MP2010 x5690 vs x5680

[SDAVE]

Hey guys, I want to upgrade my dual CPU's and was wondering if I should go for the 2x 5680? I have a nice deal someone wants to give me a matching pair for $280. The x5690's are around 500-600 for a matching pair, was wondering if its worth waiting for the prices to drop and get that or is the speed difference minuscule?

 

[paulrbeers]

Hey guys, I want to upgrade my dual CPU's and was wondering if I should go for the 2x 5680? I have a nice deal someone wants to give me a matching pair for $280. The x5690's are around 500-600 for a matching pair, was wondering if its worth waiting for the prices to drop and get that or is the speed difference minuscule?

I can't tell you the exact scores of those two sets of processors, but looking at Geekbench, going from 12 cores @ 2.66 (X5650) to 12 cores @ 2.93 (X5670) you only gain about 2K points (25K to 27K). That's only about 8% faster. Using those numbers, my guess going from 3.33 to 3.46 will probably only net you a few percentage points.... I'd say go with the X5680's if I were you.

 

[SDAVE]

Great - I went with the x5680. This will be the last upgrade to this computer before i move on to a new Trashmac

 

[prvt.donut]

Have the prices of x5680 and x5690 CPUs gone up this past year? Where can I find a pair of x5690s for $500-$600????

Or x5680's for $280 for that matter!

 

[h9826790]

Unless money is not an issue, prefer to go for the X5680 in this case.

 

[nigelbb]

The difference in performance between 3.33GHz & 3.47GHz is marginal at most 4%. Considering that the faster CPU goes for about double the price then as previously noted unless money is no object the X5680 will be fine for an upgrade.

Incidentally this difference in CPU price doesn't seem to be reflected in the prices of complete systems that have already been upgraded at least looking at the prices on eBay in the UK. In this case you may as well buy the 3.47GHz system as there is nothing to be saved opting for the slightly slower system.

 

[prvt.donut]

But actually buying those CPUs seems a lot more expensive than last year. Which is somewhat strange.

Anywhere to look besides eBay?

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

It is surprising that old, legacy processors such as these have doubled in price over the last year or so.

I was thinking of going dual on my 2009, but now I can't afford it (nor is it worth it). Artificially high prices? Maybe. If no one is buying them at these inflated prices then sellers might start to lower or even accept much lower offers.

 

[markwilliams4321]

The X5690 CPU's are in high demand and the available quantity is only reducing as Intel haven't made any in years. I buy in around 50 of these CPU's per month and I don't expect the price to ever go under £190 ex VAT per CPU again. I know that there are some re sellers in the USA that are holding large stocks of them but I still don't see the price getting anywhere near last years levels. The X5680's are going the same way. You can still get the X5675's at a good price. I am currently buying them in at £90 + VAT.

 

[nigelbb]

I was thinking of going dual on my 2009, but now I can't afford it (nor is it worth it).

You do realise that buying the necessary dual processor board will cost more than the price of the CPUs to upgrade to dual processors anyway?

 

[prvt.donut]

That sucks! I see old servers for sale with pairs of x5690s in them for less than the selling price of just the CPUs.

Maybe I will just aim to get x5670s as they are at least a reasonable price.

 

[flehman]

The X5690 CPU's are in high demand and the available quantity is only reducing as Intel haven't made any in years. I buy in around 50 of these CPU's per month and I don't expect the price to ever go under £190 ex VAT per CPU again. I know that there are some re sellers in the USA that are holding large stocks of them but I still don't see the price getting anywhere near last years levels. The X5680's are going the same way. You can still get the X5675's at a good price. I am currently buying them in at £90 + VAT.

I bought a single X5690 for my own 4,1->5,1 last spring for around $150 US and now they are $500-600 US on FleaBay. Problem is these CPUs went from being obsolete and plentiful to being obsolete, less plentiful, and yet a highly desired niche item as a Mac Pro upgrade. Once sellers catch onto that, the game is afoot and they can artificially inflate the price as far as the captive Mac Pro audience is willing to pay.

 

[ActionableMango]

Hey guys, I want to upgrade my dual CPU's and was wondering if I should go for the 2x 5680? I have a nice deal someone wants to give me a matching pair for $280. The x5690's are around 500-600 for a matching pair, was wondering if its worth waiting for the prices to drop and get that or is the speed difference minuscule?

If you are certain your workflow can make use of 12 cores, then I'd get the x5680s, given the huge price difference.

However, if single core performance is of greater importance and you can't make full use of more than 8 cores, which is very likely for most applications, get the x5677. It's 3.46GHz like the x5690, only quad instead of hex.

Looking at Ebay history, the last ten x5677 chips sold over the last month or so fetched $45 to $70 each, making it substantially cheaper at about $100-$150 a pair. Given the 3.46GHz clock, they will actually be faster (slightly) than the x5680s in any scenario up to 8 cores, which is most scenarios. So this could very well be your best bang-for-the-buck.

