Mac Speed Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/29/2008 8:49:44 PM PDT by Swordmaker
In the PC world, it isn't too tough to get overclocking tools. They have existed for years and can, with cooling apparatus and other neat tricks, double the speed of a typical Intel CPU.
The Macintosh world and Apple's EFI BIOS replacement make overclocking more difficult - well at least more rarely attempted. A few products have popped up over the last few years, but they have been very limited.
Earlier today, ZDNet.de released a tool that looks very promising in this regard. According to their website, the tool can currently overclock Mac Pros and XServes with Intel Xeon processors. They use the example of taking a base model Mac Pro running at 2.8 GHz and getting it to run faster than Apple's top of the line 3.2 GHz machines.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.computerworld.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Yes but what does one really get from overclocking now days?
Not enough to be worth the trouble IMO.
For $600 I bought all the pieces to make a new box, dual core 3.2 GHZ CPU, 2 Gig of Ram, 200 Gig Serial ATA HD, CD writer/reader and Azuz mainboard with graphics built-in onboard.
Regards,
Stole my thoughts. I am not computer expert but I have not hear about overclocking in quite a long time.
Fourth of July, BBQ grill.
;-)
Makes your box run a lot hotter than normal. Other than that it’s pretty fun. I have an older than dirt athlon XP 2600+ that I overclock the bejesus out of so I can scrape out so more performance while rendering.
Just a warning it can make programs unstable at times if you don’t have adequate cooling.
While cool, these days the differences are very small between “bottom” and “top” machines really.
At that point I won't care.
I don’t think I’d try that with just the stock air cooling, especially since Apple emphasizes silence over performance in their cooling designs. (Check out some HSFs that are geared for PC overclocking and you’ll see what I mean.) The new chips do run pretty cool, but still.
If you could figure out a way to cram a watercooling or phase-change system into a Mac Pro (tough task, I’d think), you could probably push that baby to 4Ghz. But then again, do you really need that?
//these days the differences are very small between “bottom” and “top” machines really//
But the price difference is huge, in the thousands.
Liquid cooling isn’t necessary in the Mac Pros. There was liquid cooling in the G5’s because the ppc processor was extremely inefficient and ran terribly hot (ie space heater). The Mac Pros sport brand new Intel processors that are worlds ahead of the old ppc processors n regards to efficiency and heat. Hence, no liquid cooling. You want to add phase change to an already ridiculously expensive computer? Good lord man! Last time I checked phase change cooling was expensive even for DIY pc builders.
With regards to actually overclocking a Mac Pro, there is probably no discernible change in heat. In fact, I know this because I’ve “risked” overclocking my Mac Pro (about 9.1%) and it’s raised the internal temps a few degrees.
It’s not necessary to do that. The only thing that gets modified is the sys.log. Set the speed back to normal and restart your Mac and there’s no evidence that you ‘overclocked’ your computer.
Also, it will not “shorten the life of the processor” just in case anyone was wondering. And if anyone was....seriously? How does that make sense? A silicon chip has a life expectancy?
I disagree. The top of the line MacPro has two quad-core (8 cores) Xeon processors, with 1600MHz, 64-bit dual independent frontside buses. You will not find anything close to that in the low end where you are only going to find dual core (2 cores) processors with far slower, single frontside buses.
On the price, the comparable DELL Precision Dual quad-core Xeon build-to-order offering is almost $1,000 more expensive than the MacPro and has a slower FSB than the Mac.
On the Apple Store Online, not the best place for upgrades, the price difference between 2 2.8GHZ Quad Core Xeons and 2 3.2GHZ Quad Core Xeons is $1600.
Does the Mac Pro use a modified Skulltrail with an EFI?
Don't think so.
I have not followed the Macs.
I have just got back into the game in the last few months when I thought my desktop might be getting long in the years.
But are these Macs like putting a 427 Hemi in a Pinto, or is the software able to use all that HP?
To upgrade on the Dell site from dual Quad Core 2.83GHz Xeon (1.333GHz FSB) to the same 3.2GHz on the MacPro costs $1,540. That's only $60 difference.
Note that the base MacPro has two 2.8GHz Xeons with 1.6Ghz FSBs that are not offered on a Dell.
