upgrading processors on new Mac Pro's

[Adros]

My old Power Mac G5 just died on me a few hours ago, spurring me to finally get one of the new Mac Pro. I have been reading the threads on here about them, and was curious if the processors would be upgradable after you buy the computer.

For instance, if you get a quad core, can you only ever upgrade to higher quad cores, or could you potentially put in octa cores later on?

Even simpler, if I were to buy a 2.26 octa, could I (easily) buy faster processors later and put them in? If so who would I probably end up buying them from, apple or a 3rd party?

Thanks for your help, just starting to get into upgrading my own machine. :)

[robinp]

As far as we know the quad can't be upgraded to an octad. If it is possible it would likely be incredibly expensive as it would require replacing the entire board the the CPUs and RAM sit on. It won't be a problem upgrading the CPUs in either to faster versions and indeed it might well be possible to drop in the next version of the xeon CPUs which are meant to be pin compatible. Apple never sells upgrade kits like that so you would be looking to get them from a third party.

[$BPM$]

It's looking like a no, see here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724&page=23

Post #560 on

[grue]

It's looking like a no, see here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724&page=23

Post #560 on

AAAAAAAAhahahhaahahhaahhhhhahahaaaaaaaaaaahaahhahahahahaahha

http://smiliesftw.com/x/big_rofl.gif

AAAAAAAAhahahhaahahhaahhhhhahahaaaaaaaaaaahaahhahahahahaahha


Oh man, this is so typical Apple I can't even put it into words.

[Adros]

It's looking like a no, see here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724&page=23

Post #560 on

Man that is highly disappointing, but thanks for a really quick and helpful response!

[Tesselator]

That said you might be able to buy an entire tray (daughter board). Of course it will be 3 or 4 times the price of the CPUs alone in a just a few years but.. It probably will be possible - unofficially.

Both said I'm really starting to have second thoughts about what kind of company Apple is. :(

[Fomaphone]

That said you might be able to buy an entire tray (daughter board). Of course it will be 3 or 4 times the price of the CPUs alone in a just a few years but.. It probably will be possible - unofficially.

Both said I'm really starting to have second thoughts about what kind of company Apple is. :(

c'mon now. granted that I was born in 1987, but for as long as I've wanted a Mac, Apple has always set their machines apart from the DIY ability of PC's. it protects their reputation (as status symbols) and protects the perception of quality machines. it standardizes the hardware behind the apple brand. is this move really surprising?

i like max value, too, but I don't fault apple for designing their product in a way that inhibits people changing it.

[Tesselator]

c'mon now. granted that I was born in 1987, but for as long as I've wanted a Mac, Apple has always set their machines apart from the DIY ability of PC's. it protects their reputation (as status symbols) and protects the perception of quality machines. it standardizes the hardware behind the apple brand. is this move really surprising?


For me it is, yes. Sure, they've always made it hard but in the past it's always been fairly easy to do anyway if you're not too weak-hearted to remove the case cover. Also they in the past have always (or mostly) been competitively priced. On other sites over the past 4 years for sure and periodically for years before even that, I have been one of the 1st people to show how Apple was indeed actually not over-priced just by specing identical parts - whenever the topic arose.

This year both those things have changed. Yeah, I'm surprised. Actually shocked.

But this ideology of mine expressed here really only holds true for the Pro (workstation) grade boxes. I mean if they pulled a CPU stunt like that on the Mini or the iMac I wouldn't even think about it.

i like max value, too, but I don't fault apple for designing their product in a way that inhibits people changing it.

I do. It's borderline illegal, monopolistic, and generally unfair. The thinking heads behind these decisions are nearly criminal IMHO. But in 2 or 3 years when they're in court maybe they can pull the same stunt MS did and just get the Judge to speak out of turn (after the verdict) and have the whole thing be a waste of tax-payer money.

.

[cmaier]

I do. It's borderline illegal, monopolistic, and generally unfair. The thinking heads behind these decisions are nearly criminal IMHO. But in 2 or 3 years when they're in court maybe they can pull the same stunt MS did and just get the Judge to speak out of turn (after the verdict) and have the whole thing be a waste of tax-payer money.

.

