Pushing an Early Intel Macs limit: can a mid-2011 Mac mini’s Sandy Bridge CPU be upgraded to a higher spec SB CPU?

[B S Magnet]

If we’re ever going to bring in slightly newer early Intel Macs, the Sandy Bridge Core iX series — which were sold alongside late C2D Macs — ought to be fair game.

I’ve spent an unhealthy bit of time poring over the Intel page labelled, “Products formerly Sandy Bridge” and looking over chip and bus specs between the CPUs Apple shipped for the mid-2011 Sandy Bridge Mac mini (such as the high-end Core i7/2.0GHz quad-core server model, i7-2635QM).

This is nerdy stuff, so I ought to summarize Sandy Bridge features: all quad-core Sandy Bridge CPUs share a 5 GT/s on-chip bus; use 1333MHz PC3-10600 DDR3 RAM; feature the usual HD Graphics 3000 iGPU; 32k L1 cache per core and 256k L2 cache per core; and the Mac mini Server version has 6MB on-chip cache. Others use different on-chip cache values (the base dual-core mid-2011 Mac mini uses 3MB on-chip, while some of the high-spec Intel CPUs — listed below — go as high as 8MB on-chip).

Some Sandy Bridge CPUs appear to use the FCBGA1023 BGA socket while others appear to use the FCBGA1224 socket. For the life of me, I cannot find a form factor difference between the two, and TechPowerup shows the BGA pattern between the two as identical (though they just as easily be using a general stock image). It seems dual-core chips use FCBGA1023 and quad-core chips use FCBGA1224:

This is all to say: all the basic specs of the quad-core Sandy Bridge CPUs on Intel’s site appear to be interchangeable between one another. I’m not 100 per cent sure, because I’ve previously made uninformed assumptions about another line of Intel CPUs — Penryn C2Ds — and learnt how front-side bus specs on those were highly relevant with respect to whether CPU upgrades were possible.

Which brings me to the following other Sandy Bridge BGA-based quad-core CPUs produced by Intel.

If supplying a mid-2011 quad core i7 2.0GHz Mac mini Server board with an i7-2635QM CPU, could any of the following chips be swapped in successfully via BGA board solder by a skilled hand? I see these specs and am left wondering whether any of them could be used, or whether there might be some additional barrier involved (like Apple’s firmware):

• Core i7-2860QM [quad core, 2.5GHz, 8MB on-chip cache] (FCBGA1224)
• Core i7-2820QM [quad core, 2.3GHz, 8MB on-chip cache] (FCBGA1224)
• Core i7-2760QM [quad core, 2.4GHz, 6MB on-chip cache] (FCBGA1224)
• Core i7-2720QM [quad core, 2.2GHz, 6MB on-chip cache] (FCBGA1224)

tl;dr: Have any of you tried and/or managed a successful BGA swap with any of the Sandy Bridge Macs (either dual core or quad core)? In short, I’m planning for basically the fastest iteration of a Sandy Bridge Mac mini as a multi-purpose server (including streaming audio). This is why I’m asking.

 

[Amethyst1]

If supplying a mid-2011 quad core i7 2.0GHz Mac mini Server board with an i7-2635QM CPU, could any of the following chips be swapped in successfully via BGA board solder by a skilled hand?

My guess would be yes, because the 2011 15in and 17in MacBook Pros were available with all of these CPUs - so they should be interchangeable and theoretically work in a Mac mini too.

 

[LightBulbFun]

as @Amethyst1 says in theory should be very much doable, you just need to have the CPU and a suitable Quad Core Mac Mini and someone who can BGA solder to put it all-together!

but sadly you cant upgrade a Dual Core to a Quad Core, as you note in the first post they technically have a different "socket" and are not interchangeable

this is something I have wondered about while talking to @bunnspecial as he has some very special use cases that needs a fast and reliable but Compact Snow Leopard machine so I was thinking about if it would be possible to upgrade a Quad Core 2011 Server Mac Mini as per above

so I am quite interested in finding out if it possible as well, as said in theory it should be possible, they are all of the same socket TDP and Stepping/CPUID even

perhaps something @dosdude1 could try at some point

 

[Amethyst1]

but sadly you cant upgrade a Dual Core to a Quad Core, as you note in the first post they technically have a different "socket" and are not interchangeable

…which means no quad-core for the 13in MBP.

