MP 6,1 Upgrade Mac Pro 2013 from 3.5GHz 6-Core to 2.7GHz 12-Core - Worth it?

[loby]

Is it worth to upgrade a Mac Pro 2013 with dual D500 GPUs from a 3.5GHz 6-Core to a 2.7GHz 12-Core?

Already put an OWC Aura Pro X2 1TB NVMe SSD in it and updated the RAM to 64GB DDR3-1866.

Runs cooler on maOS Catalina 10.15.1 (19B88) (noticed a difference)...

Would I notice (or is there) a significant improvement in performance? I use mainly FCPX, Motion, Compressor and Logic Pro X. Mostly, I would use the Mac Pro 2013 for video work.

OWC has CPU upgrades for sale. Of course it is a pain to tear it all apart (I am tech enough to do it)...but would it be worth it and the risk?

Used CPU is about $479.99. To have them make the upgrade is of course expensive (extra $500 or so), but with the hassle...might be worth it instead of risking it....

Any thoughts from those who have a 12-Core Mac Pro 2013 or have knowledge about the differences in performance from the 6-Core to 12-Core?

The New Mac Pro coming out is way out of my price point currently...so thought maybe this upgrade would make the Mac Pro 2013 last a few more years.

Specs:

Current:

3.5GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 (E5-1650v2)
Processor: 1
Cores: 6
Threads: 12
L3 Cache: 12 MB
Intel QPI Speed: 0
# of QPI Links: 0

Update:

2.7GHz 12-Core Intel Xeon E5 (E5-2697v2)
Processor: 1
Core: 12
Threads: 24
L3 Cache: 30 MB
Intel QPI Speed: 8 GT/s
# of QPI Links: 2

Is it worth it...?

Thanks for the advice in advance.

 

[Zlobnick]

You can get it a lot cheaper than $479.99

 

[loby]

Do you know where?

 

[joelypolly]

I got my 10 core from eBay about 2 years ago for 300, I imagine that now with the release of a new 7,1 the price will be <200 if that. I have also taken my Mac apart about 3 to 4 times in the last ~6 years for reapplication of thermal paste and usually it takes about 2 hours to take apart the whole thing including GFX cards. For 200 bucks and a few hours of time I think it is worth it.

 

[loby]

I have watched a few videos on how to tear apart the Mac Pro 2013, but sometimes the videos don't really show the complicated or extremely difficult parts of the tear down. For instance, when I replaced hard drives in a Mac mini 2012 (not to difficult to do), what was not stated in the videos is that once you take off the antenna grill, it never lines again "just right" for both screws to be screwed in again, so I had to leave one screw out (does not effect the system, but just irritating). It seems that heat over time might have bended or soften the metal a little, but just enough that it will not go in flush again once after taking it out...(since it is not meant initially to be taken apart after being built.

That being said...The Mac Pro 2013 was not built to do any major replacements, so how delicate is it as far as "messing it up"? It ranks as "most difficult to service", but to what extent? I have done thermal paste replacements (hate it) years ago, and that is the only thing that makes me hesitate attempting the pursuit.

What do you think?

 

[CC88]

In the past I have done the upgrade from 4core double D300 to 6 core cpu. You can change the cpu in half an hour with no problem. It's a simple process just take a look at the OWC video guide about cpu upgrade on MacPro Late 2013.

After that I sold it because I wanna give a D700 a try and started doing some 3d rendering where the engine required more core and bought a maximized 12 core machine with double D700.

I can tell you in FCPX it's a beast compared to the 6 core but I can't tell if the difference is about more core or double D700 (fcpx use both gpu). Maybe in single core app like Lightroom and Photoshop (that I use) the more Ghz of the 6 core is better. It all depends on your app if they are able to use more core efficiently.

Any thoughts from those who have a 12-Core Mac Pro 2013 or have knowledge about the differences in performance from the 6-Core to 12-Core?

Geekbench state 7037 points for 12 core macpro multicore performance and 4581 for 6 core. It's a 53% increase...

in single core 811 for 6 core and 727 for 12 core... It's a 10% decrease.