Oh quit the hysterics. It's not even close to illegal. And they didn't even do it to prevent you from upgrading. They did it because it's a far more efficient cooling design. It will allow quieter fans and higher voltage processors in the future. A lot of engineering work went into the solution.

Here's the recurring pattern:

1) apple changes something because it's a better engineering decision. (non-replaceable battery. no heat spreader. etc.)

2) a small percentage of customers would be affected. But a loud minority disputes the percentage. "I always carry a replacement battery! I always replace my CPU's every year!"

3) people complain that Apple is the next microsoft


We get it. Apple should use all commodity parts, should always stick to reference designs, and should always make all their parts interchangeable with every Dell machine. They should write drivers for everything under the sun, should support every conceivable part swap anyone could ever think of, should change their license agreement to permit installation of OS X on HP netbooks, and should be grateful for your support.

[robbieduncan]

I do. It's borderline illegal, monopolistic, and generally unfair. The thinking heads behind these decisions are nearly criminal IMHO. But in 2 or 3 years when they're in court maybe they can pull the same stunt MS did and just get the Judge to speak out of turn (after the verdict) and have the whole thing be a waste of tax-payer money.

.

It's neither illegal, monopolistic or similar to the MS situation. Apple would have to be using a monopoly (which they don't have: you cannot have a monopoly on producing Apple computers) to prevent competition. I cannot see anyway you can say that designing their computers to limit upgrades illegally prevents another company competing with them.

The argument can be made that refusing to license the OS is monopolistic, but this will tend to fail as there are other OS choices out there. It is similar to arguing that BMW must license it's designs to competitors to enable them to sell lower price "BMW" cars...

[VirtualRain]

Competitively priced, user upgradable and Apple have never belonged in the same sentence. :D

You either fit the mold of the user for which an Apple computer is designed, and are willing to pay a premium for the experience, or you don't/won't. :p

I grew up with the Apple IIe and they have not changed their philosophy on this in the last 25 years... This generation of MP is no different! :p

[CaptainChunk]

Competitively priced? Give me a break. Apple charges a premium because they can and it's pretty apparent that they've gotten away with it for 25+ years.

Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. On one hand (at least in theory), a closed architecture allows Apple to design machines that are devoid of many of the software and hardware instabilities one might experience with Windows PCs.

On the other hand, there's a trade-off. Closed architecture puts Apple in a position to charge premium prices and makes the platform somewhat limited in expansion. This has been the case ever since the first Apple ][ machines shipped. Nothing has really changed.

[cmaier]

Competitively priced? Give me a break. Apple charges a premium because they can and it's pretty apparent that they've gotten away with it for 25+ years.

Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. On one hand (at least in theory), a closed architecture allows Apple to design machines that are devoid of many of the software and hardware instabilities one might experience with Windows PCs.

On the other hand, there's a trade-off. Closed architecture puts Apple in a position to charge premium prices and makes the platform somewhat limited in expansion. This has been the case ever since the first Apple ][ machines shipped. Nothing has really changed.

hey - why's everyone dissing the Apple ]['s? Compared to most everything else that was going on at the time (up until the IBM PC), they were far more expandable and open.

[Abidubi]

It's borderline illegal, monopolistic, and generally unfair.

It's illegal now to prevent someone from screwing with your stuff? You mean Microsoft is doing something illegal by not making Xbox games run on PCs? Well I guess it is unfair that you need to buy an Xbox to play an Xbox game isn't it.

[zmttoxics]

AAAAAAAAhahahhaahahhaahhhhhahahaaaaaaaaaaahaahhahahahahaahha


AAAAAAAAhahahhaahahhaahhhhhahahaaaaaaaaaaahaahhahahahahaahha


Oh man, this is so typical Apple I can't even put it into words.

Was that really necessary? The G5s were the same way - factory tuned. Workstation / server grade hardware often comes as non user touchable to prevent un-wanted mishaps. If you want a machine that you can upgrade, build your own.

[Tesselator]

Oh quit the hysterics. It's not even close to illegal. And they didn't even do it to prevent you from upgrading. They did it because it's a far more efficient cooling design. It will allow quieter fans and higher voltage processors in the future. A lot of engineering work went into the solution.

