Mac pro 5.1 Xeon processor 5680/5690 upgrade for DP9

towerproductions · Post by **towerproductions** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:35 am

I have been contemplating upgrading my 2012 mac pro 5.1 12 core 2.4 ghz / 64GB ram as it has been reaching its limits at times . I know a lot of people seem to have had good results with the Xeon 5690 3.46 GHZ processors. My question is about comparing the 5680 3.33 processors with the 5690 . Anyone know how much difference there would be between these two processors with DP 9 for live recording, processing plugins and VI sample libs which I run a lot of . Would there be noticeable real world difference between the two or would it be just minimal ? Any issues with heat with the 5690 over the 5680?

I am finding on ebay I can get a pair of 5680’s for about $200 less than a pair of 5690s and trying to decide if it is really worth the price difference . I am hoping to get a at least a few more years out of this machine with all the peripherals and HDs I have attached .

thanks, Craig

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:06 am

All I can tell you is what I did, Craig.

I went with the 5680s. My thinking was, and this is my philosophy on techy things, that it'd be a safer move to go with the penultimate iteration of the technology. I see the top-performing versions of any particular line as having pushed the boundaries to the limit, so I always avoid them. I'm thinking, in the case of chips, of power-usage efficiency and heat output.

Most wouldn't give a hoot, but as I suggested, I was prepared to implement my M.O. in exchange for what I assumed would be a tiny CPU "hit" in terms of missing out on slightly-improved performance. The architecture is the same AFAIK, so it seems to me that the raw clock speed would be the major differentiator.

I've got the same model tower as you, I think, which I bought with such an upgrade in mind back in 2012. Did the dirty deed last year and haven't looked back. All is hunky dory, mate.

kgdrum · Post by **kgdrum** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:46 am

HC would probably be the best person to answer this but I'd be concerned with potential heat related issues from the 3.46 5690's.
FWIW I upgraded my 2012 from a 2.8 4core ----> to a 3.33 6core with I think the 5680's and it's been GREAT!!! [SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES]

mikehalloran · Post by **mikehalloran** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:12 am

If you are still using mechanical HDs, moving to SSDs will give you a much greater performance boost.

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:29 am

Depends on one's price sensitivity. The difference in cost in far greater than any performance boost. the more expensive 90 series is only about 4% faster, which should be directly felt in all applications. In an edge case scenario, the faster CPU could make a difference. Moving to either 80 or 90 should provide a noticeable improvement in speed compared to your current CPUs.

I own two modded single CPU 4,1 MPs, one with a W3680 and one with a W3690. When I did the first mod, the used Xeons were not yet available, so there was no way I was going to pay an extra $500 on top of the $600 W3680 new price at the time. Fast forward to a couple of months back, when I could get the faster CPU for $25 extra. I decided to try it. I installed a used W3690 in my newer MP, then swapped the CPU/RAM tray out to my studio Mac.

I can't say I can tell the difference.

As far as heat, both models are 130 watt devices. I think it is likely that the 90 series and 80 series are identical; the 90 series simply consists of the silicon that binned better and could be reliably clocked a little faster, and could thus be sold at a premium price. Reports consistently indicate heat is not an issue if the CPUs are properly installed. The 5,1 installation should be a piece of cake whichever you choose.

Note: Dual CPU Macs require the X5680 or 90. W series work only in single-CPU applications.

PS: Mike is right about the SSDs.

towerproductions · Post by **towerproductions** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:10 pm

I have several ssds installed including the boot drive and multiple 7200 HDs and ssds via a multi port esata card and two four drive bays about 12 in all for all my two boot drives , sample libs, audio drives and backups. I think bus speed throughput is still an issue at times and low latency with many VIs open definitely slow things down with beach balls. I am hoping that two 5680s or 90's would improve some of that which it seems like it would.

