2009 Mac Pro w/ Dual x5690 or 8700K Build?

[macs_forever]

Thanks. A 5,1 firmware upgrade will allow the 2009 Mac Pro to run High Sierra (but who knows about future MacOS iterations). I thought about the PCI bandwidth but for this specific use, rendering times are my issue.. my videos typically have a final size of 4GB or less so the data speeds aren’t as much of an issue as one might think.

I’m going forward with 8700K build unless someone else suggests otherwise with a viable reason not to. Thanks!

Might look at an old FirePro W9000 card. My MacPro has the W7000 and it works fine in a hackintosh too because it's GCN 1. The W9000 SHOULD work too but I don't know. It is likely the most powerful GCN 1 card for your needs. 4 teraflops vs 2.4 teraflops for the W7000

 

[macs_forever]

Here are benchmarks. Cinebench 15, Geekbench 3 and 4. Its a pretty fast system for $1000.

Interesting. Gives me some idea of the speed increase if I upgrade the CPUs. If you need a single slot GPU like I do, I can recommend a used W7000. It's got to be better than a 710.

 

[Baltazar]

What I understand is that the working load is CPU based, and the render load is GPU based when it comes to Final Cut Pro. Would a firepro W7000/W9000 be better for rendering than a single or even dual RX580s or Vega 64?

 

[Baltazar]

The performance will be vary similar. I picked a 2010 Mac Pro on eBay for $600 and then upgraded the processors to 2 x 3.46. I use it for render box for Cinema 4D. Cinebench is just a shade of 1600. If you look at Cinbench scores for the 8700k, it is very similar. OCed it may reach about 1700. I have about $1000-1050 in my Mac Pro and I just picked up a GTX 670 for $66.

The price point was the appeal to me. I know I won't get NVME SSD, USB Type C, or faster PCI lane support by buying a Mac Pro from 2009-2010 but what I need is raw compute power for Final Cut Pro, both working on the timeline with 4K video, and rendering video after the project is complete. A Coffeelake system will cost me upwards of $2000 or more when said and done.. the Mac Pro with Xeon upgrade will cost me half that. If the results are nearly the same, it wouldn't make sense for me to shell out that much cash for the same end game: Editing and exporting video in final cut pro quickly.

 

[macs_forever]

What I understand is that the working load is CPU based, and the render load is GPU based when it comes to Final Cut Pro. Would a firepro W7000/W9000 be better for rendering than a single or even dual RX580s or Vega 64?

No, but they might be less of a hassle to work with

 

[Baltazar]

On a completely different note.. does anyone know how to properly enable Intel QuickSync for my 4690K and GTX980ti? I would like to improve performance until I build or buy the new system.

 

[macs_forever]

The price point was the appeal to me. I know I won't get NVME SSD, USB Type C, or faster PCI lane support by buying a Mac Pro from 2009-2010 but what I need is raw compute power for Final Cut Pro, both working on the timeline with 4K video, and rendering video after the project is complete. A Coffeelake system will cost me upwards of $2000 or more when said and done.. the Mac Pro with Xeon upgrade will cost me half that. If the results are nearly the same, it wouldn't make sense for me to shell out that much cash for the same end game: Editing and exporting video in final cut pro quickly.

The 12 core mac pro is not as "snappy" as my i7-6700K based hackintosh for playing starcraft or surfing the web. But when it comes to heavy work, say 5-6 VMs running concurrently, it is an impressive beast. It's like comparing a corvette to a dump truck. The only reason I am replacing mine is I need more cores. The 128GB of RAM is a joy to work with. I do NOT see any noticeable difference in PCI speed and I have every slot filled. I intend to keep my cMP even after I replace it as my primary VM server.

 

[pastrychef]

If you run 5-6 VMs on a 4 core system, I'm sure there will be performance degradation. It's like running 8-9 VMs on a single X5690. If running lots of VMs is something that you do normally, than you should obviously go with more cores.

It all really depends on how many VMs you typically run and how many cores you allot to each VM. If running lots of VMs is something you do on a regular basis, Xeons with lots of cores and vSphere/ESXi makes a lot of sense.

For someone looking for FCPX performance, I would suspect that single core performance means more. You also must consider how well the software you use utilizes lots of cores. Here's a link to a video where a 4 core i7-6700K ran circles around a dual Xeon system with 32 cores and 64 threads. (Skip to about 11:50)

When considering the purchase of one of those old Mac Pros, you must think about power consumption and heat. My old Mac Pro with dual X5680s would suck down over 400W under full load. My current i7-8700K runs at about 260W. Also, being that the old Mac Pros were never designed for two 130W CPUs (the highest TDP CPUs Apple shipped were 95W CPUs), fan management must be manually adjusted to keep temps low. Trying to find a balance of quiet and cool was challenging for me. Even when such an equilibrium was achieved, the fans were running harder than what they normally would have. Operating cost is not only higher because of the higher power consumption, my old Mac Pro was so hot that I had to crank my air conditioner to max during summers.

Lastly, remember, the MacPro4,1/5,1 represents decade old technology. That means no USB3.1, no NVMe support, no SATA3. By the time you compensate for all these shortcomings, you are out of PCI-e slots and your investment has deepened. Plus, Apple could drop macOS update support for such an old system at any moment.

In my opinion, unless you have a very specific need for all those cores, stay away from these old machines. While they were fantastic in their time, they are simply getting too old to invest any money into now.

For comparison sake, here are benchmark results from my i7-8700K @5GHz.

 

[Baltazar]

Thank you. That video comparison is for Premier, however. FCPX is very different in utilizing resources.

I will be moving forward with the 8700K, mainly due to the fact that Apple will inevitably drop the 5,1 Mac Pro in future MacOS updates.

The real discussion is video card choice for FCPX rendering. Best value for the dollar is what I’m looking for and it seems that a dual RX580 or even RX480’s would be the best in terms of power and cost. Unless someone recommends otherwise

 

[pastrychef]

Yes, I know that the video is about Premier. But I just wanted to show how not all apps take advantage of lots of cores. I don't know how well FCPX handles that.

As of today, all video card prices are near all time highs due to the crypto currency rage. I don't know that there are any bargains to be found anywhere. That being said, yes, the RX 580s are probably the best bang for the buck right now.