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

Mac Pro’s 3.0GHz 120w X5472 Processor

Topper

Topper

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 17, 2007
1,186
0
Firstyearprof in his post #43 (thread) shows that the 3.0GHZ processor in the Mac Pro is the X5472 120w processor.

Is the X5472 Mac Pro noticeably noisier than the 2.8GHz Mac Pro?
Is it noticeably warmer?
Is anyone now cancelling their 3.0GHz Mac Pro and ordering the 2.8GHz Mac Pro instead?
 
Thanks for all the kudos. Wow. I feel like a celebrity.

Here are the temps (in Celsius) for my comp. I've noticed that my RAM is hotter than I'd like so I've used smcFanControl to bump up the lowest fan speed to 750... but one RAM module is always ~ 60 C:

Temps.png
 
I knew it! I feel vindicated. I had suspicions about this but several people posted how it was next to impossible that it would be the hotter "X" flavor of the 5472 -- for various reasons. Ha!:D

I still think people who order the 3.0 model in a few months might end up with the E flavor since I think that's all that Intel is making now.
 
kirkbross said:
I knew it! I feel vindicated. I had suspicions about this but several people posted how it was next to impossible that it would be the hotter "X" flavor of the 5472 -- for various reasons. Ha!:D

I still think people who order the 3.0 model in a few months might end up with the E flavor since I think that's all that Intel is making now.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that it was impossible for it to be the X flavour, it was that it was more likely to be the E5472 from the information we had.

I'm still wondering what the Xserve is using, I'd be very suprised if that was the X5472.
 
kirkbross said:
I knew it! I feel vindicated. I had suspicions about this but several people posted how it was next to impossible that it would be the hotter "X" flavor of the 5472 -- for various reasons. Ha!:D

I still think people who order the 3.0 model in a few months might end up with the E flavor since I think that's all that Intel is making now.
Click to expand...

Sore "winner". ( BTW if you search a bit, I conceded ( quietly ) that it was X5472 a while back based on Geekbench results ).
 
firstyearprof said:
Here are the temps (in Celsius) for my comp. I've noticed that my RAM is hotter than I'd like so I've used smcFanControl to bump up the lowest fan speed to 750... but one RAM module is always ~ 60 C:
Temps.png
Click to expand...

It would be nice if someone with a 2.8GHz could show us the same chart so I could compared temperatures.
 
newtech said:
Sore "winner". ( BTW if you search a bit, I conceded ( quietly ) that it was X5472 a while back based on Geekbench results ).
Click to expand...
Well, I still think we'll both be right in the end. Wasn't the 120W version just the first run or something and from now on they're all 80W?
 
So, maybe those of us that ordered the 8800 would actually get some good for waiting then.. Dump all the x-ones in the first machines shipped with the ATI-cards! :)

I'm considering cancelling my 3ghz, but need some more info on performance, heat etc..
 
newtech said:
I sincerely hope so. :D
Click to expand...
Do you have a 3.0 (w/8800GT) on order? Maybe cancel it and wait another week or two and see if anyone posts a screen shot with an E5472. I think the BTO waiting time will even out to 3-4 days pretty soon after 10.5.2 and the the 8800 starts to ship.

If the 80W version DOES show up in some Mac Pros, waiting seems to be the only course of action to insure you don't end up with an earlier batch X5472.
 
FWIW, my 3.0 is dead quiet. When I first turned it on (With my G5 next to it ON as well), I thought it was a bit loud. Then, I turned my G5 off, and my room went near silent. Especially after swapping the HD for a 750GB Samsung. The stock HD was the only thing that made any significant noise.

I also gave it a good workout with Logic running a ton of plug-ins/Virtual Instruments for 6-7 hours. After all of that, I touched the front and back of the computer and it was ice cold. This is by no means scientific, but my G5 used to get warm after pushing that hard (relative to the power of the comp) for a while.

I am not an expert, but I can't imagine I would know the difference if it had the 80w version. Maybe it'll cost me a couple bucks on my energy bill at the end of every other month, but performance wise, I can't imagine the difference is anything anyone would notice. And if it's enough to deter you from going 3.0, you're probably better off going with the 2.8 regardless.
 
I just change my order from 3Ghz to 2.8Ghz, I didn't like to benchmarks for the 3Ghz in comparison with the 2.8Ghz. And I didn't like they took the 120W version. The difference with the 2.8 Ghz is only less then 400 euro, but they still take the cheaper version (X5472), for 700 euro more.