Here's the recurring pattern:

1) apple changes something because it's a better engineering decision. (non-replaceable battery. no heat spreader. etc.)

2) a small percentage of customers would be affected. But a loud minority disputes the percentage. "I always carry a replacement battery! I always replace my CPU's every year!"

3) people complain that Apple is the next microsoft


We get it. Apple should use all commodity parts, should always stick to reference designs, and should always make all their parts interchangeable with every Dell machine. They should write drivers for everything under the sun, should support every conceivable part swap anyone could ever think of, should change their license agreement to permit installation of OS X on HP netbooks, and should be grateful for your support.

I didn't think I was being hysterical.

Prevent you from upgrading? I was thinking more like force you to upgrade.

I don't agree with your 1, 2, 3 and I don't think they should make themselves into a clone of the DELL company.

It's neither illegal, monopolistic or similar to the MS situation. Apple would have to be using a monopoly (which they don't have: you cannot have a monopoly on producing Apple computers) to prevent competition. I cannot see anyway you can say that designing their computers to limit upgrades illegally prevents another company competing with them.

The argument can be made that refusing to license the OS is monopolistic, but this will tend to fail as there are other OS choices out there. It is similar to arguing that BMW must license it's designs to competitors to enable them to sell lower price "BMW" cars...


I think the illegality of it falls to something we're not focusing on yet. I wasn't being redundant when I mentioned "monopoly". I was thinking of three very specific things that are very wrong with what they're doing. I'll outline some of my logic flow on just one of them so you can understand where I'm coming from. And BTW I'm not trying to troll or anything lame like that. So, like this:

It's become an accepted norm and an expected function of any "workstation" machine with an easy access panel or door to be user upgradable based on CPU socket (which is can be argued is normal to derive from the CPU it's advertised to ship with) the memory sockets, the expansion slot types, drive bays, etc.. When a company markets a machine in this class they are playing to those expectation. Then thereafter not delivering on it, not stating clearly any exceptions, and purposely making it impossible difficult or forcing proprietary alternatives becomes a kind of bait and switch. I guess if I had a million or so I could win such an argument against Apple. Anyway i did say it was borderline and not blatant. The other two are similar trains of thought.

Regardless of these practices determinate legality it remains affront to me personally and flies in the face of being fair or getting a fair shake from a fair company.

Does that make more sense?

[Fomaphone]

corporations by definition must take the most profitable legal course of action in every case-- that duty to shareholders is the most fundamental component of making a company public. it's the whole justification for corporate formation and regulation... corporations ideally exploit every market within the limits of the law.

that is the field in which Apple competes. nobody's hiding or baiting-and-switching anything about that reality.

if you hadn't noticed, two things: 1) nobody's being harmed by this hardware pricing so it's not an issue of legality and 2) apple is an extremely successful corporation-- they're very good at pursuing profits for their shareholders. that's all they're doing and it's nothing new.

edit

[Tesselator]

corporations by definition must take the most profitable legal course of action in every case-- that duty to shareholders is the most fundamental component of making a company public. it's the whole justification for corporate formation and regulation... corporations ideally exploit every market within the limits of the law.

While I think I can bring points to bare that might show otherwise on your below two points I only wish to say that if they loose 1/2 of they user base because of a lack of good will and a sense of fairness then they haven't pursued the most profitable legal course of action. Good will, fairness and the perceptions thereof do have very real rolls to play in the profitability of a corporation.


that is the field in which Apple competes. nobody's hiding or baiting-and-switching anything about that reality.


if you hadn't noticed, two things: 1) nobody's being harmed by this hardware pricing so it's not an issue of legality and 2) apple is an extremely successful corporation-- my guess is that they're very good at pursuing profits.



--
EDIT: Concerning your above edit I was 1/2 expecting Apple's '09 (and for sure their 2010 units) to have 12 or 16 physical cores.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/intels-6-core-xeon-and-nehalem-cpu-info-leaked/ From last year.
X7460, L7455, E7450 - http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon7000/specifications.htm
etc.

.

[cmaier]

It's become an accepted norm and an expected function of any "workstation" machine with an easy access panel or door to be user upgradable based on CPU socket (which is can be argued is normal to derive from the CPU it's advertised to ship with) the memory sockets, the expansion slot types, drive bays, etc..