 

[B S Magnet]

as @Amethyst1 says in theory should be very much doable, you just need to have the CPU and a suitable Quad Core Mac Mini and someone who can BGA solder to put it all-together!

but sadly you cant upgrade a Dual Core to a Quad Core, as you note in the first post they technically have a different "socket" and are not interchangeable

Yah, I deduced that by the difference in the socket used. It’s just fortunate there was a quad core variety of the mid-2011 series. So my initial goal is to find one of these locally which is going for fairly cheap. Then I’ll focus on procuring a faster CPU — ideally the i7-2860QM, which I believe is the fastest of the series for the socket in the quad Mac mini. And lastly, I’ll get them both out to somebody who has the gear and skills to do a swap.

so I am quite interested in finding out if it possible as well, as said in theory it should be possible, they are all of the same socket TDP and Stepping/CPUID even

perhaps something @dosdude1 could try at some point

I’m glad to hear other folks here are thinking along the same lines. The intent here is, indeed, continuing to run Snow Leopard, but only more quickly.

…which means no quad-core for the 13in MBP.

For better or worse, I’m more or less OK with this. There may come a point where I’ll want to find a late 2011 2.8 board for my early 2011 13-inch 2.3, which would be the limit for the 13-inch.

 

[Amethyst1]

The intent here is, indeed, continuing to run Snow Leopard, but only more quickly.

There you go. *hides*

It’s just fortunate there was a quad core variety of the mid-2011 series.

It's even more fortunate that the quad-core variant does not feature an AMD GPU known for less-than-stellar reliability.

 

[B S Magnet]

There you go. *hides*

Bookmarked, thank you!

After having spent time on that Intel list of Sandy Bridge CPUs, I’ve been thinking about how technically fast Snow Leopard could get — not because Snow Leopard is some laggard (pssht, hardly), but because I’d want it to handle the ever-heavier media and computing demands we inevitably might throw at it over the coming years.

Were money not some object, I’d be really enthusiastic about building my own Sandy Bridge Hackintosh box with a quartet of Xeon E5 Sandy Bridge CPUs — the E5-4650.

At 8 cores per CPU (20MB on-chip cache per CPU), totalling 32 cores, 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes (including 2 PCIe x16 slots), a pair of 10Gbit ethernet ports, and supporting up to 1.5TB of RAM, I’m quite sure it’d be more than capable with not only Snow Leopard, but I’m sure it would fly just fine with any subsequent OS X/macOS, linux, or even Windows build one might throw at it for at least another dozen years to come.

Heck, think of all the virtualization you could do!

EDIT: Someone has at least built and benchmarked a quad E5-4650 with Geekbench 2, and the score is not too shabby.

It's even more fortunate that the quad-core variant does not feature an AMD GPU known for less-than-stellar reliability.

Yes. As the Mac mini goes (the one I’m planning to get), it’s a two-fold relief that I won’t need to deal with it (because I’ll probably be running it headless for server duty, and also it’s one less thing which could fail along the way).

 

[Amethyst1]

Were money not some object, I’d be really enthusiastic about building my own Sandy Bridge Hackintosh box with a quartet of Xeon E5 Sandy Bridge CPUs — the E5-4650.

At 8 cores per CPU (20MB on-chip cache per CPU), totalling 32 cores, 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes (including 2 PCIe x16 slots), a pair of 10Gbit ethernet ports, and supporting up to 1.5TB of RAM, [...]

Would Snow Leopard's kernel be able to handle four physical CPUs and 1.5 TB of RAM though? No SL-supported Mac can have more than two CPUs or more than 128 GB of RAM.