So far it sounds like there would n't be huge difference between the two 3.33 and 3.46 and given the $100 price difference for each used cpu maybe that might be the way to go .
Ahh decisions ???????

thanks, Craig

greg328 · Post by **greg328** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:07 am

Can anything be done to upgrade an early 2008 Mac pro 3.1? I'm talking processors, not RAM or drives, I've already done all that.

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:17 pm

greg328 wrote:Can anything be done to upgrade an early 2008 Mac pro 3.1? I'm talking processors, not RAM or drives, I've already done all that.

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

From my reading, nothing substantial in the CPU department. Poke around the MacRumors.com Mac Pro Forum and your should get a pretty good feel.

frankf · Post by **frankf** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:57 pm

No, sorry to say, but my 3,1 3.2ghz 8 core is still working very well with SSDs and 32gb RAM for film scoring with DP9. I'll probably move up early next year. That will be 9 years with this Mac making music with keeping current with pro music software (DP) and Mac OS. It's hard to believe.

greg328 · Post by **greg328** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:00 am

Yes, my 3.1 has been really great as well but I long for more power. I'm a heavy VI user and you can never have enough power! By the way, mine is the 8-core 3.2Ghz version.

The new 6.1 Mac Trash Cans are intriguing but they are $$ and I'd have to move away from my PCIe-based MOTU interfaces into the world of Thunderbolt. An expensive proposition all around.

Does anybody here have a real-world comparison between the older Intel Macs like mine and the new trash cans? Are they really worth the $$ to upgrade?
Thanks,
Greg

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:20 am

Not real-world, but still a pretty good indicator of relative power for DAW work:

https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Reference the 64 it multi-core scores. The 2010 3.33 hex Mac Pro scores considerably higher than your 2008 3.2 octo. Then take a look at the top two scores: the current trashcan 12 core followed by the fastest stock 5,1 3.0 12 core. Then think about the fact that you can take a base dual CPU 4,1 or 5,1 and upgrade the CPU to 12 core 3.33 or 3.46. A 4,1 or 5,1 so modified will come very close to the current top performer. The look back to your 3,1's score and note it is considerably less than 1/2 as powerful. If your interest is piqued, review this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=58848

If you are still thinking about moving to the 6,1, consider waiting a little longer, because the 6,1 is 3 year old tech, overpriced at this point. I don't know how Apple can NOT give us a new model soon. OTOH, Apple does as Apple wishes. Or look into a PC, 'cause DP does Windoze now. Or farm out your VIs with VE Pro.

Another ray of hope: DP's promised increased efficiency... reportedly coming soon to a DAW near you!

greg328 · Post by **greg328** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:29 am

Great info, thanks much. I do have VE Pro but stopped using it once DP went 64-bit. Is there any real processing savings by farming out VIs to VE Pro? It's still the same net hit to the processors, no? The only reason we were using it was to overcome the 10GB RAM limit per 32 bit app, right?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:15 am

greg328 wrote:Great info, thanks much. I do have VE Pro but stopped using it once DP went 64-bit. Is there any real processing savings by farming out VIs to VE Pro? It's still the same net hit to the processors, no? The only reason we were using it was to overcome the 10GB RAM limit per 32 bit app, right?

I'm not a VE Pro user myself, but it is reportedly significantly more efficient in VI handling than DP. The promised DP efficiency upgrade may change that.

mikehalloran · Post by **mikehalloran** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:55 am

The 3.1 is not supposed to be compatible with the upcoming OS 10.12. No one knows quite what that means yet—not compatible at all or limited functionality?

The 5.1 will be fully compatible.

The 4.1 can be flashed to 5.1 but will native Wi-Fi and Bluetooth still work? Is it even an issue for most users? BT-4 USB dongles are readily available so it might not be a problem. All things to be sorted out before or shortly after the fall 2016 release.

It's not just the CPU and its firmware that needs to comply for any given Mac to work as needed.

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:48 pm

Folks at Macrumors have 3,1s working with .12 already. To make it work completely properly one needs to install a Wi-Fi/Bluetooth 4.0 PCI E card. I think I linked in a thread here at MOTUNation.

MOTUnation.com