As of right now, June 29, 2008:
The Dell Precision Dual quad core 2.83GHz Xeon 1.333GHz FSB with 2GB RAM, 320GB HD, equivalent Graphics, and a 20" Widescreen monitor is $3,998.The MacPro is $600 less expensive than the not really equivalent slower Dell Precision workstation.The Apple MacPro Dual quad-core 2.8GHz Xeon 1.6GHz FSB with 2GB RAM, 320GB HD, equivalent Graphics, and a 20" Apple Cinema Display is $3,398
Upgrading both the Apple and the Dell to truly equivalent dual quad-core 3.2GHz Xeon 1.6GHz FSBs with 2GB RAM, 320GB HD, equivalent Graphics, and 20" Wide screen displays (Dell / Cinema), the Dell is $5,598 and the MacPro is $4,998—still $600 less expensive than the Dell.
Yes, most of the software will take advantage of the multiple cores and speed. OSX is also fully 64 bit.
Most people do not need the Horsepower that an ultimate MacPro will provide... Professionals will. For the average user, the MacMini and the iMac are good choices.
LOL. I think you’ve misread me quite a bit!
I know liquid cooling isn’t necessary. It never really is. It’s a hobbyist thing. Enthusiasts routinely take processors that are already quite fast and liquid-cool them to make them even faster. Do they really need to? No. But an entire industry is built around people that want to.
I don’t want to add phase-change or liquid cooling to the already expensive Mac Pro. I even not-so-subtly alluded to this. (Did you miss the last sentence of my post?)
My main point is that if some speed nut really wants to do a proper overclock of a Mac Pro without running into speed related issues, then that nut should get something that actually does the job and will not have any heat concerns, since the Mac Pro’s cooling system isn’t really built for overclocking.
The secondary point (which I made in quite a facetious manner) was that if you want to overclock, then going from 2.8 to 3.2 isn’t really worth the effort, from an overclocker’s viewpoint. So liquid cooling would be the answer for a worthy overlock. (Or phase-change which I threw in my comments knowing that few would seriously do, but hey, if you have money...)
The temperature difference between 2.8 to 3.2 would probably be minimal but not worth it in my book.
I love the smell of silicon in the morning!
Apparently you've never of electron migration?
Not to mention the increased heat, which also can shorten the lifespan of a CPU. And yes, they do have lifespans. Whether that lifespan, even when possibly shortened by an overclock, is still long enough to last you until the next upgrade and therefore not matter, is another topic of discussion. But yes, they do have lifespans, and yes, overclocking definitely can shorten the lifespan of a CPU.
bookmark
Up to a point, but not very efficiently. The next version of the Mac OS, Snow Leopard is said to address the multi-processor inefficiencies (speed), and stability. I've noticed this too, and expect large performance gains with the next OS upgrade.
In the PC world, it isn't too tough to get overclocking tools. They have existed for years and can, with cooling apparatus and other neat tricks, double the speed of a typical Intel CPU. The Macintosh world and Apple's EFI BIOS replacement make overclocking more difficult - well at least more rarely attempted.S'cool, overclocking a Wintel... crashes or freezes that much faster... who needs the suspense to go on longer? ;')
Yeah, in practical terms, the life of the CPU is shortened from “much longer than needed to last you until you get a new machine” to “a bit less longer than needed.”
My main concern was heat, affecting stability. You just don’t usually overclock a system on the stock cooler. Granted, a 2.8 to 3.24 overclock is minor so you may be OK, but since the Mac’s cooling system is designed to be quiet enough to be nearly silent and emphasizes that over raw cooling performance, it might lead to some heat/stability problems. Maybe you’d get lucky and your system would be stable, but it just goes against rule #1 of overclocking.
speed bump
OS X comes from UNIX, which has a long history of multiprocessor support. The operating system and its subsystems are already pretty well multithreaded, especially things like the animations. The next version of OS X due out early next year is supposed to take that to a new level and give developers tools to make it easier to use all that power.
Other than that, it's based on the software you use. I have a video converter app that can use all eight cores (if I had them), and even harness the cores on other computers in a network. And it's only a $20 shareware app.
In this specific case, probably not. In the case of the Intel Extreme chips, definitely not because they're designed to be overclocked. In some cases AMD marked down the clock speed of their chips because yields were too good and there weren't enough low-speed chips to fill the low-end of the market, so overclocking those was perfectly safe.
But in the past Intel has shipped what were essentially already overclocked chips, so overclocking those further was very dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.