Mac Rumors second official 3.33 Ghz Nehalem 2009 Mac Pro

[kntgsp]

that explains the discrepancy. I was getting a bit confused.

Yea sorry, I was just thinking "tower". But then again the layout and thermal dissipation design has changed quite a bit between models, so I'm fairly confident the current model could handle 150W with the proper heatsink and/or fan speeds.

I mean, it really does essentially have a wind tunnel to itself.

 

[gugucom]

The original run of Clovertown X5365 was at 150W TDP. I believe that Apple was the only manufacturer that actually decided to sport these early stepping 150W (B3) while everyone else waited for the cooler 120W (G0) ones.

Wow, I didn't know used those engineering samples. I actually have G0 stepping in my upgraded MacPro1,1. Did you ever hear anything negative about those 150 W models? I must have considerable reserve then.

 

[Eidorian]

Wow, I didn't know used those engineering samples. I actually have G0 stepping in my upgraded MacPro1,1. Did you ever hear anything negative about those 150 W models? I must have considerable reserve then.

I haven't heard of anything negative about them. It just seems that no one wanted to provide the cooling for them so they waited for the G0 ones. Apple had the cooling already there with the isolated CPU tunnel and the huge heatsinks.

 

[Cynicalone]

Someone seems to have noticed Tutors upgrades.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/geekbench_reveals_next_3_3ghz_mac_pro_update

It would be nice to have an Octo 3.2Ghz 09 Mac Pro, but the risk isn't worth it imo.

 

[gugucom]

😎😎😎 So if I ever sell my Mac Pro I can claim that I have better spec than original Mac Pro 2007 BTO

 

[gugucom]

Someone seems to have noticed Tutors upgrades.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/geekbench_reveals_next_3_3ghz_mac_pro_update

It would be nice to have an Octo 3.2Ghz 09 Mac Pro, but the risk isn't worth it imo.

You can now top this with the W5590 @ 3,33 GHz.

 

[kntgsp]

You can now top this with the W5590 @ 3,33 GHz.

Yea, at like $1500 per CPU I think, at least last time I checked the prices.

I mean........$3000 just for the CPUs....

Would be a sick machine though 😀

 

[gugucom]

wait till they get lower. I saw a deal for one W5580 for 700$ two weeks ago

 

[donuttakedonuts]

The Mac Pro 2009 has some nice massive heatsinks so that's not a worry.

Understatement of the year. Those things probably weigh more than my entire laptop.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

The heat sinks are amazingly light, since they appear to be made out of aluminum and are mostly air (lots of slots and fins for greater surface area, not a big mass of aluminum).

Understatement of the year. Those things probably weigh more than my entire laptop.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

CONGRATULATIONS! Slowly, more and more people are replacing their Mac Pro CPUs as Apple provides fewer and fewer options. What kills me is that the move to Intel was supposed to quicken our upgrade cycles to the latest and greatest, but that hasn't been the case. There is no reason why Apple could not offer the Core i7 975 in the Quad Mac Pro at a respectively lower price. There is also no excuse for Apple to not be using the newest and fastest parts. At the time the Mac Pros were released, only 2.93 GHz parts were available. But now, for the same cost, you get 3.3 GHz parts. Why hasn't the Mac Pro been upgraded to reflect this? I'll never understand. But I am grateful that they've allowed us at least SOME upgrade path here!

By the way, if you ever decide you need 8 cores all you have to do is order a new processor tray and heat sinks from any Apple parts place on the internet. The cost is a little high, but if you really need the upgrade it's much less expensive than buying a new Mac Pro. You can't use two Core i7's, since they lack two QPI interfaces, but you can keep your existing memory.

So my Mac Pro FINALLY arrived today after almost 2 weeks. First thing I did of course, was yank out the CPU and replace it with my i7 975. 😀

Really easy, although I would like to note that you can't "over tighten" the heatsink on the Quad as they have IHS and there are bolt gaps on the bottom that prevent the heatsink from being over tightened on top of that.

Also, the heatsink is bolted all the way down from the factory anyway.

I was worried about that at the beginning before I realized and so didn't tighten it all the way (wanted to see what the temps were before over tightening). Low and behold I get a shutdown halfway through startup.

So I yank out the board again, look at the side and realize that SOMEONE *cough cough* forgot to catch that in their CPU replacement guide. ;-) Then I realized "wait a second....they were screwed all the way down when I removed the damn thing" so I tightened them all the way and VOILA. 3.33Ghz Nehalem Mac Pro.

Downloaded SMC Fan Control for a quick glance at temps and idle is around 37C which is fantastic considering my ambient with no A/C

By the way, don't have a heart attack over temp shutdown. Temp sensors on all boards built in the last few years (that aren't bargain crap) have auto shutdown when CPU temp exceeds spec (usually 100C). Doesn't do any permanent damage.


Currently installing all updates, of which there are a crap ton, before opening it up again to install the GTX 285. Have to install the latest OSX update and the NVidia drivers first, so might be a bit.

I'll keep you guys posted and toss up some pics of the naked board later.

 

[nanofrog]

CONGRATULATIONS! Slowly, more and more people are replacing their Mac Pro CPUs as Apple provides fewer and fewer options. What kills me is that the move to Intel was supposed to quicken our upgrade cycles to the latest and greatest, but that hasn't been the case. There is no reason why Apple could not offer the Core i7 975 in the Quad Mac Pro at a respectively lower price. There is also no excuse for Apple to not be using the newest and fastest parts. At the time the Mac Pros were released, only 2.93 GHz parts were available. But now, for the same cost, you get 3.3 GHz parts. Why hasn't the Mac Pro been upgraded to reflect this? I'll never understand. But I am grateful that they've allowed us at least SOME upgrade path here!