Arguable. For much of corporate america, "workstation" still means Sun, etc., which has no history of such things.

When a company markets a machine in this class they are playing to those expectation. Then thereafter not delivering on it, not stating clearly any exceptions, and purposely making it impossible difficult or forcing proprietary alternatives becomes a kind of bait and switch. I guess if I had a million or so I could win such an argument against Apple. Anyway i did say it was borderline and not blatant. The other two are similar trains of thought.

Regardless of these practices determinate legality it remains affront to me personally and flies in the face of being fair or getting a fair shake from a fair company.

Does that make more sense?

No.

First, they don't "purposely mak[e] it impossible or difficult." They made the decision based on engineering, not based on trying to prevent you from swapping CPUs. You may as well argue that Intel is being illegal whenever they come out with a new socket. I assure you, they do it for technical reasons, not to screw you.

Second, you have failed to state a legal cause of action. They've broken no contract (where does Apple promise that you can swap the cpu?) They've violated no warranty, express or implied. They've committed no fraud.

They have no affirmative duty to tell you all the things that you cannot do the machine. Despite your assertion, upgrading CPUs in workstations is incredibly rare. Even though it can nowadays be done, it is ACTUALLY done almost never percentagewise.

You're funny - you ignore what apple actually explicitly tells you (you may not use OS X on a non-mac - see other thread) - and yet you derive implausible meaning from what apple doesn't tell you (they don't say "it's hard to rip the guts out and replace it with other guts" so therefore it should be easy).

But, just so you don't actually buy an Apple and have it fail to live up to promises Apple hasn't actually made, here are some other things Apple should have told you:

1) the mac pro is not a tasty salad dressing
2) the mac pro is not waterproof
3) the mac pro is not available in five tasty flavors
4) the mac pro is not convertible into a giant transforming robot
5) some assembly required

[Tallest Skil]

4) the mac pro is not convertible into a giant transforming robot

Well... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLbJ8YPHwXM) :p

(near the end)

[Fomaphone]

additionally... is anybody taking into account that every time a user buys newer or better hardware, they make it that much easier to wait for the next upgrade?

i mean... now that i have this 09 mp, it will be a solid 4-5 years until it feels too slow for my needs (HD editing and graphic creation). the g5 that i had prior to this started showing its age in '06 when 1080p video hit the prosumer market in a big way but i held onto it until it died.

in two years, 2k and 4k will be a lot more common than they are now, but they won't be hugely relevant for single-machine purchasers until the life of this machine (and possibly the planet :D) is nearing an end anyway. this machine manhandles HD video like the g5 used to handle SD. if you look at the software that apple sells for these machines... the Final Cut Studio, Logic, QMaster and QT, Aperture, etc... it's prosumer software geared toward people who can afford a machine and the software bundle but not terribly much more. the machines are all hugely more competent than the tech of 3-5 years ago, which is when most of the people in this category last upgraded. so think about the length of the single-machine user's upgrade cycle.

what does apple have to gain from letting people push the more users' upgrade cycles to 6 or 7 years? should i pissed about every upgrade between now and the platform that makes 10k real-time video possible? no. ... i shudder to think what i'll be shelling out in 2014 for a new computer but i'm excited at the thought of purchasing one that's going to spank my current MP with 4k and 64-bit floating point graphics.

[Tesselator]

Well... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLbJ8YPHwXM) :p

(near the end)

Heehehehhe! I love it! That's kewl!

[Tesselator]

All this talk might be for nothing at that:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724&page=24

:o

[xraydoc]

All this talk might be for nothing at that:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724&page=24

:o

So the quad (single processor) machines may be upgradable (barring a firmware lock) but the octo machines are not? :mad:

While I've been an Apple user since I got an Apple ][+ in 1982, I too am a bit disappointed in Apple's continued attempts at locking the hardware down to the point as being virtually un-upgradable.

Every Mac I've owned since 1994 has had a potentially upgradable processor until the G5 series. And even then, the machine that replaced the G5, the 1st generation Mac Pro, has replaceable processors.

Mac OS X 10.6 better be really good in light of Windows 7...