After having spent time on that Intel list of Sandy Bridge CPUs, I’ve been thinking about how technically fast Snow Leopard could get

If you don't need more than six cores (12 threads), an overclocked Core i7-3970X at, say, 4.5 GHz or so isn't exactly going to be slow either.

 

[B S Magnet]

Would Snow Leopard's kernel be able to handle four physical CPUs and 1.5 TB of RAM though? No SL-supported Mac can have more than two CPUs or more than 128 GB of RAM.

Hrm. I wasn’t aware of the two-CPU limitation before this. I was aware how macOS, at least until until fairly recently, didn’t play very nicely with anything over 96GB of RAM.

If you don't need more than six cores (12 threads), an overclocked Core i7-3970X at, say, 4.5 GHz or so isn't exactly going to be slow either.

I’m now thinking about the possibilities of dual-CPU Xeon E5-4650 setups, which would still yield 16 cores/32 threads (which, given what you mentioned above, might ultimately be the hardware limit for running SL).

 

[LightBulbFun]

Would Snow Leopard's kernel be able to handle four physical CPUs and 1.5 TB of RAM though? No SL-supported Mac can have more than two CPUs or more than 128 GB of RAM.

Mac OS X

has no Physical CPU count limitation only a limitation on how many threads there can be which for Snow Leopard I THINK is 32 Threads, so 4x8 Core CPUs would indeed work (you would have to disable hyper threading in that case however)

remember to a unix/unix like OS every CPU Core and even thread is its own CPU

if I do a host info on my Mac Pro

Mach kernel version:
     Darwin Kernel Version 18.7.0: Mon May  3 20:41:19 PDT 2021; root:xnu-4903.278.68~1/RELEASE_X86_64
Kernel configured for up to 24 processors.
12 processors are physically available.
24 processors are logically available.
Processor type: i486 (Intel 80486)
Processors active: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Primary memory available: 32.00 gigabytes
Default processor set: 423 tasks, 2497 threads, 24 processors
Load average: 0.92, Mach factor: 23.07

you can see as far as the kernel is concerned I have 12/24 Processors despite only having 2 Physical Processors, as each Processor has 6 cores 12 threads (because there is Hyper threading enabled)

the whole Physical CPU count limit, is really just a soft limit put in place by software vendors like Microsoft etc so they can charge more for editions that support multiple CPUs etc


another way to look at it is just look at the G5 Quad, Notice it says 4 x PowerPC G5 in about this Mac, because although it is "only" 2 Dual Core CPUs, OpenFirmware/OS X does not really make the distinction and just treats everything as literally 4 PowerPC G5's


PS: the Xserve3,1 in Dual CPU Configuration maxes out at 192GB of RAM, and that thing originally shipped with Leopard let alone Snow Leopard although I dont actually know what SL's RAM limit is if it has one (I recall reading something but that was a long time ago and I dont know how verified it was)

I do have a Dual CPU Xserve3,1 I can test with incase someone does have 12 DDR3-1333Mhz 2Rx4 16GB ram sticks going spare LOL (I say 1333Mhz because then I can stick them in my MacPro4,1-5,1 afterwards LOL)

 

[Amethyst1]

Mac OS X

has no Physical CPU count limitation only a limitation on how many threads there can be which for Snow Leopard I THINK is 32 Threads, so 4x8 Core CPUs would indeed work

Thanks for clearing this up.

PS: the Xserve3,1 in Dual CPU Configuration maxes out at 192GB of RAM, and that thing originally shipped with Leopard let alone Snow Leopard

Silly me only looked at the MacPro5,1 and forgot about the real hot iron... *facepalm*

 

[B S Magnet]

Threads, so 4x8 Core CPUs would indeed work (you would have to disable hyper threading in that case however)

And this would be because hyper-threading would present 64 threads, where Snow Leopard can only handle 32, yes?

 

[LightBulbFun]

Thanks for clearing this up.


