After that, Time Machine will work again. Do you want to inherit the Time Machine backup from your old computer?" - say YES.
![2009 mac pro 5.1 processor model 2009 mac pro 5.1 processor model](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qcMAAOSwsNhfBNQy/s-l640.jpg)
After running the tool, reboot and follow APPLE's firmware instructions: "Hold down the power button until the power indicator light flashes, then release it.
2009 MAC PRO 5.1 PROCESSOR MODEL UPGRADE
2009 MAC PRO 5.1 PROCESSOR MODEL CODE
But the thing is, that's ALL it will do for you.Īfter your application has been loaded into RAM from the disk, there is NO more benefit to an SSD, because as soon as all the code and data is in RAM it won't need disk access anymore. Sure, a computer with an SSD may boot in 17s rather than 1 minute, and it may launch an application in 5s rather than 15s. Like with RAM, what matters is the amount of storage space, not if there's a tiny difference in speed.
![2009 mac pro 5.1 processor model 2009 mac pro 5.1 processor model](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/cd/89/5ecd8922d11d19126e013b48d2f339fb.jpg)
Even with a 512 GB SSD, that's just 1/6 of the storage in a 3 Terabyte harddrive, and the SSD costs way, way, way more if you want a good brand (~5x as much as a regular drive). An SSD has numbers of around 300-500 MB/s instead.īut remember that a normal harddrive is easy to get in 2-3 Terabyte capacities, whereas SSDs are usually 128, 256, or 512 Gigabytes. A normal HDD writes and reads at around 140 MB/s. Why didn't I buy an SSD for my main drive?īecause they're expensive and low-capacity. You will not feel a difference at all, except in your wallet (and in your imagination, if you are prone to placebo). That's where the tiny, tiny RAM speed difference might give you 0.5-1 FPS faster rendering times since 4K videos are massive files.īut for games, music production, photo editing, and pretty much all other uses, there's zero reason to get 1333 MHz RAM. Only get it if you use applications that both fill up your RAM and read/write/modify it constantly, such as high-definition 4K resolution video compression. So is there any case where I suggest 1333 MHz RAM? Not really. Just look at these speeds and stop pretending like everyone needs 1333 MHz RAM: Most real applications transfer only a few hundred megabytes into RAM, and then they do most of their work on the CPU, not in RAM! The fact is that NO REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS will saturate the bandwidth of 1066 MHz RAM, which can already transfer astronomical amounts of data per second! Having 5-8% faster RAM chips ONLY gives 1-2% total system speed increase, which is ONLY 300-400 extra GeekBench points. That's memory bandwidth, NOT overall system power. Switching from 1066 to 1333 MHz ram only adds 5-8% extra memory bandwidth (official number from Intel). The most important thing is that you run your RAM in triple-channel, and that you have enough RAM to avoid disk swapping. Why didn't I upgrade the RAM from 1066 to 1333 MHz?
![2009 mac pro 5.1 processor model 2009 mac pro 5.1 processor model](https://www.likenewpcs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/macpro2009_multi-465x205.jpg)
All from a cheap and easy CPU and firmware upgrade. My machine is now exactly in the middle of the top-2013 and the medium-2013 models. GeekBench after: 27055 (almost double performance) RAM: 24 GB (6x4 GB) 1066 MHz Triple-channelĬPU: 2x2.8 GHz (Xeon X5660) 12-core Westmere-EP/Gulftown In raw power, that's 8x2.26 GHz = 18.08 GHz total (before upgrade), and 12x2.8 GHz = 33.6 GHz total (after upgrade).ĬPU: 2x2.26 GHz (Xeon E5520) 8-core Nehalem The new CPUs I selected have 50% more cores ( 12 vs 8 ), and every individual core is ~25% faster. MacEFIRom: Thanks for breathing incredible new life into my Mac Pro 2009!