Processor Upgrades for Mac Pro 4,1 and best config

[Maxxy]

Hi there

I have been inspired by a couple of the threads there to want to pursue upgrading my 2009 Mac Pro Octocore 2.93 (X5570 CPUs). Thanks so much to this list and you DP community…

Until recently I hadn’t realised I could take my 4,1 MP and upgrade it to a 5,1 with a straight-forward software installation…. that is now done….great thanks to netkas.org. Initially it seemed the Geekbench scores were not as good as they had been on the one 64 bit test I did of the 4,1 before I installed the new EFI. It appeared that ‘Memory’ was the issue here… I was getting scores of only about 70% of what I had been earlier…but that seemed to settle down and now the scores are pretty much identical to what they had been

I’m now intending to purchase a set of X5690s in kit form from DN Computers as this looks to be the least complicated and safest way for a guy like me with limited soldering and electronic skills

I have installed iStat Menu Stats to be able to get an idea of what’s going on in the machine

I opened a DP 9.02 project that has had my machine working to the max…. to the point that in order to (a) play enable the audio track into which I will record the “bounced’ final mix and then (b) record-arm that track each takes a good few minutes…. as Scotty would say “she just cannot take anymore Captain”. …At this near-final stage I have frozen and bounced down 3 VIs, running 5 or 6 MIDI tracks into two instances of Spark , 2 mono audio, 9 stereo audio, and 19 Aux channels comprised of 8 FX auxs, sub groups (snare, toms, drums, Vox master, Music master, Low-end master, and all that then bussed to a Master aux …itself finally bussed to the Recording track.

Between the bussing and quite heavy FX use I’m at the edge. My first question then is …why is DP stretched to the max when Activity Monitor see DP as using 256% (does that mean approx 2.5 full CPUs?) ….CPU Load in Activity Monitor shows System at 2.8%, User at 16.2% and Idle at 81% !! FYI …and I don’t know how to interpret this…DP is using 94 threads….second to kernel_task at 178 threads

I’m running DP 9.02 in 64 bit El Capitan 11.5 with a MOTU 16A AVB in USB mode 2048 sample buffer (max)… just as an aside the sound of the 16A has transformed my studio…. after many other MOTU interfaces this one is just spectacular ….James and others who are on the fence about trying to retain their PCI based MOTU interfaces…I suggest you would never look back sound wise ….(Please +1 though for a great reverb …I really could do without almost all the other EQs, compressors etc ) sorry to digress

Looking at the iStat diagrammatic displays of the multiple CPUs as DP is running in this maxed out state indicates that the overall CPU load for DP seems to be shared very evenly and minimally across all 8 cores …. so again why is there 80% idle CPU when DP is about to choke on the Processing meter? Playback is barely registering

I’m just curious as to whether I’m missing something….I have played around with the Studio Settings… Max CPU, Prime seconds, Work Quanta, Quick Start buffers…but it makes little difference as far as I can determine....similarly Pre-gen mode shaves a tad off running in Real-time but again almost indiscernibly

My main boot disk, an SSD 6G in the optical bay recently died and so am waiting for a replacement….currently running on a regular internal HD on its first partition…I wouldn’t have thought this would make much difference once the project is loaded into RAM

BTW I had never realised that nVidea releases updated drivers for the graphics card http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us

Regardless of why I don’t seem to be able to tax the CPUs with DP of course upgrading to a 12 core 3.46g Mac Pro 5.1 is going to make a world of difference and I can’t wait

Finally…. if I decide to upgrade the RAM (currently 8 x 4 gig) to 1333 should I go for a config using just 6 of the 8 slots as I have seen posited or does this apply only to single CPU machines? and do you think an SSD blade in a PCIe slot would make a large difference over the SSD 6G I currently use in the optical bay on internal SATA bus? I have read that the extra speed on the PCIe bus would really only be felt in massive I/O applications like highly trafficked web sites. And finally would you recommend a Graphics card upgrade from the stock nVidea GT Force 120…considering I use only a 30” Apple Cinema Display… although i might be interested in a second TV style monitor if HDMI can actually be put through the Mini Display Port now… is this possible with a flashed 4,1 MP?

Apologies for being a bit rambling …I can’t wait to upgrade the machine, I wonder why I seem to be maxing out perhaps prematurely, I love my AVB 16A to death (but I wish we could trade-off for a great reverb) and I’m wondering how best to allocate resources after the initial CPU upgrade

Again many thanks to you all

[HCMarkus]

Wow... great information AND questions!

Pre-delidded CPUs is a great way to go with 4,1 dual CPU MPs. Good call! (Note: those who are upgrading single CPU 4,1's do NOT need de-lidded CPUs) The X5690s command a premium price now; whether the 4% speed increase is worth 40% more in cost will depend on your price sensitivity.

It seems real-time tasks impose brief but intense CPU loads that may not be reflected in CPU meters. It is likely you ARE taxing your current CPUs, it's just not showing in the meter. We are all looking forward to the promised efficiency improvements with DP 9.1.

Glad you like the 16a. I'm sure the sound is fantastic. If you need better 'verb, get an external reverb and bus signal to it using the 16a's digital mixer. I've been using a Lexicon box as monitor reverb for years with my 828mkII.

I should note that one possible downside to using the USB interface is increased CPU load compared to PCIe or Firewire. It is my understanding the USB protocol makes greater demands on CPU due to the nature of the buss.

I will defer to others in the video card department, but can point out a nice place to find your proper nVidia drivers is here: http://www.macvidcards.com/drivers.html. If the video monitoring you want fits within the GT120's pixel budget, you may be OK. I'm running three monitors (two DP 24" and one VGA 17") from an ATI5770 in my studio.

Depending on how old your RAM is, it may actually be 1333... even if labeled 1066! MOTUNation Mod James Steele and I can both confirm this as fact. Your current CPUs do not allow RAM to run at 1333 speed. I'd wait to see what happens to the reported RAM speed until after you install the new CPUs and reset the NVRAM ("PRAM"). You may be pleasantly surprised! If you need more memory, the triple-channel RAM config you note provides best speed. Most reports I've read suggest the actual difference is nominal, but Steve Steele recently reported a 1000 point Geekbench score decrease when adding the forth RAM stick.

I'm very happy running SATA SSDs, some on native SATA2 buss, others on a SATA3 PCIe card. By my understanding, boot drive calls are very small and current tech SSDs are unlikely to push the SATA2 buss beyond its capacity under that usage. I hope Steve Steele will weigh in on this, as he is running a very fast PCI SSD array. But that kind of speed doesn't come cheap!

Overall, I think you will find tremendous improvements in the way DP runs after you do the CPU upgrades. You are hitting things on three axes: CPU Architecture, CPU Clock Speed, and Number of CPU Cores. You're gonna' love it!

[Maxxy]

Hey thanks a lot HCMarkus

After a few days days looking at info about this upgrade around the net published over a number of years, when I actually did find the upgrade kit ready to go like that on the web I was pleasantly surprised at the price all up…so different than a few years ago that even though it is relatively at a premium today it is a bargain compared to yesterday so I just felt inclined to do it all the way while I can….this will most likely see the machine out until its retirement a few more years down the track…this Mac really has defied all the laws of computer longevity...already

I would of course like to have Thunderbolt connectivity but as it is moving this machine may battle on and see TB off!! ( : I have a PCIe card with 2 x USB 3 and 2 x eSATA busses and just recently bought a 7 port USB 3 powered hub. I had been thinking my USB MIDI devices might get snappier through this hub and the PCIe card… unfortunately none of my USB MIDI controllers (Arturia Beatstep Pro, Korg nanoPad2, Korg microkey 37, Korg Kontrol49) are recognised by CoreMIDI… in fact merely attempting to get CoreMIDI to see the units throws AudioMIDI Setup into a complete tizz…. either it spins away endlessly and crashes or, at best, just doesn’t see them . It also threw my CoreMIDi config about in an odd fashion….reverted to an old one, started a new one, and finally re-found my current one!

I can however use USB3 drives and the 16A is also perfectly recognised. I tried some tests but could not make a determination that there was any speed increase…as in lower buffer settings or I/O time ….of the 16A when being used through the PCIe card/USB3 hub connection. I also tried bypassing the hub but again just no recognition… it seems USB MIDI really needs to be *USB* MIDI … with this card anyway (NewerTech MAXPower USB/eSATA 2x2 Host Adapter)

That’s interesting about the 16A’s USB resources …I wonder how much drag that imposes…I guess I can check that in Activity Monitor? is there a USB bus monitor? I’ll have a look…. what do you think? could that be a culprit in taxing the processors significantly?