Silly me only looked at the MacPro5,1 and forgot about the real hot iron... *facepalm*

dont worry your not the only one! the Xserve often gets forgotten about! apple pretty much forgot about it themselves, I mean common they could of at least given it a Westmere update LOL

And this would be because hyper-threading would present 64 threads, where Snow Leopard can only handle 32, yes?

indeed thats is why you would have to disable hyper-threading

another option if you needed a maximum speed Snow Leopard (or even intel Tiger or Leopard) machine is to build a modern Fast PC

and use Linux with QEMU etc to make a OS X virtual machine with a dedicated Graphics card and other PCI/PCIe peripherals as needed passed through to the machine

of course not as fun as running OS X on bare metal hardware, but PCIe passthrough to VMs is fun in its own way/right

 

[B S Magnet]

dont worry your not the only one! the Xserve often gets forgotten about! apple pretty much forgot about it themselves, I mean common they could of at least given it a Westmere update LOL

Atop everything working against them (like Apple’s own neglect), it’s a crying shame how large and loud the Xserves are, and how hard it is to find replacement parts owing to their relative scarcity and confinement to enterprise environments.

of course not as fun as running OS X on bare metal hardware, but PCIe passthrough to VMs is fun in its own way/right

🥱 yah, what you were saying… uh, wait I was yawning right around when you started to saying something about linux with Q-something running SL instances… gosh I don‘t know what came over me so suddenly…

 

[B S Magnet]

Mac OS X

has no Physical CPU count limitation only a limitation on how many threads there can be which for Snow Leopard I THINK is 32 Threads, so 4x8 Core CPUs would indeed work (you would have to disable hyper threading in that case however)

remember to a unix/unix like OS every CPU Core and even thread is its own CPU

if I do a host info on my Mac Pro

Mach kernel version:
     Darwin Kernel Version 18.7.0: Mon May  3 20:41:19 PDT 2021; root:xnu-4903.278.68~1/RELEASE_X86_64
Kernel configured for up to 24 processors.
12 processors are physically available.
24 processors are logically available.
Processor type: i486 (Intel 80486)
Processors active: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Primary memory available: 32.00 gigabytes
Default processor set: 423 tasks, 2497 threads, 24 processors
Load average: 0.92, Mach factor: 23.07

you can see as far as the kernel is concerned I have 12/24 Processors despite only having 2 Physical Processors, as each Processor has 6 cores 12 threads (because there is Hyper threading enabled)

the whole Physical CPU count limit, is really just a soft limit put in place by software vendors like Microsoft etc so they can charge more for editions that support multiple CPUs etc


another way to look at it is just look at the G5 Quad, Notice it says 4 x PowerPC G5 in about this Mac, because although it is "only" 2 Dual Core CPUs, OpenFirmware/OS X does not really make the distinction and just treats everything as literally 4 PowerPC G5's


PS: the Xserve3,1 in Dual CPU Configuration maxes out at 192GB of RAM, and that thing originally shipped with Leopard let alone Snow Leopard although I dont actually know what SL's RAM limit is if it has one (I recall reading something but that was a long time ago and I dont know how verified it was)

I do have a Dual CPU Xserve3,1 I can test with incase someone does have 12 DDR3-1333Mhz 2Rx4 16GB ram sticks going spare LOL (I say 1333Mhz because then I can stick them in my MacPro4,1-5,1 afterwards LOL)

I’m starting to think a more pragmatic approach might be to find a dual-socket motherboard (they seem to be more common in the used realm) and match it with the even faster E5-2867W Xeons in lieu of the E5-4650, running on the ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS. The Geekbench2 score isn’t much lower than the quad-socket benchmark mentioned earlier in this thread, while running 16 cores and 32 threads (with hyperthreading) from two sockets is liable to be less of a thermal and electrical beast than four sockets running 32 cores and 32 threads (without said hyperthreading if running SL).

I’m also starting to think theres a whole other forum on here to talk about hackintoshing, but most of that relates to the new stuff anyway.

