Performance Comparison of X5675, X5680 and X5690

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Fooze, May 15, 2017.

  1. Fooze macrumors member

    Mar 1, 2016
    I received several new processors and delidded all of them this weekend. I also installed all of them into my 2009 Mac Pro to ensure they all worked. As long as they were installed I figured I'd also benchmark all of them.

    • All testing was done within 60 minutes from start to finish so ambient temperature in the room was approximately the same. For the record the thermostat was set to 71ºF in the house.
    • I tested X5675 (3.06GHz Hex), X5680 (3.33GHz Hex) and X5690 (3.46GHz Hex) processors all in dual CPU configuration.
    • All testing was done on the same CPU tray, with the same sticks of ram in the same slots, in the same 2009 Mac Pro, with only the current benchmark software running.
    • I tested each processor with 8 sticks of RAM, removed the ram in slots 4 and 8, PRAM reset to be safe, and retested with 6 sticks of ram.

    The raw data can be found in the following Google Sheet.

    Let me know if there is any trouble accessing the file. I might have to edit the permissions.

    You'll notice additional tabs across the bottom of the document. If anyone can come up with a better way to analyze the data I'd be happy to implement all of your suggestions. For lack of a better way, I simply divided the respective score of each configuration by both the TDP (in watts) and also by the current lowest price I could find on eBay.

    This information has been requested by several people to help make better choices when upgrading their systems. The prices on the X5690 3.46 Hex have plummeted in the last month so hopefully more people can afford these beasts. The X5675 is still an attractive option since the TDP is only 95w vs 130w on the other two processors.
  2. ActionableMango macrumors G3


    Sep 21, 2010
    Wow, Geekbench places a gigantic weighting on RAM throughput. Almost 25% in a couple of cases. Way too much IMHO.
  3. MisterAndrew macrumors 65816


    Sep 15, 2015
    Portland, Ore.
    Very interesting. Not much of a difference between them. The X5675 at 95w and 1/3rd the price of the X5690 seems like the best bang for the buck.
  4. Fooze thread starter macrumors member

    Mar 1, 2016
    I'm a big fan of the x5675. It's even less of a difference than the charts visually depict when you consider the X-axis does not start at 0.
  5. h9826790 macrumors G5


    Apr 3, 2014
    Hong Kong
    Thanks for all the work, the benchmark is pretty much reflecting the expected CPU processing power. And the performance difference is well within the reasonable predicted range. (well, except GB 4.1 multi core score. That's really hard to understand because of the unknown non linear scale)

    CPU speed (multi core) - [(3.46-3.06)/3.06] x 100% = 13.07%

    GB 3.4.1 (multi core) - [(32080-28848)/28848] x 100% = 11.2%

    R15 (multi core) - [(1627-1438)/1438] x 100% = 13.14%

    *GB 4.1.0 (multi core) - [(25124-23576)/23576] x 100% = 6.57%*

    CPU speed (single core, turbo) - [(3.73-3.46)/3.46] x 100% = 7.8%

    GB 3.4.1 (single core) - [(2804-2635)/2635] x 100% = 6.4%

    GB 4.1.0 (single core) - [(2955-2791)/2791] x 100% = 5.8%

Share This Page

4 May 15, 2017