MP1,1 CPU Upgrade

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by sOwL, Apr 7, 2011.

  1. sOwL macrumors 6502

    sOwL

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Nerd Cave
    #1
    My friend bought his MP arround the same time i did. He has the early 2007 model (1,1) with the x5335 CPUs (2.0Ghz, Dual-core). He wants to upgrade those into two Quadcore cpus and i was wondering.. Does it worth getting the x5365 (The 3.0Ghz Quad) which i have in my MP or seek for cheaper alternatives? And what would one miss out if he used non-Xeon CPUs on a MP? Not sure what's up with the Xeons apart that they're over-clocked by factory
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    You need Xeons for dual-processor configuration. He can look for X5355s (2.66GHz) which should be cheaper than X5365s.
     
  3. sOwL thread starter macrumors 6502

    sOwL

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Nerd Cave
    #3
    Ah i thought the 2.66 were also Dual-core. He absolutely wants an octo system, thus 2 Quad-cores. If i remember correctly its possible to install the E5320. There was some italian website proving that but i can't recall it... How much of a difference would he see if he upgraded to those CPUs? And how come that the E5320 is so much cheaper than let's say the X5355? Just the clock? Because I'm sure a little over-clocking could be done
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    I can't see why E5320 wouldn't work. Same socket and same steppings. At least X5355 and X5365 have been confirmed to work.

    If he currently has four cores at 2GHz, eight cores at 2.66GHz will be roughly 166% faster (this is just a rough comparison of the clock speeds and cores). In GeekBench, his Mac Pro scores ~4000 while the 2,1 Mac Pro with 8x3GHz scores ~9000, showing a 125% difference.
     
  5. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #5
    But different bus speed. It will work with BSEL mod.

    OP, type "bsel mod mac pro" in Google. This italian site will be on top of search results ;)
     
  6. sOwL thread starter macrumors 6502

    sOwL

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Nerd Cave
    #6
    SO why that big of a price difference? I googled a bit and it seems that the 'E' line is the mainstream line while the 'X' is the more pro if you like. From what i figured though, it looks like the E5320 compared to the X5355 just eats up more power. The bus is at 1066 which means that getting it to 1333 one could get a 2,3ish clock speed. Doesn't sound bad if you think of how much money you're saving right? It should still have an impact compared with the dual-cores
     
  7. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #7
    Damn, too obvious difference :p

    Currently your friend has the slower Mac Pro. Any eight core Mac Pro will beat it easily. These FSB based Mac Pros can even be overclocked under OS X so if E5320 works and is noticeably cheaper than X5355, then I would get it. Give it some OC and make it as fast as X5355, or even faster. All of these will be a great update, even without OC (assuming the software can utilize all cores).
     
  8. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #8
    IMHO noticeable speed gain will be only with multi core-aware apps (comparing 2.0 DC with 1.83 @2.33 QC). More cores but the same cache amount per core, so in single threaded tasks difference should be minimal.
    In general, it's always better to have slightly faster CPU with QC :)
     
  9. sOwL, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2011

    sOwL thread starter macrumors 6502

    sOwL

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Nerd Cave
    #9
    Damn, it was right under my nose! Haha, i found that italian dude :) My memory is still fine hehe, he's talking about the very same cpu! WHat about the BSEL mod? Any more info on this? And from what I've read on that website, he didn't mention that one would HAVE to to that mod in order for the unit to work.. Am I right? And yes, the price difference is huge...

    edit: nevermind i found out about the mod.. He reported a jump to 2,33 which is as i predicted. Could one overclock the cpu more or will it be over-heating already from getting it to 1333
     
  10. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #10
    If you look at his System information screenshot, OS recognizes CPU as 1.86 and system bus as 1067 (but it's in fact running 2.33 @1333). Without BSEL mod it will be truly 1.86 and 1067. All instructions are on his site (which pins to cover etc). You may find some additional info on PC forums, look for "Xeon 5300 BSEL mod".

    As RTC in 1.1 is somehow "tied" with FSB speed (overclocking 1.1 with ZDnet tool "speeds up" RTC too), running @1067 should affect RTC to slow down.

    I'd say: if you want to upgrade machine with 5320, it makes no sense to do it without BSEL mod. Or look for good deal on 5345, 5355.

    Edit: Clocking E5320 higher probably will make it unstable without VID (voltage) mod. Heat will be the problem too.
     
  11. sOwL thread starter macrumors 6502

    sOwL

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Nerd Cave
    #11
    An E5320 clocked at 2,33Ghz sounds good as is. My friend also agreed that he doesn't care enough to overclock it. The only thing that worries me is the heat. Does this unit run too hot? Ofc the MP has excellent air cooling but the idea to have the fans above 1000rpm all the time (as the italian guy suggests on his website) would kinda break the deal for me. My friend doesn't care though haha
     
  12. green86 macrumors 6502

    green86

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #12
    Doesn't matter. It will downclock even without the mod.

    OP, I just did this here:

    New Mac Pro 1,1 owner, w/CPU upgrade, (8900 Geekbench Result)

    With a link to a page to directions. This is a really great route to go. On the Windows side the CPUs show up as 1.86 GHz Xeons running at 2327 Mhz. With quad channel Memory, I'm getting 8900 in Geekbench 64-Bit. :cool:
     
  13. green86 macrumors 6502

    green86

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #13
    The newer chips seem to run cooler then my old ones IIRC.
     
  14. sOwL thread starter macrumors 6502

    sOwL

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Nerd Cave
    #14
    @green86 yep this is the way I'm planning to upgrade my friend's CPU. But what about the FB-DIMMS? Can he only use 4 slots of RAM?
     
  15. Dadioh macrumors 65816

    Dadioh

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Location:
    Canada Eh?
    #15
    He can use all 8 memory slots. I have 8 x 2gb in mine with E5345's (2.33GHz) no problems. No heat issues either. Even when encoding in handbrake on all 8 cores they barely break 40c and heatsink and exhaust fans go from 600rpm to 1000rpm. A "liitle" bit noisier but certainly tolerable.
     
  16. green86 macrumors 6502

    green86

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #16
    Yes if you want quad channel memory (which does provide quite a nice boost... A few hundred points at least in geekbench).

    To get quad channel, you need 4 matching fb-dimms. Install two in the first two slots of each riser card.

    Even if you don't go this route, only use the last two slots on each card as a "last resort". There is a performance penalty for using them.
     
  17. Dadioh macrumors 65816

    Dadioh

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Location:
    Canada Eh?
    #17
    So I might be better off running 4x2gb rather than 8x2gb? I'm not sure I really need 16gb to be honest.
     
  18. 666sheep, Apr 9, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2011

    666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #18
    From what I understand how it works in MP 1.1, if you have 8 x2GB you still have full 256-bit data path (aka quad channel).
    In real world there's only a minimal benefit of having quad channel. See below:

    http://www.barefeats.com/quad09.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2064/12

    But it's always better to have optimal config than have not :)

    For 16GB I'd go with 4x 4GB sticks rather than 8x 2GB. Main reasons are heat and power consumption. Single FB DIMM could draw up to 15W IIRC. More W = more heat produced.

    BTW, I have 8x 1GB in mine and when once I've removed 4 of them, Northbridge temp lowered by 12 C. With next RAM upgrade I'll definitely exchange these 8x 1 for 4x 4GB.
     

Share This Page