I'm having a hard time contemplating upgrading my 2.66GHz dual-dual Woodcrest Mac Pro for a $5000+ 2.93GHz knowing how locked down the hardware is.

I had hoped that Apple's move to the Intel platform would bring inexpensive computers and (at least slightly) more ubiquitous upgrade options like video cards, etc. Guess not.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Having fantasies about replacing my Mac Pro and MacBook with $2000 upgradable 3.2GHz Core i7 running Windows 7 and a cheap $300 Atom-based netbook that I can replace twice per year.
And since iTunes is solid on Windows now, and virtually all software I use regularly save for Keynote, iPhoto and Osirix exists in both Windows and Mac versions, the only thing keeping me on the Mac is the OS itself.

[cmaier]

So the quad (single processor) machines may be upgradable (barring a firmware lock) but the octo machines are not? :mad:

While I've been an Apple user since I got an Apple ][+ in 1982, I too am a bit disappointed in Apple's continued attempts at locking the hardware down to the point as being virtually un-upgradable.

Every Mac I've owned since 1994 has had a potentially upgradable processor until the G5 series. And even then, the machine that replaced the G5, the 1st generation Mac Pro, has replaceable processors.

Mac OS X 10.6 better be really good in light of Windows 7...

I'm having a hard time contemplating upgrading my 2.66GHz dual-dual Woodcrest Mac Pro for a $5000+ 2.93GHz knowing how locked down the hardware is.

I had hoped that Apple's move to the Intel platform would bring inexpensive computers and (at least slightly) more ubiquitous upgrade options like video cards, etc. Guess not.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Having fantasies about replacing my Mac Pro and MacBook with $2000 upgradable 3.2GHz Core i7 running Windows 7 and a cheap $300 Atom-based netbook that I can replace twice per year.
And since iTunes is solid on Windows now, and virtually all software I use regularly save for Keynote, iPhoto and Osirix exists in both Windows and Mac versions, the only thing keeping me on the Mac is the OS itself.

Let's see - 8 core uses a far more efficient heat-dissipating solution that corresponds to more difficulty in cpu swapping. Could be:

1) double the heat generated in the same space requires a more efficient cooling solution -OR-

2) a vast conspiracy to prevent you from upgrading your cpus, something almost no one does in the first place.


Yeah, (2) makes a lot more sense.

You people frighten me.

[raziel777]

No one upgrades their cpu's? :eek:

[cmaier]

No one upgrades their cpu's? :eek:

Not no one. Hardly anyone. Honestly, what percentage of mac pro buyers do you really think even contemplate it?

Remember, people who come here to whine are hardly a representative sample of the consumer base.

[xraydoc]

Let's see - 8 core uses a far more efficient heat-dissipating solution that corresponds to more difficulty in cpu swapping. Could be:

1) double the heat generated in the same space requires a more efficient cooling solution -OR-

2) a vast conspiracy to prevent you from upgrading your cpus, something almost no one does in the first place.


Yeah, (2) makes a lot more sense.

You people frighten me.
You're not going to convince me that Apple was unable to engineer a cooling system in such a way that standard CPU modules with heat spreaders could be used. 50 RPM more on the intake and exhaust fans would not have bothered anyone but Steve Jobs himself. Especially since they knew full well that the future upgrade potential would have been eliminated.

Bottom line is Apple's computers, even the $5500 model, are NOT upgradable.
In this day and age, that's a big issue for a lot of people.

[raziel777]

I may be strange, but I think about it all the time.:D

[cmaier]

You're not going to convince me that Apple was unable to engineer a cooling system in such a way that standard CPU modules with heat spreaders could be used. 50 RPM more on the intake and exhaust fans would not have bothered anyone but Steve Jobs himself. Especially since they knew full well that the future upgrade potential would have been eliminated.

Bottom line is Apple's computers, even the $5500 model, are NOT upgradable.
In this day and age, that's a big issue for a lot of people.

Come see me when you get your degree in semiconductor packaging.

In the mean time, I think Apple knows its customers better than you, and it's a "big issue" for a lot fewer people than you think.

[xraydoc]

Not no one. Hardly anyone. Honestly, what percentage of mac pro buyers do you really think even contemplate it?

Remember, people who come here to whine are hardly a representative sample of the consumer base.

