparing them with the latest iMac where the 4.0GHz Core i7-6700K is double the speed of the X56xx processors.
     
  24. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #50
    It's difficult to put a quantitative value on it... There's nothing like sitting down and using both yourself to feel and judge for yourself how much of a difference there is. Personally, I've gone through a 1,1, a 3,1, and a 5,1. Going from 3,1 was a huge leap forward for me.

    I haven't done much reading about the iMacs and haven't use one for more than a few minutes so I can't say how much truth there is to the "double the speed" claims.
     
Thread Status:
The first post in this thread is a WikiPost, and can be edited by anyone with the appropriate permissions.

Share This Page