 

[Amethyst1]

but PCIe passthrough to VMs is fun in its own way/right

Yeah, it’s kinda the holy grail of virtualisation in my book.

it’s a crying shame how large and loud the Xserves are,

Which powerful rack-mounted x86 server doesn’t need an armada of racing fans to keep the heat in check? Now, a water-cooled Xserve would be cooler than cool!

 

[B S Magnet]

Which powerful rack-mounted x86 server doesn’t need an armada of racing fans to keep the heat in check? Now, a water-cooled Xserve would be cooler than cool!

Curse those razor-thin clearances inside and outside the enterprise rack server cases! I don’t know how often liquid cooling rack servers are using in enterprise settings. I would imagine the liability of rnning liquid cooling in near proximity to other customer/client servers might prohibit liquid cooling use in those specific applications. Though if someone could engineer their own liquid-cooled mounting system for the Xserve, that might open up some possibilities. It’s a shame Apple skipped the Sandy Bridge-EP/EX CPUs when moving from the Xserve3,1 to the next-generation nearest-counterpart, the MacPro6,1.

Speaking of Sandy Bridge-EP/EX Geekbench scores, I found yet-another configuration which may be faster than the ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS: the HP Z820 Workstation. The fastest Geekbench2 score using the same E5-2687W dual-processor setup, apparently tops at around 41000 — almost six per cent faster than the ASUS and about 8 per cent slower than that quad-processor setup earlier in the thread.

 

[LightBulbFun]

on the note of Snow Leopard and Sandy Bridge E/EP, since Snow Leopard does natively or at least semi natively support/is aware of Sandy Bridge E/EP CPU's as one can see from the 10.6.8 Kernel source code https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.15.3/osfmk/i386/cpuid.h.auto.html

(Jaketown was the intel codename for Sandy Bridge E/EP)

I have wondered if a MacPro6,1 would boot with a Sandy Bridge E/EP CPU, could one boot Snow Leopard on a MP6,1...

there would be no graphical support (or even USB port support LOL) but it would quite fun/amusing nonetheless

 

[B S Magnet]

on the note of Snow Leopard and Sandy Bridge E/EP, since Snow Leopard does natively or at least semi natively support/is aware of Sandy Bridge E/EP CPU's as one can see from the 10.6.8 Kernel source code https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.15.3/osfmk/i386/cpuid.h.auto.html
View attachment 1868108
(Jaketown was the intel codename for Sandy Bridge E/EP)

I have wondered if a MacPro6,1 would boot with a Sandy Bridge E/EP CPU, could one boot Snow Leopard on a MP6,1...

there would be no graphical support (or even USB port support LOL) but it would quite fun/amusing nonetheless

I need to find the mention in another post elsewhere (one I ran across only last night, but whose tab I have long since closed) which noted, with complaint, how the MacPro5,1, depending on when it was shipped by Apple, determined the earliest version of OS X which would definitively run a certain version of OS X, dependent on which firmware/EFI revision shipped with it — which is to say, ones which shipped in 2013, just before the MacPro6,1 came out, might not boot into anything less than Mountain Lion or even 10.9.0 of Mavericks.

But the above source code mention is very reassuring to know, if ultimately I get courageous (at the same time I miraculously go from skint to flush) and get one of these workstations coupled with E5-2687W CPUs I keep mentioning in this thread, to make an ultra-fast Hackintosh booting into 10.6.8 natively.

EDIT to add: I find it interesting how “Jaketown” and “Sandybridge” are noted as “internal models” — ostensibly, models which, ultimately, did not reach production? If so, then it leaves one to ponder whether there was a provisional plan to release either a Mac Pro after 5,1 which would, feature-wise, have fallen between 5,1 and the eventual 6,1 — or even an Xserve4,1 which never came to pass.

 

[Amethyst1]

I have wondered if a MacPro6,1 would boot with a Sandy Bridge E/EP CPU, could one boot Snow Leopard on a MP6,1...