Most people do not, you are correct. Most people also buy sub-$1000 machines.

Someone spending $3500+ on a desktop computer, however, are not the consumer base.

On a Mac mini - fine. Solder in the CPU. On the $5000 octo-core Mac Pro, give me the option to extend my investment in the future.

[cmaier]

Most people do not, you are correct. Most people also buy sub-$1000 machines.

Someone spending $3500+ on a desktop computer, however, are not the consumer base.

On a Mac mini - fine. Solder in the CPU. On the $5000 octo-core Mac Pro, give me the option to extend my investment in the future.

Nice attempt at slipping a logical fallacy by us. Most people do not spend $3500+. Of those, almost none want to update their CPU.

Your anger makes no sense. If apple did this to screw you, they;'d have done it to the single-socket chips, too. Clearly this was an engineering decision. As someone who spent 14 years designing CPUs, I can tell you that you have no idea what constraints they were operating under.

[Outsider]

We have dozens of Mac Pros and we would not contemplate upgrading the processors. The RAM, and Hard drives, yes, we have. But the processors? No way, not cost effective. We don't even upgrade the Dell workstation CPUs, nor would we even think of it. Many companies are on a 3-4 year upgrade schedule where they replace computers all out.

[raziel777]

Well that takes all the fun out of it.:D

[Tesselator]

I think 70% or 80% (somewhere in there) of MP users contemplate upgrading their CPUs. I guess between around 10% actually do it.

[Outsider]

I think 70% or 80% (somewhere in there) of MP users contemplate upgrading their CPUs. I guess between around 10% actually do it.

Most Mac pros are used in businesses where the operators have no interest or inclination to upgrade the CPUs. :D

[raziel777]

Reality continues to ruin my life.:p

[xraydoc]

Most Mac pros are used in businesses where the operators have no interest or inclination to upgrade the CPUs. :D

Most Dells are sold to businesses, but they have replaceable processors.

What's your point, really? Listing excuses for the lack of upgradable processors does not make it right.

"Consumer" gear like the iMac or Mac mini? Fine.
On "Pro" gear the the Mac Pro, a non-upgradable processor (and all of two graphics card choices, BTW) is pretty silly.

And this particular pro user would like a Mac with upgradable processors, thank you.

[raziel777]

+1

[cmaier]

Most Dells are sold to businesses, but they have replaceable processors.

What's your point, really? Listing excuses for the lack of upgradable processors does not make it right.

"Consumer" gear like the iMac or Mac mini? Fine.
On "Pro" gear the the Mac Pro, a non-upgradable processor (and all of two graphics card choices, BTW) is pretty silly.

And this particular pro user would like a Mac with upgradable processors, thank you.

Enthusiasts upgrade their processors. Hobbyists upgrade their processors. College kids upgrade their processors. Pros don't. The vast majority of "pros" have IT staffs, IT budgets with all sorts of rules and limitations, and require warrantees. Most pros use their machines for business, deduct them by depreciation, and have no interest in marginal, unsupported, warrantyless upgrades.

Yes, a fraction of a percent do upgrade their processors. But millions of workstations have been sold by Sun, IBM, DEC, HP, SGI, all without upgradeable processors. No company I have ever worked for has upgraded processors in any of their boxes. It happens, but not often, and you are trying to make it a requirement (or at least an expectation) but it simply isn't one.

[raziel777]

Not a requirement, just saying it would be fun:eek:

[xraydoc]

Enthusiasts upgrade their processors. Hobbyists upgrade their processors. College kids upgrade their processors. Pros don't. The vast majority of "pros" have IT staffs, IT budgets with all sorts of rules and limitations, and require warrantees. Most pros use their machines for business, deduct them by depreciation, and have no interest in marginal, unsupported, warrantyless upgrades.

Yes, a fraction of a percent do upgrade their processors. But millions of workstations have been sold by Sun, IBM, DEC, HP, SGI, all without upgradeable processors. No company I have ever worked for has upgraded processors in any of their boxes. It happens, but not often, and you are trying to make it a requirement (or at least an expectation) but it simply isn't one.
I agree with everything you say.