The 5,1 is compatible with about 25-30 different CPUs. That wide range of compatibility is astonishing for a Mac. I think I'll whip up a CPU compatibility chart that people can refer to--I recorded a lot of it when I was researching CPUs for my own actual upgrades, and for when I was considering moving to a DP machine.

 

[bokkow]

Good idea ActionableMango, I went ahead to contribute and made a list of what I know is compatible:

Green: 95-100% certain
Orange: 75% certain
Red: not certain at all (but that would be interesting, I don't see any reason why this chip wouldn't work actually)

I put this table in Excel, anyone here handy with putting table in BB forum format?

 

[scott.n]

Good idea ActionableMango, I went ahead to contribute and made a list of what I know is compatible:

Green: 95-100% certain
Orange: 75% certain
Red: not certain at all (but that would be interesting, I don't see any reason why this chip wouldn't work actually)

I put this table in Excel, anyone here handy with putting table in BB forum format?

Missing all of the stock "E" chips: E5520, E5620, E5645.

 

[bokkow]

You're absolutely right, this list is long! Attached the E chips, stock and the types that are most likely to then also work. (still trying to convert my excel file into table for this forum)

 

[flehman]

Good idea ActionableMango, I went ahead to contribute and made a list of what I know is compatible:

Green: 95-100% certain
Orange: 75% certain
Red: not certain at all (but that would be interesting, I don't see any reason why this chip wouldn't work actually)

I put this table in Excel, anyone here handy with putting table in BB forum format?

Awesome job - very easy to read and interpret. It would definitely be interesting to confirm if the X5687 is compatible for those who are willing to sacrifice 4 cores (down from 12 to 8) to maximize single-core performance.

 

[scott.n]

Past threads here suggest that the X5687 will not work. Such as: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-would-you-do.1643903/

 

[bokkow]

Thanks Flehman! It's not a definite list (yet) but I hope it helps someone.

Yes Scott I saw that too, thanks. Still don't really see the reason why it shouldnt work though :/

 

[scott.n]

Just wanted to add my comments about what a great idea this list is and my thanks for compiling it.

Instead of your highlights I suggest adding a set of columns or some other indicator noting whether the processor is confirmed to work in a:

1. MacPro4,1
2. MacPro5,1
3. Xserve3,1

 

[bokkow]

Just wanted to add my comments about what a great idea this list is and my thanks for compiling it.

Instead of your highlights I suggest adding a set of columns or some other indicator noting whether the processor is confirmed to work in a:

1. MacPro4,1
2. Mac Pro5,1
3. Xserve3,1

Thanks! I'll try to add columns tomorrow when I also find out how to place a table in this forum gheghe

 

[flowrider]

There is another option, if you don't need all twelve cores, you can use the X5677 four core CPUs in a dual CPU 5,1 and have have eight cores running @ 3.46mhz. I've had this setup in my machine for the past year and a half. The replaced a set of W5590s that I ran for a year.

Note - The X5687 listed in the chart above will not work in a Macintosh.

Lou

 

[ActionableMango]

Good idea ActionableMango, I went ahead to contribute and made a list of what I know is compatible:

Hmmm, great job! You beat me to it, AND yours looks much better than mine. I do have more information in mine though. We should join forces and start a new thread with a proper title so people can find it. I think it will be useful to many. Do you want to or shall I?

Here is what I have:

Mac Pro CPU Compatibility Guide

Warnings:

• Any and all information here may be incorrect. Use at your own risk.

Notes:

• I have included memory information because in some cases the memory's speed or maximum capacity is affected by the CPU choice.
• I realize there are some slower CPUs that probably work but are not listed. I purposely left out anything that was slower than the base model CPU offered by Apple in order to keep the list more concise.

Key:
* An asterisk denotes that I have found some sort of confirmation that this CPU worked. This includes anything offered by Apple (BTO/CTO), third party upgrade guides or commercial services (such as Barefeats, OWC, or xlr8yourmac), or simply individuals claiming personal success in a forum somewhere.
? A question mark denotes a processor that almost certainly works in a Mac Pro, and for which I found at least one person who recommends it. However, I have been unable to find a post which verifies that it actually does work in a Mac Pro.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mac Pro 6,1

• 128GB maximum RAM

Model Cores Clock
E5-2697 v2* 12 2.70 GHz
E5-2690 v2* 10 3.00 GHz
E5-2667 v2* 8 3.30 GHz
E5-1680 v2* 8 3.00 GHz
E5-1660 v2* 6 3.70 GHz
E5-1650 v2* 6 3.50 GHz
E5-1620 v2* 4 3.70 GHz​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mac Pro 5,1 and 4,1