I have to admit to kinda liking the 6,1‘s form factor and having entertained getting one for quite some time, sort of like a super-charged Mac mini for Mavericks. It’s still way too expensive though.

on the note of Snow Leopard and Sandy Bridge E/EP, since Snow Leopard does natively or at least semi natively support/is aware of Sandy Bridge E/EP

Thanks for mentioning this - I had been wondering about it.

 

[Amethyst1]

the 10.6.8 Kernel source code

Cool to see it knowing about the canned Auburndale/Havendale predecessors to Arrandale/Clarkdale; as well as Jasper Forest.

10.4.11 kernel‘s cpuid.h file contains a host of CPU vendors and models - ah, the 1990s when there was an abundance of manufacturers rather than just two.

10.8.5‘s kernel is aware of Crystal Well with its lovely 128 MB of L4 cache. I mean, Macs shipped with it so it had better.

(I'll shut up now! )

 

[LightBulbFun]

I need to find the mention in another post elsewhere (one I ran across only last night, but whose tab I have long since closed) which noted, with complaint, how the MacPro5,1, depending on when it was shipped by Apple, determined the earliest version of OS X which would definitively run a certain version of OS X, dependent on which firmware/EFI revision shipped with it — which is to say, ones which shipped in 2013, just before the MacPro6,1 came out, might not boot into anything less than Mountain Lion or even 10.9.0 of Mavericks.

theres no such limitation on the MacPro5,1 you could of bought a Single CPU Quad Core Mac Pro in Late 2013 and booted 10.5.8 Leopard on it if you wanted to (as the Quad Core single CPU machines still shipped with Nehalem CPUs Which Leopard obviously supports from the MP4,1/Xserve3,1)

makes the MacPro5,1 the last mac to natively boot Leopard although obviously without graphic acceleration

Cool to see it knowing about the canned Auburndale/Havendale predecessors to Arrandale/Clarkdale; as well as Jasper Forest.

10.4.11 kernel‘s cpuid.h file contains a host of CPU vendors and models - ah, the 1990s when there was an abundance of manufacturers rather than just two.

10.8.5‘s kernel is aware of Crystal Well with its lovely 128 MB of L4 cache. I mean, Macs shipped with it so it had better.

(I'll shut up now! )

indeed I have good fun going through all of those in the past I find Tigers list quite interesting but that was obviously for Darwin support (tiger being the last version Apple released a Darwin ISO for) its interesting to note that Nehalem EX and Westmere EX are there as well

(also in 10.4.11 note how Penryn support managed to just squeak in despite no Penryn mac shipping with Tiger) and if you did a hostinfo on the Darwin and DTK/hackintosh tiger builds it would actually report the CPU type like Pentium 4 rather then a Generic i486

indeed I did try and Boot 10.8.5 on a Mid 2014 15 Inch rMBP, it got most of the way but refused to load the window server, I dont think the intel graphics drivers had the right frame-buffer personality for the machine, or maybe the NVIDIA GPU was getting in the way somehow

(twas not my machine so I only had limited time to mess around with it sadly)

 

[Amethyst1]

makes the MacPro5,1 the last mac to natively boot Leopard although obviously without graphic acceleration

The 2010 MBA (confirmed) and MB/MBP/MacMini (presumably) also boot Leopard after deleting the GeForce kexts, those were discontinued in July 2011 at the latest though.

indeed I have good fun going through all of those in the past

Same here - perhaps they did experiment with AMD CPUs at some point during OS X's "secret double-life". Would have made sense to consider all options.

(also in 10.4.11 note how Penryn support managed to just squeak in despite no Penryn mac shipping with Tiger)

Also note how Broadwell didn't have a separate codename for the "super-charged" variants... and they came up with "Brystalwell".

indeed I did try and Boot 10.8.5 on a Mid 2014 15 Inch rMBP,

I have a Late 2013 15-inch rMBP with just the Iris Pro 5200 - I can try to boot 10.8.5 on it for the LOLs