Q: Upgrade advice - looking for a stopgap MacPro

Is the 2010 vs 2009 really a huge performance upgrade on system architecture?

The real "knee in the curve" is between the 2008 and 2009 models. 2009 and later have vastly improved memory architecture and add hardware Multi-Threading, which gives you additional processing power. (In processor testing, muti-threading typically provides the equivalent of an additional 1/3 to 1/2 processor for each nominal processor in the machine.)

The hatter says the PCIe bus is slightly different between the 2009 and 2010 models, but this is not an issue for most users.

Is the DDR 1066 vs 1333 only governed by the processor  (4/8  vs 6/12 cores).... or are their  system bus limits on  2009 vs 2010?

That is gated by the 5,1 firmware PLUS the Bus loading. If you run the 5,1 firmware (not supported but doable on the 4,1 with a hack) you have the potential to run 1333 memory at speed. Whether it runs at full speed depends on the processor configuration. (The details elude me at the moment but my recollection is that the 6-core and 12-core processors cannot use it at top speed.)

32bit or 64bit kernel

That is what dead-ends the 2006 and 2007 models at 10.7

SSD drives

You can install more than one, or you can use one as a spare, or you can place one in an external enclosure.

I'd think a SSD may be pushing up the price (plus power and heat) too much

SSD drives run MUCH cooler and draw far less power.

Some method for eliminating deleted blocks from SSD drives should be applied from time-to-time. TRIM Enabler was popular, and did it on the spot, but it is becoming harder to use in 10.9.5 or later.

If you keep a separate Boot Drive, its data changes so slowly that deleted block elimination is barely needed.

Data drives on SSDs turn over data more frequently, so some deleted data scheme is recommended. There is not a clear solution in this category. Some Users suggest keeping an older System drive on hand (10.6.8 or later up to 10.9.4) and install TRIM Enabler on that to be used for weekly or monthly Disk Utility (Repair Disk) runs to eliminate deleted data and regain SSD speed.

Take a look at MegaMacs http://megamacs.com/macs.php or EBay.....caveat emptor.

However, my question intent was:   for 2009...  32bit kernel boot is Default but the system can be booted into 64bit...  and for  2010,  64bit is the default kernel boot.

32-bit kernel or 64-bit kernel does not depend on the Processor or Model, except as noted earlier with the firmware in the 2006 and 2007 models.

10.6.8 boots in 32 or 64 -bit kernel modes. 10.7 prefers 64, but will boot in 32 if your Mac cannot boot in 64, or if you explicitly set it that way.

10.8 does not even include the code to boot in 32-bit kernel mode, but it can run 32-bit Apps just fine. If you launch one of those it will execute normally without error messages. Later Mac OS X also does not contain the code to boot in 32-bit kernel mode.

--------

10.9.5 and later, and especially 10.10.x  are prepared for you to FileVault absolutely everything. There is a one-time conversion at the outset that you must endure a few hours of encryption before serious first use. On the Mac Pro, there are Xeon instructions that make the computations for encryption reasonably fast, so no worries. Some older processors do not have those instructions, and everything there will be s-l-o-w.

It appears on further reading that FileVault 2 was introduced MUCH earlier than I thought. This article says, "It just works, and fast."

http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/10/filevault-2-benchmarks-disk-encryption-faster-mac -os-x-lion/

.

These Processor instructions, first available in the Xeons in Westmere 5600 series processor featured in the 2009 Mac Pro silver tower, and in (I Think) Core-i5 and i7 MacBook processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set

.

>>(I wonder what Apple does on its own SSD drives, which tend to be   OS and Data for most people... so they don't slow down over time)<<

Apple allows Mac OS X to use built-in TRIM. The TRIM Enabler utility added later modifies a Mac OS X kernel extension to nullify the distinction between Apple and "other".

Since 10.9.5, Apple has introduced kernel extension signing. This makes it impossible to use TRIM Enabler without turning OFF kernel extension signing, and makes the whole issue of top performance with Third-Party SSDs turn ugly.

Fausttiger,

Per Grant's and other guidance and recs from this board, I upgraded from from my old 1,1,to the 4,1, which seems well suited for my type of usage. ESPECIALLY THE PRICE!

I bought a 2009 MacPro  4.1 core, 3.33Mhz, 12mg 1066 Mhz ram, from OWC for about $850. added some used OWC ram for $40.

Running OSX 10.8.5 with two 120Gb SSDs, and CCClone 1TB HDD/600MB HDD backup system

Am assuming that I'm running 64 bit kernel mode because I'm running Mountain Lion OSX...(Right, Grant?)

Moved my 5770 over to new (for me!) and am also using a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120, to drive three 23" Cinema displays.

Have another GT 120 board and another Cinema Display, but have not yet installed it.

Its a general purpose computer and I don't game, edit vids, or render big stuff.

But everything is FASTER...especially 'old sluggos' MS2011 for Mac Excel and Word. Browser refresh is very snappy. Boot is faster. Saves are faster. Big C&Ps are faster.

Am quite happy with the upgrade from my old 1,1. Very cost effective move. Will probably use this computer for 4+ years, minimum, and then move to a used 6,1 - 6 core dual GPU 3.5 or 3.7, when they start selling for under a grand...

------

Yikes!!

My first Macintosh SE ('86 or '87) had 2Mb ram, a 20 Mb HD and a 800K floppy. $2500+. I think I got a "Fat Mac" upgrade for it.

If I remember correctly, some apps required as many as 12-16 floppies to load, one at a time.

That was almost 30 years ago, when I was a mere lad of 43...

Wish I still had it...and the computer, too...

John

Try Craig's list locally. Last week I picked up a 2009 4-core with 16 GB for $425. It has the standard GT 120

In the 2009 models and later, The Processor and memory moves to the removable slide-out shelf, and there are two distinct Processor shelves. The single-chip processor shelf has four RAM sockets. The dual-chip processor shelf has eight. Triple-channel is optimal, but the penalty for two or four modules is very small.

The price of 8GB DIMMs is so close to the price of two 4GB DIMMS that I recommend you never pay money for a 4GB (or smaller) DIMMs. Remember that 16GB DIMMS are registered DIMMs, and will not 'play nice with others'.

fausttiger wrote:

 

Retiring my MacPro 1,1  4-core  to   4,1 or 5,1..    

Doing this in part now because Lion isn't supported by security updates anymore... and that's as far as I can go with the 1,1.

This isn't the answer you're looking for, but I am still running a Mac Pro 1,1 because I used the commonly available techniques to upgrade it to Mavericks. It's never been faster. Some now have this model running on Yosemite.

But I know you need to upgrade for other reasons. Although I maxed out the RAM for cheap on my MP 1,1 it is still held back by the CPUs and various buses. At least I put a new GPU in it...

There can be so much multi-processing and memory caching going on that numbers that small may not be readily observable. Some folks who tested RAM performance with special memory testing suites saw numbers slightly higher. But when they did real-world tests, they said, "don't worry about it, you will never see it."

So my take is: buy the denser (8GB if that's what you will need) DIMMs, and if you only need two, then later when you plug in the third it will speed up a little, and if you have to add the fourth it will not slow down by much.