Welcome to MacTalk Australia

the largest Australian community for Apple discussions and topics

Join the discussions, Register Now!
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1

    Default Passive or active CPU

    Hi everybody. Im looking at upgrading my Mac Pro from its quad core 2.66 to an octocore 3.0 (x5365) xeons. What im abit confused about is what kind of CPU do I need to buy. I presume it will be an active cpu that I will need.

    The other thing is does anybody know where I can get these little babies in AUS?

    Do they come as a pair?

    Thanks in advanced.

    Ps once this project gets up and running i'll take lots of pictures and detailed step by step.

  2. #2

    Default

    I think ebay is your only choice. The x5365 is past it's EOl (no longer manufactured) was what I was told. I bought ES x5365's off ebay from the US but still not a cheap upgrade. Haven't seen any lately though. Easy to do but expensive!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,895

    Default

    staticICE :: x5365 state:vic : Australia's comprehensive computer hardware and gadget price comparison search engine

    Cheapest price in Aus looks like $1508.49 - that would be per CPU, not per pair.
    "The need is not for, say, half a million -inch drill bits. The need is that there are ten million -inch holes that need to be drilled." - Robert Noyce
    www.nickforge.com

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    737

    Default

    I think it may be cheaper to sell your current quad-core Mac Pro and buy an 8-core....

  5. #5

    Default

    Ahh, not paying $3000 just for cpu's. I'll wait and buy a 8 or 16 core mac in two years time.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Yep, I was thinking of going down the same route, saw the same prices and figured it was more beneficial to consider a new computer vs the upgrade.

    Hooray for the 'computer upgrade' myth! It strikes again!
    If it is hidden, it is the flower - Zeami, Noh playwright

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Inside your head
    Posts
    6,557

    Default

    Heh. When will people learn, when you buy into a Mac you buy out of any form of "upgradability". As far as Apple is concerned, the only 'upgrade' that exists is a whole new machine.

  8. #8

    Default

    Guys,
    Am I missing something with the Mac Pro upgrade saga?
    Apple does not set the price for Intel CPU's! Is all this grief from the graphics cards?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brains View Post
    Heh. When will people learn, when you buy into a Mac you buy out of any form of "upgradability". As far as Apple is concerned, the only 'upgrade' that exists is a whole new machine.
    Heh. When will people learn, 99% never upgrade their computers anyway.

    Like here. Where you can upgrade it, but there's no point, cost wise. It's not Apple's fault that it's not cost effective to upgrade your machine, but Intel's, since they set the retail pricing of their CPUs. With the exception of GPUs, Apple typically use mid to high-end components anyway. The most cost effective upgrade path for a computer is when you replace a really shitty cheap components with something mid-range. You can't do this if you already have decent components to begin with.

    The only component upgrades that really make financial sense that Apple restrict are GPUs.
    "The need is not for, say, half a million -inch drill bits. The need is that there are ten million -inch holes that need to be drilled." - Robert Noyce
    www.nickforge.com

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forgie View Post
    Like here. Where you can upgrade it, but there's no point, cost wise. It's not Apple's fault that it's not cost effective to upgrade your machine, but Intel's, since they set the retail pricing of their CPUs.
    Technically it is Apple's fault, because they force you to use Xeon CPUs which most Mac users neither want nor need.

    If the Mac Pro was otherwise exactly the same but used normal Core 2 Quad/Extreme CPUs then upgrading would be a much cheaper, more beneficial process.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Inside your head
    Posts
    6,557

    Default

    But that goes against Apple's entire marketing strategy. His Steveness doesn't want you to upgrade your machine piece-meal. He wants you to buy a whole new machine every 18 months.

    The only current Mac that is really upgradable (beyond bunging in more RAM, changing the HD, or in the case of the tower adding or changing cards) is the Mac Mini, the only other Mac with a socketed CPU ... but don't expect this situation to remain, as the Mini is overdue for a revamp, and five'll get you two that the next revision of the Mini will be missing the socket, and the CPU will be ballsoldered to the board like everything else.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Coxy View Post
    Technically it is Apple's fault, because they force you to use Xeon CPUs which most Mac users neither want nor need.

    If the Mac Pro was otherwise exactly the same but used normal Core 2 Quad/Extreme CPUs then upgrading would be a much cheaper, more beneficial process.
    Point taken, but Apple have other reasons for wanting to use "better" CPUs in the MP. We'll never know how much the "no upgrade for you" factor comes into their decision making.

    Actually.... a thought occurs.... do Intel support FB-DIMMs on their Core 2 Duo chipsets? The ability to have up to 32GB of RAM (with FB-DIMMs) is huge for high-end users. If you can't use FB-DIMMs, you can't have nearly as much RAM.
    "The need is not for, say, half a million -inch drill bits. The need is that there are ten million -inch holes that need to be drilled." - Robert Noyce
    www.nickforge.com

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Inside your head
    Posts
    6,557

    Default

    Which memory gets used isn't up to the CPU used, but the memory controller. I believe Dell make a machine that's in the same league as the Mac Pro that uses FB-DIMMs, but one board can use C2D or Core Quads, another uses Xeons.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Coxy View Post
    Technically it is Apple's fault, because they force you to use Xeon CPUs which most Mac users neither want nor need.

    If the Mac Pro was otherwise exactly the same but used normal Core 2 Quad/Extreme CPUs then upgrading would be a much cheaper, more beneficial process.
    Only if you're dedicated to using the exact same CPU model that Apple used for their first 8 core model, a now discontinued version that's going up in price the same way PC133 SDRAM is now very expensive.

    Another point is that using normal Core 2 Quads wouldn't have allowed an upgrade to 8 cores in the first place. If Apple had based a Pro on those, the option wouldn't exist like the original poster wished.

    (Some Core 2 quads can be used together to make an 8 core, but they're effectively renamed LGA 771 Xeons anyway.)

    As far as I've read, the only restriction is that the Pro needs a 5xxx series LGA 771 Xeon that can be cooled by its heatsinks+fans, and upgrading with one of the wide variety of those is an option. Going for the hottest, most expensive top of the line from last year is expensive whether you're on a Mac or a PC, and being an out of production model, the prices are starting to rise. They were under $1000 about three months ago, now the cheapest I could find edges up over $1100 per quad-core.

    This search may be more relevant staticICE :: LGA771 Quad Core : Australia's comprehensive computer hardware and gadget price comparison search engine

    1.6GHz LGA771 quad core 5xxx Xeons from $289 each, all the way up to 3.2GHz ones for $2090. I'm not sure on support for the bleeding edge newest ones in the old Pros, but many of the others will work fine. If you're doing severely CPU bound tasks, even a pair of 1.6GHz quad cores will see a benefit over two 2.66GHz dual cores. Exactly which tasks are useful to the original poster, and what value they'd put on improving performance is an unknown though, and only something they can decide.

    As for slimy, google a bit to find mac pro four to eight core upgrades done by others, with various Xeon versions. There are a few out there, and you should find specific information on exactly which models the 2.66 of yours can make the most use of.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •