Switch to 2X Xeon 5680 6-core, Will this work?

Hello
My current set up of a 8 core 2.26 Xeon mac pro (Early 2009) has been giving me insufficient power for what i need to do. I am not willing to pay for the apple upgrade to only 2.93 for an 8 core, so I am considering upgrading to two six core 3.33 GHz Xeon X5680's, or two six core 2.93 GHz Xeon X5670's. (I chose those because i'm guessing two i7 980 processors won't fit on a Xeon board). Totalling 12 cores.

The question comes down to, will this work, will the processor fit in the socket? If so, what is involved, what risks are there, what changes would need to be made? Would it work on OS X, or would it only run under windows, etc? Or would it not even work at all?

(And i'd rather not buy a PC with that money.)

Thanks
-C

Mac Pro Early 2009, Mac OS X (10.5.8), Not liking the amount of power.

Posted on Jul 25, 2010 12:27 PM

Reply
29 replies

Aug 5, 2010 3:04 AM in response to The hatter

I do HD video for the web and DVD/art gallery projection, photography, illustration and graphic design all for print and web. Some sound treatment in the future; as I said previously.

So, this is a capable machine for this kind of use for a couple of years or more and for the next 64 bits FCP, etc?

Any thoughts about a fair price to offer?

Thanks a lot. It has been a good help.
P.s I usually start a new topic; but thanks for remind me.

Aug 5, 2010 10:50 AM in response to ateliercunha

I'm guessing and don't have a good feel but US$1800 comes to about 1000 Euros it sounds like.

I think the 2010 3.3GHz 6-core (single socket processor) BTO for lets say US$4000 (throw in some RAM and ATI 5870) would be 3000 Euros (or less) and dynamite.

Only if that isn't enough power, would I even think of looking at an 8-core or 12-core, and then you have to trade MHz off.

Aug 5, 2010 1:24 PM in response to ateliercunha

3400 euros in the ball-park?

A good look at Westmere:

Nehalem was a huge step forward, due to the simultaneous improvement in both the cores and the system architecture.

Westmere has neither the luxury of improving system architecture, nor changing the underlying microarchitecture.
Within those constraints though, Westmere is a solid improvement for multithreaded workloads.
Two extra cores seem to yield roughly 20-40% performance improvements at the same power level as the previous generation.
For embarrassingly parallel workloads, such as those that GPUs excel at, the gains are likely to be higher - approaching 50%.

As expected, the single threaded performance for Westmere is almost identical to Nehalem.
However, the *multi-threaded performance increases by 42%* for the extra 2 cores.
Not perfect scaling, but pretty good.

Realworldtech


But some things really won't arrive owing to the need for application and OS coding and rework.
Westmere also has a new technique for detecting when the PAUSE instruction is used in a spin loop in a guest process.
When a spin loop is detected, the VM may deschedule the guest process to avoid wasting cycles that would otherwise be spent in the spin loop.
The PAUSE instruction is used for other beneficial purposes (e.g. temporarily pausing while an I/O is initiated) and not just spin loops.
So the detection mechanism must avoid triggering false positives, which could impact performance.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT031710140138


some workloads simply won't benefit from these new Xeons, because they're generally no faster in single-threaded tasks than the Nehalems that preceded them—and because not all server-class workloads these days are meaningfully compute-bound. Those are two very different sides of the same coin, but this is where progress to date has taken us.

In our view, the combination of the Xeon L5640 processors and the Willowbrook server may be the finest 2P server platform Intel—or anyone else—has produced to date. This setup's all-around performance is superior to the flagship 95W Nehalem, the Xeon X5570, which it shadows in single-threaded tests thanks to the L5640's generous Turbo Boost peak and conquers in multi-threaded workloads due to 50% more cores and cache. Yet the L5640's TDP is 35W below the X5570's, and its real-world power draw aboard the Willowbrook motherboard is marvelously minuscule.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/19196/10


I hope you look at the 6-core 3.33GHz closely, over 8-core. I think it will prove to be popular price to performance. And more power than the 2008 3.2 would have been by far.

Aug 18, 2010 6:07 PM in response to Chris J Witt

After looking up benchmarks, it seems the 5670 2.93 the MP uses IS faster than the 5680 3.33.

I guess the question now comes down to
1. If the motherboard on the new 12 core MP is the same model/design as it is on the 2009 8 Core.
2. If it is, then if anyone will manage a Firmware dump to flash the microcode. If not, then if there is a way to get the motherboard alone...
3. If it is a better value just to buy the New mac pro, upgrade the 2009, or just build my own PC (Which kinda wrecks the point).

(My other curiosity resides around the new mac pro's power supply, whether it's the same two mini-PCIE plugs or something improved this time around, as i've made sure to remove my graphics bottleneck with a 5970.)

I personally am doing gaming and 3D rendering projects, usually at the same time, so 2.26 gets eaten up like a new batch of chocolate chip cookies.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Switch to 2X Xeon 5680 6-core, Will this work?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.