Worth replacing 2008 Mac Pro for upgraded 2010 Mac Pro?

[ProtoolsLover]

Originally Posted by LDS

Misinformation takes many forms. The ram speed in 4,1 Mac Pro's is limited by the CPU, not the machine.



Sure, the increases in performance weren't huge but if you are aiming for 5,1 Mac Pro benchmark scores with a 4,1 machine, you won't actually be running a 5,1 spec'ed system without upgrading the ram. That is the point I made.

It really depends on where you are upgrading from and where you are aiming to be. I paid $200AUD ($140USD) for 64 gig of 1333mhz ram for my machine. It wasn't just peanuts, it was the cheapest possible upgrade path! Unlike the 3,1 and earlier Mac Pro's, there is nothing special about 4,1 and 5,1 ram.

Please understand I’m not trying to start an argument, technically your point is accurate, however, the benefit of spending the money on the faster ram, simply does not justify the performance increase you experience with it. I’m not telling you what I think, I’m telling you exactly what I know. I have built many of these systems, including my own where I wasted my money upgrading to the faster ram speed, if I were to do it all over again I simply wouldn’t do it. I flush money down the drain. Considering that I did most of these, or year or so ago, the prices drop., But even if it was like two dollars, I simply wouldn’t do it because the performance increases are so negligible it’s not even worth wasting intellectual thought on it

[LDS]

Originally Posted by ProtoolsLover

Please understand I’m not trying to start an argument, technically your point is accurate, however, the benefit of spending the money on the faster ram, simply does not justify the performance increase you experience with it. I’m not telling you what I think, I’m telling you exactly what I know. I have built many of these systems, including my own where I wasted my money upgrading to the faster ram speed, if I were to do it all over again I simply wouldn’t do it. I flush money down the drain. Considering that I did most of these, or year or so ago, the prices drop., But even if it was like two dollars, I simply wouldn’t do it because the performance increases are so negligible it’s not even worth wasting intellectual thought on it

I'm sure most people are capable of making their own decision regarding the cost and economics of it. The majority of these decade old machines shipped with ram configurations that aren't really fit for modern 2019 DAWs. I threw out all of the existing ram when I upgraded to 64 gig because the old 1 & 2gig sticks didn't fit in with the configuration I needed. I'm sure a lot of people upgrading ram in their machines is doing the same. You really want dual rank ram if you want to access large capacities at 1333mhz speeds. I have seen variations in performance of up to 40% in benchmarks just by changing configurations in my machine.

It is really impossible not to justify the few extra bucks for faster ram, even if it was only a 2% improvement in performance, given how much I have already spent on my DAW. HDX card, SDDs, Pro Tools license, black magic card, plugins, midi peripherals, control surface... To skimp on ram to save a few measly bucks at this stage of the game would have been the very definition of frugal, but to each their own. I would have literally wasted more money tipping my half finished coffee down the drain this morning. Most people would have.

[basslik]

Originally Posted by ProtoolsLover

I’ve upgraded over 10 of these systems and you will get negilble improvement with the faster RAM. Don’t waist the money on ram.

Thanks for the info, (GOOD NEWS), for some reason there is (2) sticks (16gigs) of PC3 14900R in the memory slots already, so I guess the money I won't have to waste. Although the speed is technically 1866, which is more than the 1333, but I hope there is no adverse effects to that ?

Originally Posted by Mixchump

Remember, that in order to get the increased RAM speed, you have to leave one RAM slot in each bank empty (3 in one group, 3 in the other)...

This upgrade has only (1) tray, Mixchump. the sticks are side by side, should offset one of the sticks ?


Or should I get another stick and leave the four slot open ?, THANKS.


Thank you all tremendously, so greatly appreciated.

[basslik]

Good day everyone,


Okay here's what I got, not sure if the benchmarks represent (2) PROCESSORS on my 2008 machine ?
Or is this the overall score ?, thank you.
1s.jpg

[LDS]

Originally Posted by basslik

Good day everyone,


Okay here's what I got, not sure if the benchmarks represent (2) PROCESSORS on my 2008 machine ?
Or is this the overall score ?, thank you.
Attachment 11256

The benchmark measures each system as a whole, so it includes both processors in your 2008 machine. The results seem about right.

[basslik]

Originally Posted by LDS

The benchmark measures each system as a whole, so it includes both processors in your 2008 machine. The results seem about right.

Thanks LDS,


Up and running, and clearly see the performance gain. Now I have to take the plunge for 2018, do you recommend a decent priced video card, or will this stock ATI 5770 still work for 2018 ?, thanks all again.

[the.engineer]

Originally Posted by basslik

Thanks LDS,


Up and running, and clearly see the performance gain. Now I have to take the plunge for 2018, do you recommend a decent priced video card, or will this stock ATI 5770 still work for 2018 ?, thanks all again.

The stock graphics card in the Mac Pro 5,1 is not supported by Mojave (or more specifically the new Metal graphics engine employed by Mojave and previous versions of macOS). See this article for Apple Approved graphics cards https://appleinsider.com/articles/18...mited-for-imac

On another note, (and this may just be me) but the (mac flashed )AMD Radeon R9 280X (which is the same family as the AMD Radeon HD 7000 family) that I have work seems to behave much better with a Full HD (1920x1080) screen via HDMI than my old Apple 27" LED Cinema. Much snappier performance and big sessions that droppped out before are now looping endlessly.

Go figure.

[the.engineer]

Originally Posted by basslik

Good day everyone,


Okay here's what I got, not sure if the benchmarks represent (2) PROCESSORS on my 2008 machine ?
Or is this the overall score ?, thank you.
Attachment 11256

Also, I had the exact same Geekbench results on my machine last night. Only difference is that I have the W3690 CPU rather than your X version.

[basslik]

Originally Posted by the.engineer

Also, I had the exact same Geekbench results on my machine last night. Only difference is that I have the W3690 CPU rather than your X version.

Very interesting indeed, so I gather the only difference is someone mentioned the the X5690 addresses more ram perhaps ?, and what's the max for the X5690 ?, thanks
mac pro bench.jpg

[basslik]

Originally Posted by the.engineer

Also, I had the exact same Geekbench results on my machine last night. Only difference is that I have the W3690 CPU rather than your X version.

the.engineer,


Do you have any idea how much ram can the Mac 3.46hex address ?