Anyone using 6 core Mac Pro?

[mhschmieder]

Although the 4-core is Nehalem and all the others are Windmere, I guess the pin-out is the same, because the 4-core does appear to be upgradable to the 6-core, and the 8-core to the 12-core, being that the latter use a dual processors and the former utilizes a single processor.

It will be worth watching the price of the 6-core Windmere processor fall, as a potential upgrade option for those who choose the 2010 Nehalem 4-core. I imagine this upgrade is also possible on the 2009 model?

As for SSD boot time, it seems almost instantaneous.

It is a good thing I didn't do the comparison, as I followed digilloyd's formula to the "t" and did the swap before initial boot-up. It went flawlessly!

[gseibert]

Speedmark tests are out for all currently shipping Macs. The 6-core beats the 12 core, probably due to CPU speed.
http://www.macworld.com/article/154660- ... sults.html

[HCMarkus]

So Eric.... how's it goin' with that new six-core?

[labman]

Yes Eric , how is it now that you have used the 6 Core a bunch? Anyone else too?

[Frodo]

Speedmark tests are out for all currently shipping Macs. The 6-core beats the 12 core, probably due to CPU speed.
http://www.macworld.com/article/154660- ... sults.html

That's very interesting-- and it makes one wonder why more cores "apparently necessitate" using slightly slower CPUs. Could it be a heat issue, or maybe it's an overkill/futility thing where the net difference in software performance is too negligible to justify the cost?

[HCMarkus]

That's very interesting-- and it makes one wonder why more cores "apparently necessitate" using slightly slower CPUs. Could it be a heat issue, or maybe it's an overkill/futility thing where the net difference in software performance is too negligible to justify the cost?

Mr. Baggins, you can get the higher speed processors in a 12-core package thru the OWC upgrade program. $$$$$$$$. Not sure why Apple limits the top end 12 core. It may be a supply issue on the top processors. Regardless, the 6-core looks like the killer DP package and is what I currently have my sights on.

Too bad my wallet is holding me back, eh?

[Frodo]

Mr. Baggins, you can get the higher speed processors in a 12-core package thru the OWC upgrade program. $$$$$$$$. Not sure why Apple limits the top end 12 core. It may be a supply issue on the top processors.

Well, that verifies all of my suspicious except for the heat issue. I had no idea that OWC had an upgrade program, but then I've not been monitoring the fine print for new Macs all that much lately.

Regardless, the 6-core looks like the killer DP package and is what I currently have my sights on.

Too bad my wallet is holding me back, eh?

Now, Mr. Markus, when has money ever been an object?

[HCMarkus]

Regardless, the 6-core looks like the killer DP package and is what I currently have my sights on.

Too bad my wallet is holding me back, eh?

Now, Mr. Markus, when has money ever been an object?

Only when I need it which, unfortunately, seems to be more often than not.

I wonder how our OP is doing with his 6-core? Logic has been reported as having issues with the 6-core CPUs, but I'm hopeful DP has been sailing along. I'd love an update...

[David Polich]

I wasn't aware you could upgrade a Quad-Core Xeon Nehalem to a 6-core.
My new 2.66Ghz Xeon Nehalem Quad-core arrives next week - My G5's FireWire
ports are failing, indicative of a logic board problem, and I decided to
stop spending any more money on fixing it.

So - wow, I can get an upgrade from OWC to turn my Quad-core into a 6-core?
This is true?

[mhschmieder]

Dave,

I haven't had time to check into it thoroughly. I MIGHT have provided links earlier that can be followed, if patient, to get to the full story, but am not sure.

There may have simply been an assumption based on how Apple is marketing the six-core as a special-order version of the four-core. But as the pin-outs are the same, a more telling sign may be other aspects of the architecture, as I think what I read is that the bigger difference is the architecture and housing supporting a single processor vs., two processors.

In which case, upgrading later to the six-core should be possible.

[HCMarkus]

OWC is doing upgrades, but it ain't cheap.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/ ... Pro_2009_1

Looks like the 2009 2.66 Quad can go to 8 cores, but not 6 or 12.

[David Polich]

OWC is doing upgrades, but it ain't cheap.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/ ... Pro_2009_1

Looks like the 2009 2.66 Quad can go to 8 cores, but not 6 or 12.

Hmmmm - you know, I'm sure now that compared to my G5, my new QuadCore will
bowl me over...I don't need no steenkin' 8-core upgrade....

[mhschmieder]

Naw; you need 32 GB of RAM first, and that's gonna cost you...

[malditoyanki]

Just ordered a 6 core westmere machine yesterday with 32 gigs ram from OWC.

Will report back from the front lines next week...

[studio_651]

hi malditoyanki,
let me know if you get all 32 gigs of RAM working in your 6-core. i recently got mine (a gigantic leap forward from my 2005 G5 hahaha!), along with 32 gigs of RAM from Data Memory Systems (DMS) and i ran into some problems. i'm not sure if it's the computer build quality (maybe i got a friday afternoon lemon?), or if apple really mean what they say about the system not being able to handle much more than 16 gigs of RAM, but the max i've been able to get to work is 24 gigs. all the memory upgrade companies out there (OWC, DMS, etc.) seem to claim that the 6-core machines can load the 8 gb sticks, and i can confirm that they can load 3 of them. but i've been unable to get the 4th to work.

the strange thing is that if i put three 8 gig sticks in slots 1-3, i can get 24 gigs working. it doesn't matter which 3 of the 4 sticks i put in those slots, it always works (so i know all 4 of the sticks work). but here's the weird part: if i then put the 4th stick in slot 4, it not only doesn't show up in system profiler, it also knocks out the stick in slot 3 that was working on the previous boot bringing me down to only 16 gigs!?!? i also tried a stick of apple 1gb RAM in slot 4 and had the same result. DMS said that i either have a bad slot 4, or that the power supply isn't powerful enough to run that much memory at the same time. apple said that they can't support any configuration above 16 gigs of RAM, so it's not their problem if my after-market 32 gigs of RAM isn't working.

so it's at the apple store right now getting worked on for the memory problem and also this weird problem i've had from the getgo where no matter which mouse i use, i'm getting sluggish response and some teleporting. they ordered a new set of memory slots (i think the whole processor tray) and they also had to order sticks of apple memory to test it with. can you believe an apple service center doesn't have at least 4 sticks of RAM to put into a computer to make sure all the memory slots work? i can't either - i think i just had a lazy mac "genius" helping me who didn't feel like going the 30 feet into the back to grab the 1 stick we needed (i already had the 3 that shipped with the computer). apple care told me over the telephone they'd be able to test it right there, so i was disappointed when that wasn't the case. anyway, now i have to wait "7-10 days" to see if my 4th slot is bad, or if i'm just out of luck as far as getting the full 32 gigs of RAM to work.

i guess it's ok even if i can only get 24 gigs working, but still - as the software companies catch up with 64 bit operation (REALLY wish universal audio would get with it!!!), memory is going to be more and more important - especially for those of us who need to load up lots of memory-intensive sampler-based instruments.

anyone else out there have 32 gigs of RAM working in their 6-core mac pro? i'd love to hear of some real proof by an actual end user instead of claims by a memory retailer! maybe it's the specific RAM sold by DMS that's not working, and in that case i'll just return it and buy from OWC or crucial or whoever, but i'm guessing i probably just got a bad computer/RAM slot.
matt