Thinking about upgrading processor in my 6,1

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Selsk, Apr 26, 2018.

  1. Selsk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    #1
    I have the 6 core with d500s. Ive been looking at the E5-1660v2 as a replacement. Mostly for it's higher clock speed for photoshop/lightroom and games in bootcamp. Also because there are cheap used chips available that I can try. It is a small bump in clock speed but I have seen good single core benchmarks. As for my needs, would be the best option...vs an 8 core chip?

    Has anyone here swapped the xeon in your trashcan? :)

    Cheers!
     
  2. Macinsquatch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    #2
    I replaced my 6 core with an E5-2690 10 core. Pretty painless, just take your time.
    I'd personally stay away from the 1660 due to it having so little cache (15 MB vs the 25 in most other models)

    The 8 core at 3.3 ghz will match the 6 core in speed until more than 5 cores are in use. That is the sweet spot.

    Source: https://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-CPU-GPU-choice.html
     
  3. Selsk thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    #3
    E5-2687W V2, E5-2667 V2, E5-2673 V2. Which of the 8 cores would you recommend? The 2687W is also 150W... not sure about that.
     
  4. tpivette89 macrumors 6502

    tpivette89

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Location:
    Newark, DE
    #4
    Most go for the 2667. If I ever got a 6,1... that's what I would swap into it
     
  5. Naimfan Suspended

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #5
    I've done both the E5-2667 V2 (8 core, 3.3 GHz) and the E5-2697 V2 (12 core, 2.7 GHz).

    If you need the cores, the 2697 is the way to go; if you need more single-thread performance the 2667 is better.

    Easy to do.
     
  6. iMactouch macrumors newbie

    iMactouch

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Location:
    Wunstorf, Germany
    #6
    Did anyone changed their 4 core version into a 10 core version (E5-2690V2)?
    What is the difference in normal work (3,7GHz to 3 GHz but 10MB Cache to 25MB Cache)? Does it feel really faster?
    Will eg. Handbrake work really faster with the 10 core version?
     
  7. jclmavg macrumors regular

    jclmavg

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    #7
    I have two trashcans. One I upgraded to an 8 core E5-2673 V2, has a lower tdp than the 2667 but those are hard to find. The other one I upgraded to a 12 core E5-2697 V2. I prefer the higher core count myself, especially since my system rarely drops down to the base clock anyway.
     
  8. iMactouch macrumors newbie

    iMactouch

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Location:
    Wunstorf, Germany
    #8
    Isn't here someone who changed the Quadcore into a 10 core?
     
  9. Selsk thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    #9
    Thanks for the responses.

    I guess I am just really wondering which would be better for gaming. Lol...lightroom is actually fast enough for me now.

    6 core E5-1660v2 @ 3.7 or 8 core E5-2667v2 @ 3.3.

    Would having the two more cores help more, or less core more clock speed?
    How much would the lower cache of the 1660v2 affect gaming performance?
     
  10. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #10
    I don't know what difference cache size makes--I've looked around, but I've never been able to find a "real world use" benchmark. There can be HUGE differences in memory latency benchmarks, but memory tests typically don't directly translate to a noticeable difference except in very specific use cases like a server getting hammered with database requests. So in your case it depends on what you think "normal work" is.

    Handbrake scales almost perfectly with CPU frequency and number of cores. Put in a 20% faster CPU and you should see a roughly 20% increase in speed. Double the number of cores and you should see roughly double the speed. So, for Handbrake as a specific use case, many more cores is better than a speed increase. But most other applications will benefit from the single core speed.
     
  11. Selsk thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    #11
    I was just browsing geekbench-marks and it's interesting that the 8-Core e5 1680v2 wipes the floor with the single core tests.
     
  12. iMactouch macrumors newbie

    iMactouch

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Location:
    Wunstorf, Germany
    #12
    I would expect that the 10 core is as fast as the 8 core in single core, because it is also running at 3GHz.
    Isn't it so?
     
  13. orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  14. Selsk thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    #14
    Not that I can see. There are hundreds of 8 core benchmarks in the 4500 score area. Although who knows if for some reason these are all hackintosh scores....they appear to be legit? It does say @ 3000Mhz.

    The highest 10 core score I could find is like 3400..

    I ran a cpu test on my stock 6 core the other day and it was like 3980. I only have 16gb of ram too...

    E5-1660v2 gets like 4100.

    Maybe I just first up my ram to at least 32gb. Then source the fastest processor I can get my hands on. And then NVMe Evo 960 Pro.
     
  15. iMactouch, May 2, 2018
    Last edited: May 3, 2018

    iMactouch macrumors newbie

    iMactouch

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Location:
    Wunstorf, Germany
    #15
    I have here a E5-1620 v2 @ 3.7 GHz with 32GB 1866 MHz DDR3 RAM.
    I am getting in single core 3857 and multi core 14021.
    Wenn I am booting new and don't start any programs I am getting 3970 and 14338.
     
  16. tpivette89 macrumors 6502

    tpivette89

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Location:
    Newark, DE
    #16
    Most 8-cores (the 2667 at 3.3ghz) benchmark in the 4000-4100 range single core, and 24000 range multicore. Those 4500 single core scores are surely hackintoshes.
     
  17. tanoanian macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    #17
    Just swapped out my stock quad core for an e5-2667 and I'm seeing the CPU temperatures reported by TG Pro are significantly higher...70 degrees Celsius and higher. I used Arctic Silver 5 after cleaning the CPU and heat sink with rubbing alcohol..are these temps normal for an 8 core processor? Thinking about redoing the thermal compound...
     
  18. jclmavg macrumors regular

    jclmavg

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    #18
    Is that under stress? If not those temps are IMO indeed too high. I didn't use Arctic 5, but Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut instead.
     
  19. tanoanian macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    #19
    It is somewhat under stress...running two instances of windows 7 with VMware.
     
  20. jclmavg macrumors regular

    jclmavg

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    #20
    Difficult to say, I don't run VMware so I have no idea what sort of CPU load that would give.
     
  21. stempsons macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2014
    #21
    just swapped out the base 4 core for a used E5-1660 V2 (6 core) and it's noticeably faster, for $195 upgrade, it was well worth it.

    Single core Geekbench increased by about 20% and multi core almost doubled.
     
  22. MarkJames68 macrumors 6502

    MarkJames68

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    #22
    2667 V2. Prices have dropped dramatically now, you should be able to find a good used one for under $300.
     
  23. tpivette89 macrumors 6502

    tpivette89

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Location:
    Newark, DE
    #23
    ^This. Seems to be the sweet spot with the 6,1. Any 6 core or especially the 4 core versions should upgrade to this CPU. Best bang for your buck. If you are patient, you can find one for $250 on eBay. 4000 single-core and 24000 multi-core are the norm with this processor.
     
  24. tanoanian macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    #24
    The best I could find on ebay for the E5-2667 V2 that didn't charge $49 for shipping was $300. Add another $300 for a Samsung 960 Pro NVMe 512GB and it feels like a brand new machine!
     
  25. stempsons macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2014
    #25
    I went this route, just because I wanted the fastest single core speed available, it was also only $195 total.

    Screen Shot 2018-05-12 at 11.19.32 AM.png
     

Share This Page