But my Mac Pro is in my home. I do not have an IT department. I do use my machine for my income (at decent part of it, at least). And yes, I expect an expensive computer to be upgradable.

Why should the processor be any different than say a graphics card or an optical drive? Most businesses don't upgrade those once installed, either, but yet they are user-replaceable nonetheless.

[noushy]

The new Mac Pro is upgradeable, even the 8 core but the dual processor daughterboards lack the retention clamp to make more room for the heatsink assembly which also acts as a retention clamp. Just look in the service manual. It shows you how to exchange out processors.

Peace,
Noushy

[Boneoh]

The new Mac Pro is upgradeable, even the 8 core but the dual processor daughterboards lack the retention clamp to make more room for the heatsink assembly which also acts as a retention clamp. Just look in the service manual. It shows you how to exchange out processors.

I think the issue here is that there is no upgrade kit available, perhaps there may never be one.

The fact that it is not easy for a do-it-yerselfer to upgrade their processors has pissed some people off.

IMO I don't think Apple has misled anyone. There are options for RAM, hard drives, video cards, wireless networking. I didn't see any implication that I would be able to a presto-change-o on my processor anywhere.

[Tesselator]

Enthusiasts upgrade their processors. Hobbyists upgrade their processors. College kids upgrade their processors. Pros don't.

I'm a pro by every definition. I did. And over 60% of my colleges (in one particular profession) also did or are planning to. <shrug>

[WytRaven]

You people frighten me.

I have to agree with cmaier.

Who upgrades machines these days even at the consumer level? When it comes down to it the days of upgrading machines are all but gone as the speed of new technology development is getting very close to surpassing the speed at which consumers can realistically consume. The only thing I can think of that your average person would do is up their ram, up their hard drives, or perhaps upgrade their video card...actually that sound more like the average enthusiast rather than average person.

I have hand built 4 PCs for myself in the last 15 years and only the first ever received a CPU upgrade all the others have required complete system replacements with the exception of HDs, Burners and case at each "upgrade" step. Technology is simply moving too fast now; and it will only get faster.

[Fomaphone]

I'm a pro by every definition. I did. And over 60% of my colleges (in one particular profession) also did or are planning to. <shrug>

my purpose isn't to argue and sorry if you've already said, but in what line of work are you?


new technology development is getting very close to surpassing the speed at which consumers can realistically consume. The only thing I can think of that your average person would do is up their ram, up their hard drives, or perhaps upgrade their video card...actually that sound more like the average enthusiast rather than average person.


+1 ... it's a good way of putting what i was trying to say before about upgrading for my video work

[Fomaphone]

-double post-

[VirtualRain]

Let's see - 8 core uses a far more efficient heat-dissipating solution that corresponds to more difficulty in cpu swapping. Could be:

1) double the heat generated in the same space requires a more efficient cooling solution -OR-



Exactly!!! The Octo's are clearly running naked to enable better heat dissipation with the smaller heat-sinks and the fact that there's two of them in a relatively small space.

The Quad's have a much larger heat sink and since there's only one of them in the same space, they can obviously run with the more conventional heat spreader.

Octo owners should be happy about the improved cooling from running naked CPU's (albeit at the expense of off-the-shelf upgrades), it will provide improved cooling headroom that may translate into better Turbo Boost performance. The last thing you want is hot running chips that don't have any headroom.

I personally would never bother upgrading a CPU anyway, as other's have stated, by the time I've outgrown my CPU, the whole architecture has changed significantly enough to warrant a completely new system.

[trancepriest]

by the time I've outgrown my CPU, the whole architecture has changed significantly enough to warrant a completely new system.

Hear, Hear!

----

Tesselator why don't you setup a paypal donation site so others can assist you in acquiring a "pro' computer?

[pilotError]

Let's see - 8 core uses a far more efficient heat-dissipating solution that corresponds to more difficulty in cpu swapping. Could be:

1) double the heat generated in the same space requires a more efficient cooling solution -OR-

2) a vast conspiracy to prevent you from upgrading your cpus, something almost no one does in the first place.


Yeah, (2) makes a lot more sense.

You people frighten me.

