Mac Pro (Late 2013) - 3.7GHz Quad to 3.7GHz Hex (E5-1620 v2 to E5-1660 v2) - Results

[RyanXM]

Geekbench Version - 4.2.0

E5-1620 v2 Results - http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/5092610
E5-1660 v2 Results - http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/5166319

Some might ask why I'm posting this after so many years, but I searched and searched and was unable to find any results for the 3.7GHz 6-Core E5-1660 v2. As you can see from the results, this benches very well and can keeps up with the 3.0GHz 8-Core E5-1680 v2.

 

[Dr. Stealth]

2010 Mac Pro....

 

[RyanXM]

2010 Mac Pro....

I'm assuming this is the system in your sig.

The funniest part about my Mac Pro, it is simply a server for AST/ASD/NetInstall and going to be taking over DHCP/DNS duties as well. Moving on from a 2012 2.6GHz Mac mini that scores 12,000 or so on Geekbench 4.2.0.

 

[pl1984]

Geekbench Version - 4.2.0

E5-1620 v2 Results - http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/5092610
E5-1660 v2 Results - http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/5166319

Some might ask why I'm posting this after so many years, but I searched and searched and was unable to find any results for the 3.7GHz 6-Core E5-1660 v2. As you can see from the results, this benches very well and can keeps up with the 3.0GHz 8-Core E5-1680 v2.

Most likely the result of Apple using the E5-1650v2 processor in the hexa-core 6,1 Mac Pro and not the E5-1660v2.

 

[RyanXM]

Most likely the result of Apple using the E5-1650v2 processor in the hexa-core 6,1 Mac Pro and not the E5-1660v2.

Yup. Given that the 1660 is compatible, I would've assumed I would be able to find a benchmark for it. Hence my post. I couldn't find a single one after at least 10 hours of dedicated searching for one.

 

[Dr. Stealth]

I may have had a cocktail or two before I posted that. Didn't intentionally mean to rain on your parade. Your upgrade was very significant. Your single-core score is very high and will no doubt increase your performance for your server.

I bow out now.... My respect.

 

[RyanXM]

I may have had a cocktail or two before I posted that. Didn't intentionally mean to rain on your parade. Your upgrade was very significant. Your single-core score is very high and will no doubt increase your performance for your server.

I bow out now.... My respect.

Not a worry here. I was just wanting to clarify if said Geekbench was from the system in your signature.

I've been a long time lurker and thought I'd start sharing my experiences and help out more. Having worked for The Fruit Stand company....

 

[pl1984]

Yup. Given that the 1660 is compatible, I would've assumed I would be able to find a benchmark for it. Hence my post. I couldn't find a single one after at least 10 hours of dedicated searching for one.

I think the majority of Mac Pro CPU upgrades are performed by the secondary market. While there are a number of nMP's available on the secondary market the high price, even for the entry level configuration, might limit the number of people willing to upgrade the CPU.

I do see a number of Ebay listings where the seller is selling a non-standard offering CPU as an upgrade. Very similar to what you did with yours. I'm specifically thinking of one regarding the eight core CPU that offers a higher clock frequency over the Apple standard.

What these upgrades show is Apple could have at least offered a minor clock speed bump in the nMP. The CPU's exist and Apple should be able to switch to them with minimal impact.

 

[MarkJames68]

I think the majority of Mac Pro CPU upgrades are performed by the secondary market. While there are a number of nMP's available on the secondary market the high price, even for the entry level configuration, might limit the number of people willing to upgrade the CPU.

I do see a number of Ebay listings where the seller is selling a non-standard offering CPU as an upgrade. Very similar to what you did with yours. I'm specifically thinking of one regarding the eight core CPU that offers a higher clock frequency over the Apple standard.

What these upgrades show is Apple could have at least offered a minor clock speed bump in the nMP. The CPU's exist and Apple should be able to switch to them with minimal impact.

E5 2687W v2 or 2667 v2. The W has too high a TDP though. Both turbo to 4GHz.

 

[pl1984]

E5 2687W v2 or 2667 v2. The W has too high a TDP though. Both turbo to 4GHz.

According to the CPU Compatibility guide here on MR there are two compatible 6 core processors: E5-1650 V2 and E5-1660 V2. Both are rated at 130W, the former being the Apple standard. The 8 core is available in four options with one exceeding the 130W power rating of the Apple standard processor. There are two processors which offer higher clock speeds at equal of lower power ratings: E5-2667 V2 and E5-2673 V2. I haven't looked into the details so there may be some other reason Apple has chosen the slower processors. There are also two 10 core processors which have equal or lower power requirements along with a faster 12 core processor with equal power requirements. Of all the processors listed in the 6,1 table only one has a higher power requirement than the stock processors.

 

[MarkJames68]

According to the CPU Compatibility guide here on MR there are two compatible 6 core processors: E5-1650 V2 and E5-1660 V2. Both are rated at 130W, the former being the Apple standard. The 8 core is available in four options with one exceeding the 130W power rating of the Apple standard processor. There are two processors which offer higher clock speeds at equal of lower power ratings: E5-2667 V2 and E5-2673 V2. I haven't looked into the details so there may be some other reason Apple has chosen the slower processors. There are also two 10 core processors which have equal or lower power requirements along with a faster 12 core processor with equal power requirements. Of all the processors listed in the 6,1 table only one has a higher power requirement than the stock processors.

I run the 2667, and it’s a great match - fastest 8 core. Note the standard 4, 6 and 8 are single-supported CPUs only which fits the 6,1. The 12 supports dual but I’m sure Apple used it as it was the highest performing option.