With the reverb issue it’s something I’ve seen come up from many users and I just wish to add a request for something better there in the box… if it is reasonably feasible , rather than have the FX DSP allocation fixed such that all eqs plus all compressors plus all gates plus plus etc be able to work simultaneously… I would much prefer to see a DSP monitor such that, as in any DAW, the more you use the closer you get to your DSP limit. I can see that for standalone or live use maybe you wouldn’t be able to manage that and you’d need to be confident that it it’ll all work but an option for Computer interface mode would be great…. and put a very nice verb in there… I feel this great unit deserves it

The RAM might actually go up to 1333 automatically as you suggest… I hadn’t thought of that …I bought all new RAM from OWC less than a year ago so maybe it is capable….but then if I should only use 6 slots for efficiency I’d be down to 24 gig…is that really the case for the Dual Processor?…I thought i’d seen that that efficiency only applied to single processors…??

Thanks a lot for your thoughts and encouragement…much appreciated… I really can’t wait !! ( :

[Maxxy]

Hi HC Markus again

You’re right about the price:perf ratio….in fact I do think my budget would much prefer the 5680 at this stage…. as you say that last 4% does come at a premium… from Geekbench scores it would seem that the 5680 would still get the 64 bit multi core performance level pretty much at the top of the tree

The info about the nVidea drivers you gave has proven both interesting and confusing. My 2009 Mac Pro has an Nvidea Geforce GT120 card in it… which has both a Dual DVI port and a Display port… From everymac.com re my machine: By default, a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512 MB of GDDR3 memory was installed in a double-wide, 16-lane PCI Express 2.0 graphics slot. It has both a Mini DisplayPort and a dual-link DVI port.

… yet the NVidea website states that the GT 120 is one of the only card options *not* useable by Mac Pro 3,1, 4.1 and 5.1. It also states that the card is a Dual DVI card!! What is up with the seemingly incorrect info put up by Nvidea themselves? http://www.macvidcards.com/i-want-the-b ... start.html

I think i now also understand that my ‘vintage’ card already has drivers built into the Mac OS itself…. or is that “used to have” drivers built into older Mac OSX versions…I guess I do need to use the updated web driver for El Capitan… does it provide better performance than the original driver still floating around in El Capitan? Sorry I am confused about this stuff at the moment

Anyway I can think about that later….the 3.33 it is!! Great !

Thanks again

[HCMarkus]

Glad to assist Maxxy.

Here is a good chart for those considering CPU Upgrades:

http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac ... t.1954766/

I don't think Apple removed the GT120 drivers from El Cap; hopefully, they will remain in macOS 10.12 as well.

[Maxxy]

Hi again

My bad and for the record.. I tried a few more tests of the PCIe USB3/eSATA card/Targus ACH125 7-port USB3 hub combination. Actually the card is fine and passes MIDI no worries… it is the Targus hub that is the culprit… I tried running it in regular USB2 mode by plugging it straight into the Mac’s USB port …it doesn’t pass or recognise any MIDI devices I tried

OTOH all my devices do work when plugged straight into the card… for the time being they all look perfectly happy ( :

The hub has all-but-zero information on the web…

So I wonder if anyone knows of a USB3 hub that is MIDI class-compliant? I’d be sort of interested to know.... but not really because…

I’ve ordered an iConnectMIDI4+ which looks awesome ( : …I hope it performs well… I’ve recently been trying to (re)-integrate my old MIDI and analogue synths into a cohesive collection of instruments… after weeks of wildly variable success and failure trying to collate patches, tones …(upper, lower, A, B), wave sequences, performances, sound banks etc etc… it will be fun to see how 2 computers and an ipad might be able to work together ….more collaboration and less solitary workflows…will let you know how well it works....

I’ve ordered the 5680s ….I can put the saving towards the faster RAM if it turns out I need to do that … for the difference in price between the 5680s and 5690s I can put 48 gig of 1333RAM and get a 25% speed boost there, on paper, as opposed to a mere 4% with the CPUs… thanks for the heads up.

BTW I did try removing the 4th and 8th slot RAMs and ran a Geekbench test over it but I found that ,if anything, the score dropped by a tad running just the 6 RAMs. I only tested once in circumstances as close as I could make it…but FWIW I didn’t find running just 6 RAM slots increased the Geekbench score for me

CPUs OTW!! ( :