Actually they use more cores instead of clock speed to keep the heat down. It uses the same amount of electricity +- ~ 20% for double the compute power. The chips are no hotter than the 4 or 5ghz behemoth's that IBM was pumping out. In fact they aren't much hotter than some of the high end dual core CPU's of a couple of years ago.

Enthusiasts upgrade their processors. Hobbyists upgrade their processors. College kids upgrade their processors. Pros don't. The vast majority of "pros" have IT staffs, IT budgets with all sorts of rules and limitations, and require warrantees. Most pros use their machines for business, deduct them by depreciation, and have no interest in marginal, unsupported, warrantyless upgrades.

Yes, a fraction of a percent do upgrade their processors. But millions of workstations have been sold by Sun, IBM, DEC, HP, SGI, all without upgradeable processors. No company I have ever worked for has upgraded processors in any of their boxes. It happens, but not often, and you are trying to make it a requirement (or at least an expectation) but it simply isn't one.

I have to agree here. Then again, I know that DEC/HP would upgrade your machines at the drop of a hat. For a fair price they would come in and swap the entire logic board if they had to. They were very big on customer service and bent over backward to keep you happy.

I'm a little split on Apple's need to lock down the hardware. The Mac Pro borders on Prosumer hardware.

I think what they did with the newest Mac Mini was petty. I've been keeping my Mac Mini / iMac up to speed with CPU swaps, but as others have commented, there's only a few of us (small percentage) that actually do it.

I was looking forward to the Mac Pro, as I would like to get one, but I think I'm going to wait until the next set of CPU's and see what hardware changes come about.

[polterdice]

It's looking like a no, see here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724&page=23

Post #560 on

Now it's looking like a yes. Dude doing the upgrade realized it wasn't working due to bent pins. Check out posts #619 and #623.

[Tesselator]

my purpose isn't to argue and sorry if you've already said, but in what line of work are you?


2D/3D CG, video editing, soundtrack and score composition and editing:
Hollywood feature film production (CG),
TV Commercials (all),
Corporate Promotional Videos (all),
Corporate Instructional Videos (all),
Game general production (all),
Music Videos (all).

Coding, design, and documentation:
CG tool and application development. (all)
Games (all)
Automobile (doc)
Electronic goods (doc)

And don't worry, there's a fine line between argument and discussion but I accept all as legitimate tools for learning - communication is kewl! :D It's all guud!

[cmaier]

Actually they use more cores instead of clock speed to keep the heat down. It uses the same amount of electricity +- ~ 20% for double the compute power. The chips are no hotter than the 4 or 5ghz behemoth's that IBM was pumping out. In fact they aren't much hotter than some of the high end dual core CPU's of a couple of years ago.



I have to agree here. Then again, I know that DEC/HP would upgrade your machines at the drop of a hat. For a fair price they would come in and swap the entire logic board if they had to. They were very big on customer service and bent over backward to keep you happy.

I'm a little split on Apple's need to lock down the hardware. The Mac Pro borders on Prosumer hardware.

I think what they did with the newest Mac Mini was petty. I've been keeping my Mac Mini / iMac up to speed with CPU swaps, but as others have commented, there's only a few of us (small percentage) that actually do it.

I was looking forward to the Mac Pro, as I would like to get one, but I think I'm going to wait until the next set of CPU's and see what hardware changes come about.

You're cheating :-) At a given feature size, to double the compute power you either:

1) double the frequency, which quadruples the power

or

2) double the number of cores, which doubles the power (not 20% - if power increases only by 20% it's because the feature size got smaller or you aren't really doubling the compute power - i.e. both cores are not saturated).

or

3) double the IPC w/o doubling the cores (more pipelines, better branch prediction, trace caches, deeper reorder buffers, better scheduling, etc.) Increases power ?? %. (less than doubling the cores, though).

At AMD, we started the multi-core war because we couldn't keep up in the frequency war and didn't have the manpower or time for #3 :-)


note: when i say "power" i mean "heat" unless i preface it with "compute"

note 2: since the feature size halves every few years, it's not fair comparing today's quad cores to dual cores from a few years ago, heat-wise. It's not adding more cores that made it cooler. It's the shrink. Smaller features, thinner gates, less capacitance to charge and discharge and smaller voltage swings. Of course leakage current has gone way up, so idle power has gotten worse.