• To use 6-core models and run RAM at 1333, the 4,1 will need the firmware upgrade to 5,1, found here: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,852.0.html
• One dual-processor-model CPU works fine in a single-processor Mac Pro, and increases its maximum RAM from 56 to 64GB.
• One single-processor-model CPU technically works in a dual-processor Mac Pro, but this causes an error state with the CPU fan going full blast.
• 4,1 dual-processor Mac Pros use special, "lidless" CPUs. You either need to buy lidless CPUs, de-lid them yourself, or pay for de-lidding service, so that the CPUs are the proper height. Failure to do this results in very expensive damage when the heatsink is tightened down. Some people have kept the lids on, but were extremely careful about not tightening down the heat sink too much. Other people have kept the lids on, but added washer stacks (of equivalent height to the lid difference) to where the tightening screws go--this is intended to prevent the heat sink from overtightening and causing damage.
• No, the X5687 (3.6GHz quad-core) and the X5698 (4.4GHz dual-core) do not work in Mac Pros. I don't want to list every CPU that doesn't work with a Mac, but these two are asked about often enough to note here.

Dual-Processor Xeon Models:

• 128GB maximum RAM for dual-processor Mac Pros
• 64GB maximum RAM for single-processor Mac Pros using one of these dual-processor-capable CPUs

Model Cores Clock MemClock Max Memory
X5690* 6x2 3.46 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5680* 6x2 3.33 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5679* 6x2 3.20 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5675* 6x2 3.06 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5670* 6x2 2.93 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5660* 6x2 2.80 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5650* 6x2 2.66 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
X5677* 4x2 3.46 GHz 1333 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
E5570* 4x2 2.93 GHz 1066 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
E5550* 4x2 2.66 GHz 1066 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)
E5520* 4x2 2.26 GHz 1066 64/128GB (single/dual processor MP)​

Single-Processor Xeon Models:

• 56GB maximum RAM (3x16GB + 1x8GB)

Model Cores Clock MemClock
W3690* 6 3.46 GHz 1333
W3680* 6 3.33 GHz 1333
W3670* 6 3.20 GHz 1066
W3580* 4 3.33 GHz 1333
W3570* 4 3.20 GHz 1333
W3565* 4 3.20 GHz 1066
W3550? 4 3.06 GHz 1066
W3540* 4 2.93 GHz 1066
W3530* 4 2.80 GHz 1066
W3520* 4 2.66 GHz 1066​

Single-Processor i7 Models:

• All Mac Pros come with Xeons. The i7 equivalents are listed here because some of them have been verified compatible with Mac Pros and ECC memory, although the ECC function will not work. Xeons are recommended, but the i7 is a valid upgrade choice and multiple people here on MR have done so.
• The 56GB maximum RAM for single-processor machines was tested on Xeons. The i7 CPUs probably have the same limit.

Model Cores Clock MemClock
i7-990X* 6 3.46 GHz 1333
i7-980X* 6 3.33 GHz 1333
i7-980 ? 6 3.33 GHz 1066
i7-970 * 6 3.20 GHz 1066
i7-975 * 4 3.33 GHz 1333
i7-965 * 4 3.20 GHz 1333​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mac Pro 3,1

• 64GB maximum RAM
• Single-processor Mac Pro 3,1 has 4 cores only, not the 4x2 listed below

Model Cores Clock
E5462* 4x2 2.8 GHz
E5472* 4x2 3.0 GHz
X5482* 4x2 3.2 GHz​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mac Pro 2,1 and 1,1

• 32GB maximum RAM for 1,1 (increases to 64GB if flashed with 2,1 firmware)
• 64GB maximum RAM for 2,1
• To use 4-core CPUs, the 1,1 will need a firmware flashed to 2,1.
• The 1,1 to 2,1 firmware flash requires Snow Leopard (or newer) to run. It can be found here: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1094.0.html

Model Cores Clock
X5365* 4x2 3.00
X5355* 4x2 2.66
E5345* 4x2 2.33
5160* 2x2 3.00
5150* 2x2 2.66
5130* 2x2 2.00​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How you can help:

• If you have personal knowledge on the topic, please review the content for errors or omissions.
• Constructive criticism is welcome.
• Help verify CPUs that are listed as unverified (marked "?"). If you've seen someone else claim a processor works, link to that post. If you've personally tested a processor that's unverified on the list, please respond to verify.

[doublepost=1454710698][/doublepost]The formatting in mine is weird. When I click "edit", the columns all line up, but when not in "edit" mode, the tabs are lost and all the columns are jammed together.

 

[bokkow]

You have a great start post there! I'd say you had the idea and the content to start a thread so go ahead, I'd like a credit somewhere in the start post. If I can work out a nice table based on your info (leading) and what I could find myself tomorrow I'll hand it over to you

 

[ActionableMango]

You have a great start post there! I'd say you had the idea and the content to start a thread so go ahead, I'd like a credit somewhere in the start post. If I can work out a nice table based on your info (leading) and what I could find myself tomorrow I'll hand it over to you

Thanks, the post is up:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-pro-cpu-compatibility-list.1954766/

If possible, it would be best for future maintenance if the formatting can be accomplished in BBCode. After the first post settles down in a couple of months or whatever, it can be converted into a wiki for anyone to improve upon.