Mac pro question ...

[Macx80]

Hi all,
Iam new here but not in mac world, but just to be sure i got question...
I want to build up a cheap mac pro with a old 5.1 tower(2.8 xeon W3530) i want to upgrade it to a xeon W3690 3.46 but it a 32nm it will work? 3530 is 45nm. i read Mac Pro cpu compatibility list thread but i just want to be sure iam not wrong. And is there any stronger cpu i can install? I saw i7 990x can work too but as lower memory bandwidth (1066) so witch can be better? Yes it for gaming (wow). i think the w3690 is better because of the memory no?

 

[h9826790]

Hi all,
Iam new here but not in mac world, but just to be sure i got question...
I want to build up a cheap mac pro with a old 5.1 tower(2.8 xeon W3530) i want to upgrade it to a xeon W3690 3.46 but it a 32nm it will work? 3530 is 45nm. i read Mac Pro cpu compatibility list thread but i just want to be sure iam not wrong. And is there any stronger cpu i can install? I saw i7 990x can work too but as lower memory bandwidth (1066) so witch can be better? Yes it for gaming (wow). i think the w3690 is better because of the memory no?

Yes, the W3690 will work on a single processor Mac Pro 5,1.

For speed, no, no CPU is faster than W3690 on 5,1.

For function, X5690 is a bit stronger because can handle more RAM (W3690 limited to 56GB at this moment, X5690 can boot with 64GB).

There is almost zero benefit to run 990X on 5,1. The Xeon is cheap now, ECC RAM is even cheaper than normal desktop DDR3 RAM. And W3690 has higher memory bandwidth.

For gaming, W3690 should be the best choice on 5,1. I don't think any game will use more than 48GB RAM. And games usually use 4 cores or less. Hex cores make sure there is about 2 cores free to handle the background stuff. I know it has 12 logical cores, but sometimes only physical cores matters when talking about raw performance.

Anyway, still the same suggestion. For casual gaming, and if you already has a 5,1. W3690 + decent GPU is good enough. Especially if you talking about gaming under MacOS, 5,1 is the best choice in many point of view.

However, for any serious gaming. Windows is the way to go, and a cheap gaming PC can easily beat the 5,1 no matter how you upgrade the 5,1. W3690 is good for multi thread operation. And it is a good OC chip in a normal PC. But on a 5,1, you can't OC it. And gaming usually very single thread performance limiting.

 

[fendersrule]

Yep. In general that's all true and well stated. W3690 or X5690 are the kings. The X5690 are more readily available and cheaper, so I'd go with that.

If you game at 1440p or above, the 5,1 really isn't all that limiting to my knowledge. At-least in the synthetic benchmarks that I've seen on the 3.46GHz Westmere. Check out the VR page on this forum. In Super Position, the I7 7700 with a 1080ti showed no difference over a Westmere 3.46Ghz with a 1080ti, even at 1080p resolutions, though I wouldn't necessarily say that's true for real gaming benchmarks. I'd expect a i7 7700k to be significantly faster (non-OC'ed) than a Westmere 3.46Ghz at 1080p resolutions. I wouldn't expect a whole lot of difference at 1440p or 2k resolutions though. I could be wrong, but I'd love to see the data.

One thing is for sure: you need Windows if you want to do major gaming.

Like h9826790 says, the a cheap gaming PC is just better to go about doing it. But I wouldn't necessarily be worried if you built up a 5,1 Mac Pro to play with the big dogs though, as long as you're gaming at high resolution and taking off CPU load, you have lots of good GTX options. If a 5,1 can run VR, it's not going to be a bad gaming rig at all.

 

[Macx80]

Yes, the W3690 will work on a single processor Mac Pro 5,1.

For speed, no, no CPU is faster than W3690 on 5,1.

For function, X5690 is a bit stronger because can handle more RAM (W3690 limited to 56GB at this moment, X5690 can boot with 64GB).

There is almost zero benefit to run 990X on 5,1. The Xeon is cheap now, ECC RAM is even cheaper than normal desktop DDR3 RAM. And W3690 has higher memory bandwidth.

For gaming, W3690 should be the best choice on 5,1. I don't think any game will use more than 48GB RAM. And games usually use 4 cores or less. Hex cores make sure there is about 2 cores free to handle the background stuff. I know it has 12 logical cores, but sometimes only physical cores matters when talking about raw performance.

Anyway, still the same suggestion. For casual gaming, and if you already has a 5,1. W3690 + decent GPU is good enough. Especially if you talking about gaming under MacOS, 5,1 is the best choice in many point of view.

However, for any serious gaming. Windows is the way to go, and a cheap gaming PC can easily beat the 5,1 no matter how you upgrade the 5,1. W3690 is good for multi thread operation. And it is a good OC chip in a normal PC. But on a 5,1, you can't OC it. And gaming usually very single thread performance limiting.

Tank you, most of the time i play World of warcraft and my daughter play sims4 rest of the time it internet, youtube etc...
[doublepost=1500060176][/doublepost]

Yep. In general that's all true and well stated. W3690 or X5690 are the kings. The X5690 are more readily available and cheaper, so I'd go with that.

If you game at 1440p or above, the 5,1 really isn't all that limiting to my knowledge. At-least in the synthetic benchmarks that I've seen on the 3.46GHz Westmere. Check out the VR page on this forum. In Super Position, the I7 7700 with a 1080ti showed no difference over a Westmere 3.46Ghz with a 1080ti, even at 1080p resolutions, though I wouldn't necessarily say that's true for real gaming benchmarks. I'd expect a i7 7700k to be significantly faster (non-OC'ed) than a Westmere 3.46Ghz at 1080p resolutions. I wouldn't expect a whole lot of difference at 1440p or 2k resolutions though. I could be wrong, but I'd love to see the data.

One thing is for sure: you need Windows if you want to do major gaming.

Like h9826790 says, the a cheap gaming PC is just better to go about doing it. But I wouldn't necessarily be worried if you built up a 5,1 Mac Pro to play with the big dogs though, as long as you're gaming at high resolution and taking off CPU load, you have lots of good GTX options. If a 5,1 can run VR, it's not going to be a bad gaming rig at all.

For gpu i was thinking for mid cheap card like MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GAMING 4G at 200$

 

[fendersrule]

It's a bad time to buy a GPU right now, unless you're able to make a killing on Craigslist like I did with a hardly used 7950 (R9 280) for $70. The 1050's IMO isn't worth over $150, max. $200 is over the MSRP price due to the miners.

The 1050Ti is not a bad card. It's on par with a R9 280x. Meaning, it's a decent 1080p card. Brand new triple A titles with a 1050Ti and a Mac Pro 3.46Ghz you may need to lower some settings at 1080p. Slightly older games would probably run great at 1440p (40-60 FPS) and definitely butter at 1080p maxed. That may be fine and fit your need, but honestly, I would wait it out a bit on the GPUs and shoot for no less than a GTX 1060. GTX 1060s are SUPPOSED to be $200-$250 right now, and they are quite a bit faster than the 1050Ti. GTX 1060's are also the ideal card for price/performance for 1080p....you won't be disapointed. With a 1050Ti in 1080p, you're not really that future proofed, and you also are trying to battle, if true, a CPU bound system.

It all depends on what type of gaming you want. Is this your primary gaming rig? Do you see VR in the future? Do you want to run at 1440p resolutions? If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, you should get something more than a 1050Ti.

If it helps, I run an OC 7950 in my 3.46 5,1 which performs not quite at the level of an R9 280x, but close. For slightly older games I'm able to get 45-60FPS at 1440p maxed (I leave FSAA off). Dirt 3 averages 80+ FPS at 1440p maxed. I've never ran a triple A modern title through the paces at 1440p maxed with my setup, but I wouldn't expect myself to be too terribly happy with the results. However, I love my card for what it is, and I'm in no hurry to buy a new GPU until prices drop. I'm able to play all the games that my friends play (TF2, Killing Floor, Vermintide) at 1440p maxed and I'm pretty happy.

Stuff like Starcraft 2, Diablo III, Valve games are complete butter at 1440p maxed with my setup. So much butter than a 140Hz screen should be considered...

 

[Macx80]

It's a bad time to buy a GPU right now, unless you're able to make a killing on Craigslist like I did with a hardly used 7950 (R9 280) for $70. The 1050's IMO isn't worth over $150, max. $200 is over the MSRP price due to the miners.

The 1050Ti is not a bad card. It's on par with a R9 280x. Meaning, it's a decent 1080p card. Brand new triple A titles with a 1050Ti and a Mac Pro 3.46Ghz you may need to lower some settings at 1080p. Slightly older games would probably run great at 1440p (40-60 FPS) and definitely butter at 1080p maxed. That may be fine and fit your need, but honestly, I would wait it out a bit on the GPUs and shoot for no less than a GTX 1060. GTX 1060s are SUPPOSED to be $200-$250 right now, and they are quite a bit faster than the 1050Ti.

It all depends on what type of gaming you want. Is this your primary gaming rig? Do you see VR in the future? Do you want to run at 1440p resolutions? If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, you should get something more than a 1050Ti.

ok tanks i check for a 1060, it a med-gaming mac, most of my game is on ps4. i play only MMO games on my mac. i play wow almost since vanilla .. Iam on a old 2011 iMac i5 2,5 and cd drive dont work anymore... tanks you for all the reply.