 

[loby]

Thanks for the info. Yes, that is what I am debating because I have D500 and not D700. I am not sure if the extra Cores are make more of a difference instead of more GPU power. I have read both sides fo the argument...but have not read about (found) clear answers concerning FCPX and what is better...CPU or GDU. I cannot upgrade the D500 to a D700, for it is not common for anyone to see just the GPUs. I saw it once for sale...but they were charging $2,000 for the pair.

Anyone know for FCPX what is the preferred? CPU or GPU? Is there a major difference from the D500 to D700 in performance?

Because I don't have the D700's in my Mac Pro 2013, is it now NOT worth upgrading the CPU?

Again, thank you all who have commented and who will in the future..

 

[AlexMaximus]

I think it depends on the application you run on the system. But generally speaking, most will tell you to have more cores in your mac is great for render jobs. If you render a lot, the CPU upgrade is very much recommended. Since the difference between D500 and D700 is small compared to using a Vega or the 5700XT in an external GPU Box, I would go external anyway and vote for the CPU upgrade. Installing this software hack to get the eGPU going on the 6.1 is a bit of a hassle, but way more rewarding than to replace a 2013 card with a 2013 card (D500->D700)

 

[CC88]

I thought about eGPU too, but the enclosure's size and noise has always stopped me to buy one.

 

[chfilm]

I thought about eGPU too, but the enclosure's size and noise has always stopped me to buy one.

I’m going through the same thoughts, though I have the 8 core.
If I wanted to extend the life of my trash can I would get an eGPU and the 10 core. The 12 cores I sometimes use at work just feel sluggish and slower than my 8 core in my personal experience probably due to the lower single core speed. Also they tend to overheat during extended render periods and then you get weird artifacts in your videos. I’ve seen this on multiple machines with 12 cores and adobe media encoder.

 

[loby]

I’m going through the same thoughts, though I have the 8 core.
If I wanted to extend the life of my trash can I would get an eGPU and the 10 core. The 12 cores I sometimes use at work just feel sluggish and slower than my 8 core in my personal experience probably due to the lower single core speed. Also they tend to overheat during extended render periods and then you get weird artifacts in your videos. I’ve seen this on multiple machines with 12 cores and adobe media encoder.

Humm...I have heard about the over heating with the 12-Core and read about the lower single core speed. Is the 10-Core the "sweet spot"?

if were to jump aboard to upgrade, I would just want to do this once and thought just to max it out with the 12-Core, but the thermal issue I have even noticed with my 6-Core and the heat is something also I have noticed (in the summer my 6-Core heats up my room way too much).

Should I instead go with the 10-Core if I upgrade? Not much of a difference from the 12-Core in rendering and score better with single core applications also? Rendering is why mostly I would upgrade anyway (and would use it for single core stuff).

 

[yellowbunny]

Went 4 to 12 core a couple of weeks ago. Was a very simple job following ifixit. Took about an hour. All working fine since bad super speedy.

 

[vett93]

I upgraded from 4-core to 10-core also a couple of weeks ago. On Geekbench 5, my machine was benchmarked at 800/7,200 for single-core and multi-core. I hesitated 12-core CPU because of its slower single-core clock speed and lower single-core benchmark score on Geekbench Browser. But if your main application is video, the extra cores would definitely help.

 

[CC88]

Haven't see any artifact due to high temperature during FCPX rendering or other 3d rendering task with my 12 core.

I started to use macfancontrol to speed up the fan when the CPU PECI sensor reach 45°C and set it to maximum when it reach 70°C. The machine stay silent. Really happy with it.
[automerge]1574320502[/automerge]

I upgraded from 4-core to 10-core also a couple of weeks ago. On Geekbench 5, my machine was benchmarked at 800/7,200 for single-core and multi-core. I hesitated 12-core CPU because of its slower single-core clock speed and lower single-core benchmark score on Geekbench Browser. But if your main application is video, the extra cores would definitely help.

Can you tell 10-core model type?

