MacPro5,1 Quad-Core 3.2 to 6 or 8 Core's ?

Can I change to a different CPU for a MacPro5,1 Quad-Core 3.2 to 6 or 8 Core's ?

What you have now can be replaced easily with W3680 3.33 6-core $620
http://ark.intel.com/products/47917/Intel-Xeon-Processor-W3680-(12M-Cache-3_33-G Hz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI)
http://www.buy.com/prod/intel-xeon-up-w3680-3-33-ghz-processor-socket-b-lga-1366 -hexa-core-12/q/loc/101/214873128.html
beyond that you get into X56xx and not as easily.
The 3.2 had some limitations I think
www.macperformanceguide.com 25% hit
Why of course is first and foremost.
More RAM and SSD(s) might help as well.
The 6-core 3.33 was considered the sweet spot design in cost/performance and efficiency.
And if you can sell the 3.2 later the cost would be even less. There is photo essay thread on MacRumors how-to (was W3670 originally before the 3680 came out and which is the proc Apple now uses)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1120326&highlight=

Similar Messages

Quad-Core 2.2Ghz i7 vs. Dual-Core 2.8Ghz i7

Currently, I own an early-2011 13" MacBook Pro 2.3Ghz i5 with 8Gb of RAM and a 500Gb Momentus XT HDD.
Background:
I'm a student (but a Senior, so not for long).
I'm a serious photographer and cinematographer.
I work with cs5.5 mostly in Photoshop, Premiere Pro (AE and AI too).
I dj as a hobby and side-job.
AND finally... I frequently transfer/backup large amounts of files to externals and CrashPlan online.
I have a buyer for my early-2011 model and am debating between the two aforementioned MBP models as an upgrade (Quad-Core 2.2Ghz i7 vs. Dual-Core 2.8Ghz i7). P.S.- My reason for upgrading is because I notice lag in photo/video editing.
Specs:
8Gb RAM
500Gb Momentus XT 7200rpm HDD
2.3Ghz i5
Any advice?
Suggestions?
Phil

Thank you both for the help! Another question... how much better are the graphics of the 2.4GHz MBP (with theAMD Radeon HD 6770M w/ 1GB GDDR5) versus the 2.2GHz MBP (with the AMD Radeon HD 6750M w/ 512MB GDDR5)?
For my purposes (and I should emphasize this is by no means my job or career path...AKA: this isn't a live or die decision), is the less expensive choice considerably fast? Is the extra 0.2GHz faster processor and upgraded/larger graphics card THAT...much better? important? crucial? faster?
Furthermore, I would prefer to not spend over $2000...
Currently, I would set mine up as follows:
Upgrade the screen to a 1680 x 1050 Hi-Res Glossy 15" Display. $90.00
Upgrade the 4GB of RAM to 8GB or more (via Crucial). $45.99
Purchase AppleCare Protection Plan. $239.00
Swap out the HDD for my Momentus XT (and eventually upgrade my 500GB Momentus XT to the new 750GB Momentus XT).
That's it.
Total cost of 2.2GHz with above changes:
$1,699.00 + $90.00 + $45.99 + $239.00 = $2,073.99
Total cost of 2.4GHz with changes:
$1,999.00 + $90.00 + $45.99 + $239.00 = $2,373.99
Advice?
Thanks,
Phil

Can I upgrade to an Intel core 2 Duo processor from my Intel core duo processor ? If so, what all must be replaced.

Can I upgrade to an Intel core 2 Duo processor from my Intel core duo processor ? If so, what all must be replaced. imac
<Edited by Host>

No CPU upgrades possible.
You should not post your serial number or other personal information in this forum.

What to choose: MacBook Core 2 Duo or 2006 MacBook Pro Core Duo ?

I have this dilemma… want to buy an Apple laptop to use mainly as a desktop, hooked to an external 22” display, keyboard and mouse, as I’m using it for graphics apps (Adobe CS3) or video apps.
I have to choose between a Core 2 Duo MacBook or an 2006 Core Duo MacBook Pro.
(about the same price range, the Pro is still more expensive)
Don’t care much about drive space as the files are stored elsewhere, so my question is a propos the graphics capabilities (and maybe heating?) – which laptop is better to use heavily in clamshell mode to do graphic design and such?
Thanks.
G5 desktop Mac OS X (10.2.x)

Hi tdrb,
Both model are able to run Lightroom and Aperture:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/productinfo/systemreqs/
but intel GMA is not that superb on 3D modeling if you planning to add 3D software later on, so I agree with mort for that.
Also macbook only comes in 13" while the smallest mbp comes with 15".
So if you only bring your portable laptop to clients, they will see better on 15" compare to 13"
Also on mbp you can choose matte or glossy lcd screen, and from my experience, I prefer matte finish when I do graphic composition.
For calibrate the tone color, you can use color guidience from pantone or other third party software and hardware like spyder, etc.
But the decision is yours to make, visit apple store run aperture on both and compare how that will response (remember 2006 model might slightly slower than new model on apple store) and which is preferable to your eyes.
Good Luck.

ACROBAT CANNOT LOAD IT'S CORE DLL - ACROBAT CANNOT LOAD IT'S CORE DLL

Is there a person who works for Adobe answering questions in THEIR own forum about THEIR own software? If so, why hasn't an employee of Adobe answered this question about the core dll not loading? It certainly appears there are a lot of Adobe CUSTOMERS who are experiencing this issue and is worthy of some time from an Adobe employee to get it resolved!
ACROBAT CANNOT LOAD IT'S CORE DLL
ACROBAT CANNOT LOAD IT'S CORE DLL
ACROBAT CANNOT LOAD IT'S CORE DLL

Here is the advice Adobe finally gave me:
Create a test PDF and attempt to reproduce the issue to verify that it
is not a file specific issue.
To create a test PDF file:
1. Open the Printers and Faxes Control Panel from the Start Menu.
2. Right-click on Adobe PDF and select Properties.
3. Select Print Test Page and save the PDF to the Desktop.
If the issue does not occur, then there is an issue with the original
file. You will either need to troubleshoot the content of the file or
try to recreate it.
If the issue persists with the test file, then it is possible that the
Acrobat preferences have become damaged. Reset the Acrobat
preferences and then attempt to reproduce the issue.
To reset the Acrobat preferences:
1. Exit all instances of Acrobat.
2. On the keyboard, hold down the Windows logo key and tap the #R#
key. This will open the Run dialog box.
3. Copy the following text into the Open field and press the OK
button:
%Appdata%\Adobe
4. Rename the #Acrobat# folder to #Acrobat old#.
5. On the keyboard, hold down the Windows logo key and tap the #R#
key.
6. Copy the following text into the Open field and press the OK
button:
regedit
7. Right-click on My Computer, select Export and then save the file
as #Registry Backup# to the Desktop. This creates a backup of the
registry.
8. Browse to: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat.
9. Right-click on the 8.0 folder and select Rename.
10. Change the name from 8.0 to 8.0 old.
11. Close the Registry Editor.
12. Launch the Acrobat application and attempt to reproduce the
issue. Acrobat creates new preference directories.
I implemented their suggestions, however the registry key of HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat that they gave me was incorrect as ours is: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat\PDFMaker\8.0
I went ahead and renamed it to 8.0.old as instructed so time will tell if the Acrobat Cannot Load It's Core Dll error message goes away.

Upgrade Windows Hyper-v 2012 R1 core to windows Hyper-v 2012 R2 Core

Hi all,
is it possible to upgrade stand alone hyper-v 2012 R1 core server to hyper-v 2012 R2 core server?could anyone guide me the process of upgrading? I really appreciate your help. Thank u so much in advance.

Hi D.sree charan,
"A clean upgrade is safer, if you do not mind exporting and re-importing the VMs, or moving them all to another host, before the upgrade. On the other hand, with the upgrade cycle now faster than before, in-place upgrade makes sense as
a way of keeping pace with little pain."
For details please refer to following link :
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/7748-upgrading-hyper-v-server-2012-to-2012-r2.html
Best Regards
Elton Ji
We
are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

Is it possible to upgrade my intel core 2 duo to the new intel core i5/i7?

Is it possible to upgrade my intel core 2 duo to the new intel core i5/i7 on my macbook air?

No, sorry. The processor is not upgradeable.
Regards,
Captfred

New Quad Core 27" i5 imac vs New Dual Core 27" i5 imac...

Even tho the Quad core 27" imac has 4 REAL cores as opposed to the Dual core 27" imac which only has 2 Real and 2 virtual(with hyperthreading)....a similarly spec'd dual core actually costs slightly more when you bump up the GPU to match the Quad's ATI RADEON 5750 with 1 GB of SDRAM.
For example with the student discount:
1) 3.6 Ghz Intel Core i5 27" iMac with 4MB level 3 cache, 1TB HDD, 4MB RAM,hyper threading & Turbo Boost AND upgrading the GPU to the ATI RADEON 5750 costs $1,914
2) 2.8 Ghz Intel Quad Core i5 27" with 8MB level 3 cache, 1TB HDDD 4MB RAM, (no hyper threading), has Turbo Boost and comes with ATI RADEON 5750 GPU costs $1899
Personally I'd rather have 4 REAL cores AND 8MB of level 3 cache than hyperthreading. Am I wrong? Why is the Quad core actually LESS?
I plan to do moderate HD video editing on imovie, and FCE, web design, animation using Flash and Anime Studio as well as photoshop and photography work.
Thanks for any and all feed back. I'm waiting to see if the new ilife rumors are true on August 7th before ordering, so I've got time.

It was the same with the last generation, where the top upgraded Core 2 was more expensive than the quad.
The quadcore Core i5 27" is by far the faster computer - partially because of the two extra cores, but also because of the bigger cache and the integrated memory controller. The dual is more expensive for two reasons:
1) BTO options are always more expensive
2) The CPU used in the top dualcore is actually more expensive than the one in the quad. The world is full of people who only look at the clockspeed, and for them Intel makes a model with the highest possible clockspeed and charges them for the nose through it. It is slower than the slowest quad on any reasonable benchmark, but it still sells.
Pick the quadcore, it's a much better computer.

How much faster is the 2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5 than the 2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5?

Hi there,
I'm considering buying either a Mac Mini (2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5) or an iMac (2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5). I'm just wondering what the difference in speed is between the two different chips. If both had 4GB of memory would the iMac be a lot faster than the Mac Mini? I'm a graphic designer so I'd be mostly using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop.
Many thanks,
Richard

You mean this information:
GRAPH LEGEND
MP 3.3 w6 = 2010 Mac Pro 3.33GHz Hex-Core Westmere
iMac 3.4 i7 = 2011 iMac 3.4GHz Quad-Core i7
MBP 2.3 i7 = 2011 MacBook 2.3GHz Pro Quad-Core i7
mini 2.7 i7 = 2011 Mac mini 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
MBP 2.7 i7 = 2011 MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
MBA 1.8 i7 = 2011 MacBook Air 1.8GHz Dual-Core i7
All Macs had except the MacBook Air had at least 8GB of RAM

MSI P7N SLi Platinum Edition Problem with Quad Core.... Missing 2 Cores.. Xp Vis

QUAD CORE READY BUT MISSING 2 CPU CORES.
Im usuing p7n-sli platinum, from msi p35... Now i cant see my 2 cpu cores..... Im only seeing 2 cores? Does this p7n-sli platinum supports quad core? Please help....
Would there be any update? Patch?
P7n s

What CPU revision you have?
Provide screenshot from CPU-Z ===> http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz_144.zip
P.S: Topic Locked, since new topic has been opened for the same problem: https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=115100.0
P.S2: Topics not merged because will cause confusion for future readers, since both topic starters are different persons, but they are talking about the same PC.
P.S3: In short topic continue here: https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=115100.0 , but with real mainboard's owner.

For the 2012 Macbook Pro 13" should I get the 2.5GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5 or the 2.9GHz Dual Core Intel Core i7?

I am a high school student and I am getting my first Macbook Pro. I am not really sure which 13 inch Macbook Pro model I should get. My budget is kind of tight, but I think that I can afford any one of the models but I dont want to spend any money that I dont have to spend. Usually on a day to day basis, I use the web brower, watch movies that I have downloaded, and write a lot of papers. I also sometimes use Photoshop, and while I do not play a lot of games, I do want to have the option if I decide to later when I go to college. The larger hard drive size on the Core i7 model does not really matter to me because I dont plan using more than 500GB. I will be upgrading the ram to 8GB if I get the Core i5 model and it comes standard on the i7. Also, I need this computer to last me for 3-4 years so I want something that will still seem relatively fast a few years down the road. Lastly, while I would prefer getting the Macbook Pro due to its cheaper price and ability to upgrade the hard drive later, I also am considering the Macbook Air Core i7 model, mainly because of the faster ssd and the higher resolution screen. I dont really use the optical drive, so loosing it would not be a big deal. The same goes with the Firewire port or the Ethernet port. What would you guys suggest I get. A Macbook Pro or a Air and if the Pro, should I get the Core i5 or the i7?
Thanks

If you're planning on keeping it for long term.
Go with the i7 2.9GHz.
It's a $300 difference but with that you get; the RAM, Hard Drive and Processor upgrade.
Since you want it to last before you decide to either upgrade or buy a new one. The i7 2.9GHz is a good choice.
Do remember that Mountain Lion is around the corner and other software get's updated to and wants more CPU power and more memory.
Nothing is wrong with the i5 2.5GHz either. You'll just have to upgrade the RAM sooner in case 4GB isn't enough for you.
Put it this way:
i5 2.5GHz has 3MB L3 Cache Memory
i7 2.9GHz has 4MB L3 Cache Memory
Now, you're also thinking about the MB Air, a very nice notebook which is light, portable and has a better resolution than the MB Pro 13 inch. You have to however, keep in mnd that the RAM and Hard Drive in the MB Air is not user upgradeable and has no optical drive.

What is the "cores" directory at top level and their core.99999 files?

At the top level of my Disk is a hidden directory called "cores".
Within that directory are 105 files called "core.99999".
The 99999 is a system assigned number?
Each file is 380MB or very close, ie some are 381, some are 385.
Each file of a particular size appears to arise in blocks of 8, 16, or 64
My MacBook (early 2008) 4GB/750GB has been running slowly particularly when Safari builds up more than 3 Gb of Virtual Memory requirement.
I found these files after a SuperDuper! backup showed about 40Gb less on the mirrored disk than on the inbuild system disk. I went searching with GrandPerspective and they appeared, beautifully arranged at top level of the disk, with the hidden cores directory at the same level as the System, Applications, Library and Users directories.
I never saw these before in 10.6 Snow Leopard.
Can I delete them manually, or via a procedure? They take up a lot of space.
I am concerned they may be reason my MacBook pages VM very slowly as teh VM requirements of the programs I am running increases beyond 5 GB

See https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages /man5/core.5.html for starters. FWIW, mine is empty. So, you should be able to delete these, just ensure that you leave the cores directory in place.

1.83 Ghz Core 2 Duo or 2.0 Ghz Core Duo???

Just curious if anyone would know which would be faster, a 1.83 Ghz Core 2 Duo or a 2.0 Ghz Core Duo. I saw both listed on the refurbished Apple site. The original 2.0 Core Duo has a Superdrive (not that I really have a need for one but you never know). Both have the same size harddrive and RAM. The difference in price is $50 more for the 1.83 Core 2 Duo. I am leaning towards the 1.83 Core 2 Duo with Combo Drive only because it is newer, even though the drive is slower. Does anyone have any thoughts or advice or a direct comparison between the two?
Thanks,
Thom

If it matters, the core 2 duo is a 64-bit processor, while the core duo is 32-bit. C2D also has 802.11n support (draft-n at this time, but it's upgradeable).
While the processor is 64-bit, the system is still limited to max 3 gb of RAM, so there are no huge advantages other than the fact that it's a tad bit faster; very few applications are optimized for the newer 64-bit processors anyway. I'd say it's a wash. Get the C2D if you want the "latest and greatest" 2nd generation model, there are always subtle differences between generations. If it doesn't really matter, just get the core duo.
As for the drive, there are 7200RPM sata laptop drives available on the market now; a 80 gig Hitachi will set you back about $100. It's a painless upgrade process.

2 GHz Core Duo vs. 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo

I bought an iMac yesterday, and because I assumed that by now, only iMacs with the new Core 2 Duo chip would be sold in that shop, I didn't check that until yesterday...now I am quite disappointed by the guy who sold me the 'old' iMac...
But then I saved a bit of mony compared with the Core 2 Duo. Would I notice a lot of difference in everyday work between the two configurations (same RAM assumed)? Or should I just stick with the Core Duo and be happy about the bargain?

Hello,
If you will not be using programs that require a 64-BIT processor (of which there are few programs that require that), then you will likely notice little difference between the two models. The other changes are very minor (actually there are almost no other changes).
So, if you saved a good amount on the older system (as you said), then I'd probably just keep using it. If you paid full price, then I would demand an exchange.
I hope this helps.
Let us know if you have other questions.
P.S., if you'd like, go ahead and click the "Helpful" or "Solved" buttons on any of the posts / replies above if you feel they were helpful or adequately answered your question.

MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo vs. MacBook Pro Core Duo

I currently have a MacBook Pro 2.0Ghz Intel Core Duo. Is it worth it to upgrade to the most recent MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo? What will I gain by spending the money? Does the battery get as hot on the Core 2 Duo as it does on the Core Duo or was that issue resolved?
Any insight and/or advice would be most appreciated.
Thanks!

I'm sitting here making a list of the helpful Mac software to download for my new 2.4 LED MBP Core 2 Duo (2 GB memory) with the Santa Rosa chipset, and looking through the Applications folder of my 1.83 MBP Core Duo (2 GB memory).
I've actually been doing side-by-side comparisons throughout the day, and here are my admittedly subjective impressions. Please understand that I'm not doing benchmarking---you will soon find lots of places giving you those numbers, and they don't mean much to me anyway. I use my computers in my job and they are tools, albeit fascinating, but a tool nonetheless. My impressions are just that--what does it "feel" like to me. So, if you want benchmarks with numbers, I apologize.
1. Everyday work-type use (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Safari, e-mail): About equal in terms of speed and ability to manipulate large Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents. The new MBP "feels" slightly faster but not that "wow, this is fast" that I experienced when going from my old Dell laptop to the MBP Core Duo. What I have experienced is a new appreciation for my old Core Duo--it has no trouble keeping up with the new one.
2. Video and photo editing: Again, the new MBP feels slightly faster, and timing the rendering of a short video clip was faster on the new one compared with the old one, but not by much. In fact not enough of a difference to retire the old one for less demanding tasks---it will remain one of my main computers.
3. Heat: Sometimes it feels like my old MBP could cook eggs on it after doing some video editing or after a long DVD session. The new one seems to run a lot cooler---a lot cooler, although I haven't had a real chance to stress it, but comparing the same tasks side-by-side for transferring and running through my photo collection, the difference in heat was very noticeable. The old one was hot, and the new one actually felt cool to the touch (a little warm, but compared to my old one, it felt cool). I suspect I will continue to see that the new one runs a lot cooler.
4. Battery: In running the battery down to empty today, I got 4 hours and 40 minutes on the new one and 3 hours 10 minutes on the old one---quite a difference. I expect more once I calibrate the battery on the new one. I should say that when I run on battery, I shut down Bluetooth and Airport if I don't need them in order to save on power.
I'll do some more comparing in the next few days, just to see if there are major differences. Right now, I like the LED screen but it looks the same as my old one---maybe I just can't tell the difference.
All in all, the new one is fast and cool with a longer battery life, whereas the old one is fast and hot with a shorter battery life.
I would recommend the new MBP to anyone considering a new computer. Would I recommend that people with the old Core Duo upgrade? Not really---the old one really holds its own against the new MBP--not that much difference in speed. I don't think the difference in operating temp and longer battery life is that big a deal nor enough to justify an upgrade yet. I did it because I wanted to, not because I thought I needed to. And as my day has proved to me, the speed difference perceptually is pretty slight--they are both fast and a pleasure to work on.
I have a new appreciation for my old workhorse, the 1.83 MBP Core Duo--it's still a great computer. I almost gave it to my wife, but not after today.

MacPro5,1 Quad-Core 3.2 to 6 or 8 Core's ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for