Too bad, they said it was almost finished building. I think they are probably only missing the Nvidia card, which has been missing for the last few weeks... At least I saved some money for some extra memory.
 
I am scared!

SCLlama said:
FWIW, my 3.0 is dead quiet. When I first turned it on (With my G5 next to it ON as well), I thought it was a bit loud. Then, I turned my G5 off, and my room went near silent. Especially after swapping the HD for a 750GB Samsung. The stock HD was the only thing that made any significant noise.

I also gave it a good workout with Logic running a ton of plug-ins/Virtual Instruments for 6-7 hours. After all of that, I touched the front and back of the computer and it was ice cold. This is by no means scientific, but my G5 used to get warm after pushing that hard (relative to the power of the comp) for a while.

I am not an expert, but I can't imagine I would know the difference if it had the 80w version. Maybe it'll cost me a couple bucks on my energy bill at the end of every other month, but performance wise, I can't imagine the difference is anything anyone would notice. And if it's enough to deter you from going 3.0, you're probably better off going with the 2.8 regardless.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the review.
Truth is I would probably cancel my 3.0GHz order in favor of the 2.8 but I don't want to wait still yet another couple weeks.

Boemer said:
I just change my order from 3Ghz to 2.8Ghz, I didn't like to benchmarks for the 3Ghz in comparison with the 2.8Ghz. And I didn't like they took the 120W version.

Too bad, they said it was almost finished building. I think they are probably only missing the Nvidia card, which has been missing for the last few weeks... At least I saved some money for some extra memory.
Click to expand...

You are the smart one. That is probably what I should do.

Boemer said:
The difference with the 2.8 Ghz is only less then 400 euro, but they still take the cheaper version (X5472), for 700 euro more.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point.
The X5472 price is $958. The E5472 price is $1022.
Yet I am paying 800 dollars extra for the cheaper X5472 processor.
When it comes to the 3.0GHz processor, Apple really is putting the screws to us!
 
Topper said:
That's a very good point.
The X5472 price is $958. The E5472 price is $1022.
Yet I am paying 800 dollars extra for the cheaper X5472 processor.
When it comes to the 3.0GHz processor, Apple really is putting the screws to us!
Click to expand...

Apple said they updated the macmini with a better processor, without telling everone, well nice of them, but I never bought a macmini. This is going to be my first mac...

Damn now I have to wait an other 2 weeks extra, my order will first arive on the 6th of March, after having waited for almost 2 months... If I didn't want that nvidia, I would have bought a Mac Pro weeks ago.

Well I'm surely going to get it with 10.5.2. Can't imagine them taking that long....
 
I started a thread on this, but some douchbag closed it:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/414541/

I figure there are some people reading this forum to help decide on what options to get on a new Mac Pro.

I didn't see this in any other posts, so thought I'd share:

-There's a wikipedia page of tech specs for the Harpertown chips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#54...eries_Wolfdale
which shows that the 2.8 and 3.0 chips run at 80 watts, while the 3.2 runs a TDP (thermal design power) of 120 watts. If I put a premium on running cool and quiet, I'm thinking that's good reason to choose the 3.0 over the 3.2 (I'm aware I'd lose about 7% in speed).
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#5400-series_Harpertown_and_5200-series_Wolfdale
 
So, now that people are starting to get their "newer" new Mac Pros, is it still all X's? Could people please check?
 
Hmmm.. found the E5472 in a Mac on Geekbench2 ressults


9757 Xserve (Early 2008) (1 day ago)
Model: Xserve (Early 2008)
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5472 @ 3.00GHz
Platform: Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
bivaughn

And in an Mac Pro 3,1

8178 MacPro3,1 (11 days ago)
Model: MacPro3,1
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5472 @ 3.00GHz
Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)


Houston the E(5472)agle has landed :D
 
newtech said:
Hmmm.. found the E5472 in a Mac on Geekbench2 results
9757 Xserve (Early 2008) (1 day ago)
Model: Xserve (Early 2008)
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5472 @ 3.00GHz
Platform: Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
bivaughn

And in an Mac Pro 3,1

8178 MacPro3,1 (11 days ago)
Model: MacPro3,1
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5472 @ 3.00GHz
Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Click to expand...

I got your edit.
That is extremely good news, thank you.
Where did you find the 8178 Mac Pro?
 
Browsed similar on MacPro3,1 in Geekbench2 results site. 8178 is the geekbench2 score.
 
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