By the way, if you ever decide you need 8 cores all you have to do is order a new processor tray and heat sinks from any Apple parts place on the internet. The cost is a little high, but if you really need the upgrade it's much less expensive than buying a new Mac Pro. You can't use two Core i7's, since they lack two QPI interfaces, but you can keep your existing memory.

The Quad core '09 MP's use the Xeon W35xx parts, not the i7's. Not much of a difference, except the Xeon adds ECC memory support.

But Intel has released a faster version to that line as well (W3580). 😉 It's quantity pricing is the same as the i7-975 ($999 ea in Q=1000).

 

[jleffell]

The Quad core '09 MP's use the Xeon W35xx parts, not the i7's. Not much of a difference, except the Xeon adds ECC memory support.

But Intel has released a faster version to that line as well (W3580). 😉 It's quantity pricing is the same as the i7-975 ($999 ea in Q=1000).

Now you have me worried that they are going to offer this come September for the SL release. I just got my 2.93 Quad and will be upset if this happens - especially if there is a price shift.

 

[nanofrog]

Now you have me worried that they are going to offer this come September for the SL release. I just got my 2.93 Quad and will be upset if this happens - especially if there is a price shift.

Not to worry, they won't offer it. 😱 The MP's won't get a refresh until the next Tick cycle by Intel, so not until next year.

 

[kntgsp]

The Quad core '09 MP's use the Xeon W35xx parts, not the i7's. Not much of a difference, except the Xeon adds ECC memory support.

But Intel has released a faster version to that line as well (W3580). 😉 It's quantity pricing is the same as the i7-975 ($999 ea in Q=1000).

i7 975 can be had for less as it's alot easier to find used ones. Also, the lack of ECC....🙄 Unless you're doing high end server work that actually needs it, kind of a waste IMO.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Yes, but you are comparing volume pricing on the Xeons to individual pricing on the i7 975. Imagine if Apple used the i7 in the Quad. The price point could have been much lower without any performance penalty.

The Quad core '09 MP's use the Xeon W35xx parts, not the i7's. Not much of a difference, except the Xeon adds ECC memory support.

But Intel has released a faster version to that line as well (W3580). 😉 It's quantity pricing is the same as the i7-975 ($999 ea in Q=1000).

 

[Umbongo]

Yes, but you are comparing volume pricing on the Xeons to individual pricing on the i7 975. Imagine if Apple used the i7 in the Quad. The price point could have been much lower without any performance penalty.

Volume pricing for Xeon 3500s and Core i7 processors at the same speed are the same.

 

[Umbongo]

Also, the lack of ECC....🙄 Unless you're doing high end server work that actually needs it, kind of a waste IMO.

It's more of a situation where some customers wouldn't buy without it and no one is going to not buy because of it. Just typical Apple behaviour of limiting choice.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Something is wrong with the volume pricing on i7 975 chips if they are going for $999 @ 1,000 quantity. I bought ONE quantity and it cost me the same. It must be much less in quantities of 1,000 or more. Am I missing something here?

Volume pricing for Xeon 3500s and Core i7 processors at the same speed are the same.

 

[Umbongo]

Something is wrong with the volume pricing on i7 975 chips if they are going for $999 @ 1,000 quantity. I bought ONE quantity and it cost me the same. It must be much less in quantities of 1,000 or more. Am I missing something here?

Your souce could be purchasing in huge quantities or from another wholesaler who are. Or they are using it as a loss leader in the hopes you will buy other things from them that have a higher margin.

 

[nanofrog]

Your souce could be purchasing in huge quantities or from another wholesaler who are. Or they are using it as a loss leader in the hopes you will buy other things from them that have a higher margin.

There's also the possibility Intel's lowered the prices since the last published Quantity Price List as well. The current economy may have been the reason for such a move. 😉

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Well, if it's a loss leader then New Egg definitely got me hooked! I ended up ordering over $2,000 of stuff with them! 🙂

 

[Umbongo]

Well, if it's a loss leader then New Egg definitely got me hooked! I ended up ordering over $2,000 of stuff with them! 🙂

Newegg may buy direct from Intel, they do huge volume. By having their prices at similar levels to the Intel list price on a key component they draw traffic from search sites as well as getting a reputation for being good on price.

 

[AppleWorking]

The Quad core '09 MP's use the Xeon W35xx parts, not the i7's. Not much of a difference, except the Xeon adds ECC memory support.

But Intel has released a faster version to that line as well (W3580). 😉 It's quantity pricing is the same as the i7-975 ($999 ea in Q=1000).

So the W3580 CPU Model: BX80601W3580 linked to above by nano is actually the best replacement for a 2009 Quad? Except for price, would it be a better Mac (Apple) replacement than the i7 975? Are all the power requirements, etc. etc. between the two the same? What's the real difference? I'm just looking for the best replacement even if it costs a little more. Thanks for anyone's feedback, I'm looking to buy this now.

 

[Umbongo]

So the W3580 CPU Model: BX80601W3580 linked to above by nano is actually the best replacement for a 2009 Quad? Except for price, would it be a better Mac (Apple) replacement than the i7 975? Are all the power requirements, etc. etc. between the two the same? What's the real difference? I'm just looking for the best replacement even if it costs a little more. Thanks for anyone's feedback, I'm looking to buy this now.

The difference is you get ECC memory support with the Xeon (and Direct Cache Access, but that is more a server thing from what I've read). Buy the cheapest if you don't care about ECC.