 

[loby]

Intel® Xeon®
10-Core 3.0GHz
E5-2690 v2 Processor
20 Thread / 25MB Cache / 130W / Socket FCLGA2011

 

[CC88]

Intel® Xeon®
10-Core 3.0GHz
E5-2690 v2 Processor
20 Thread / 25MB Cache / 130W / Socket FCLGA2011

Thank you very much for answering.

Passmark say 16391 vs 17198 for the 12 core it's a 5% increment in multi core.

In single core 1821 for 10 core vs 1734 for the 12 core. The 10-core it's 4.7% better.

Not too much difference.

 

[loby]

Thank you very much for answering.

Passmark say 16391 vs 17198 for the 12 core it's a 5% increment in multi core.

In single core 1821 for 10 core vs 1734 for the 12 core. The 10-core it's 4.7% better.

Not too much difference.

So really overall...the 10-Core seems to be the better choice? 12-Core is Probably just a little better for rendering, but looses on single core.

Probably better to get the 10-Core?

Any suggestions?

 

[CC88]

Can't tell, really... Maybe the best is the one you can find at a lowest price at time of writing and with faster shipment time. Hard to tell the difference in real world environment ihmo.

 

[loby]

I guess it comes down to what you use your Mac Pro 2013 for. I use it mostly for video and need the rendering power, so I will probably go with the 12-Core. The 10-Core is probably the "sweet-spot" for overall usage...but given my usage in video, I would probably not notice too much of the small decrease in single core function.

Appreciate the assistance and will give it a go in a few months when I am able to purchase the CPU (out-of-the-states currently on business). Any more thoughts on the subject is always welcomed.

Given that the new Mac Pro 2019 goes on sale (tomorrow) Dec. 10th.. the Mac Pro 2013 will be officially retiring as one of the longest running Macs in Apple's history. People either liked it or hated it, but if you are able to purchase the new Mac Pro 2019, I believe probably most will be happy with it. I cannot afford it, so upgrading my Mac Pro 2013 looks like my best option.

 

[CC88]

People either liked it or hated it, but if you are able to purchase the new Mac Pro 2019, I believe probably most will be happy with it. I cannot afford it, so upgrading my Mac Pro 2013 looks like my best option.

Love my 12 core trash can... I got offer for selling but recently I upgraded to 64gb of RAM. I'm waiting the 2019 MacPro geekbench performance and test to give it a chance. Maybe the real difference with mine would be the 16 core with Vega at around 10K...

 

[pischu12]

MacPro 10 Core 64 Ram D500 MacOS 14.4.1

Installed OCLP MacOS 14.4.1 today and I can say on repeated testing ( Geekbench & Blackmagic ) and GUI feedback that i) Write speeds on original apple SSD went from 800+ to 1200+ Read speeds also saw a jump of 100-150 ii) Repeated testing with Geeckench 6 GPU metal test saw an increase in performance of up to 800+ from approx 25300 to 26600. iii) Mac Fan Control - quicker reduction in temps "anecdotal" - I don't see continuous "higher" running temps - more quickly to be regulated and fall.

Absolutely worth the upgrade - this wonderful computer ( with crazy amazing work of OCLP ) has allot of speed and life left in it.

Have worked with a 12 Core - the 10 feels" a little more receptive and quicker on normal daily tasks. Not heavy computing.

With best wishes.

 

[avro707]

.. caught by old reply.

 

[tsialex]

That's the 7,1 on Geekbench 5:

View attachment 2374663


The 16 core W3245 with the same specs (including W6800X MPX 32GB) but without afterburner card:

Mac Pro (Late 2019) 7,1
CPU: Intel Xeon W3245 3.2ghz (max 4.4ghz)
Single-Core Score: 1127
Multi-Core Score: 15387

Older generation Mac Pro models:

Mac Pro (Late 2013) 6,1
CPU: Intel Xeon E5 2697 V2 2.7ghz
Multi-Core Score: 8000

Mac Pro (Mid 2010) 5,1
CPU: 2x Intel Xeon X5690 3.46ghz
Multi-Core Score: 6900

All my scores are on the same version of GeekBench.

No one waits 5 years for Geekbench results

 

[avro707]

No one waits 5 years for Geekbench results

oh I see what you mean.. Damn old post caught out. Reply edited.