Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:30 AM   #1
dcnblues
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Mac Pro is not water cooled?

I'll be getting a Mac Pro, and probably go for the 3.0 GHz. A couple of quick questions:

-There's a wikipedia page of tech specs for the Harpertown chips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#54...eries_Wolfdale

which shows that the 2.8 and 3.0 chips run at 80 watts, but while the 3.2 runs a TDP (thermal design power) of 120 watts. If I put a premium on running cool and quiet, is it correct to think that's good reason to choose the 3.0 over the 3.2 (I'm aware I'd lose about 7% in speed)?

-Were some of the G5's water cooled? I remember seeing one of the mac tower's tech specs, and seeing water cooling, and being grateful the design had evolved to that efficient and quiet place. My old G4 sounds like a 767, and I'm worried my new Mac Pro will get there too, once it fills with dust. I can't see anything about the new one's being water cooled. Am I wrong?

-I'm assuming one simply tries to reduce dust (I'll be keeping it off the ground at desk height, but don't know what else I can do) and blow it out with compressed air now and again to keep it cool and quiet. Any other tips would be welcome.

-I seem to remember a suggestion, don't know from where, about putting some lube into the (noisy) fan. One noisy fan really could drive me up the wall, and if a judicious drop of silicone in the right place could fix this, I'd love more info. Is this a practical solution?
dcnblues is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:34 AM   #2
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
The Mac Pros are air cooled. You'll just need to blow the dust out of it. I haven't found them to be noisy but most of the fan issues normally require a replacement vs. lubrication.
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
13" Retina MacBook Pro
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:44 AM   #3
Sherman Homan
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Only the dual 2.5 GHz G5 was water cooled... it didn't go over very well! None of the MacPros are water cooled.
IMHO the 7% speed difference is not worth the money, spend it on ram!
There was a model of G4 (Mirror Door) that was nicknamed the Wind Tunnel because its fans were so loud.
Keeping it dust free is a good thing, compressed air in one hand and a vacuum cleaner in the other.
I wouldn't squirt anything into a fan...
Sherman Homan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 01:57 PM   #4
garymilgrom
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
My new Mac Pro (got it Jan. 12) seems essentially silent. It is much quieter than the dual core G5 it replaced.

Should I use vacuum or compressed air for cleaning my old G5?
garymilgrom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 02:02 PM   #5
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
Quote:
Originally Posted by garymilgrom View Post
My new Mac Pro (got it Jan. 12) seems essentially silent. It is much quieter than the dual core G5 it replaced.

Should I use vacuum or compressed air for cleaning my old G5?
I suggest compressed air. I do have an "electronics" vacuum for my rack but I'm still wary of using it.
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
13" Retina MacBook Pro
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 02:38 PM   #6
product26
macrumors 6502a
 
product26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
One of apples reasons for going intel was power efficiency.

Water cooling was not an advancement. It was more like drastic measures being taken to try and effectively cool an inefficient processor (the G5).
__________________
My apologies, my pet cricket has restless leg syndrome.
product26 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 02:49 PM   #7
Sherman Homan
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by product26 View Post
One of apples reasons for going intel was power efficiency.

Water cooling was not an advancement. It was more like drastic measures being taken to try and effectively cool an inefficient processor (the G5).
Quoted For Truth.
How about them G5 laptops!
Sherman Homan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 03:12 PM   #8
Reach
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Norway
Just sold my Dual 2,5 G5 today, at least I never experienced any issues with the watercooling. Worked great for me.
Reach is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 03:15 PM   #9
Feverish Flux
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post
Only the dual 2.5 GHz G5 was water cooled...
The dual 2.7 and Quad G5 were as well...
Feverish Flux is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 06:18 PM   #10
Bass108
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
um there are X5472 chips right? they are not even listed on that wiki. the only confirmation of a chip in the 3.0 is on these asian sites that have X5472 (which to my understanding is a 120w chip) next to the 3.0GHz model.

wtf?!

i think the only safe bet is the 2.8

which was my plan cause i could not clear of up the confusion

and calling apple is a dead end
Bass108 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:30 PM   #11
dcnblues
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass108 View Post
um there are X5472 chips right? they are not even listed on that wiki. the only confirmation of a chip in the 3.0 is on these asian sites that have X5472 (which to my understanding is a 120w chip) next to the 3.0GHz model.

wtf?!

i think the only safe bet is the 2.8

which was my plan cause i could not clear of up the confusion

and calling apple is a dead end
Well, in hindsight, I thought this was interesting enough for it's own topic, but the d-b moderator didn't agree and locked it. But the initial post has (so far) 146 views, so maybe the d-b moderator should unlock it (Mac Pro 3.0 at 80 watts, 3.2 at 120). So much for this being an informative site...
dcnblues is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:34 PM   #12
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
This should help a little. Straight from Intel but no TDP numbers.

My Google work shows the E5472 (3.0 GHz) at 120W and the X5482 (3.2 GHz) at 150 W. Improved steppings are not taken into account, etc.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	intel_xeon.png
Views:	131
Size:	59.5 KB
ID:	97965  
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
13" Retina MacBook Pro
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 12:12 AM   #13
Bass108
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
so much confusion! i will be going with a 2.8 tomorrow
Bass108 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 12:32 AM   #14
newtech
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
The 2.8 and 3.0 share a common motherboard and cooling components, therefore they must be close in TDP. Ergo 3.0 MUST be an E5472 ( 80W TDP ) and NOT an X5472 ( 120W TDP ), the japanese site has it totally WRONG!

The 3.2 is absolutely an X5482, weather it has a TDP of 120W or 150W is not clear. But it is a fact that the 3.2 has a different MLB and uprated cooling components vs the 2.8/3.0, If the 3.0 were X5472 it would share MLB and cooling components with the 3.2

Also Apple is in a position to get top rated components from intel so it makes more sense Apple would choose E5472's over X5472's.

Last edited by newtech; Jan 16, 2008 at 12:39 AM.
newtech is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 01:56 AM   #15
thevibesman
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtech View Post
But it is a fact that the 3.2 has a different MLB and uprated cooling components vs the 2.8/3.0, If the 3.0 were X5472 it would share MLB and cooling components with the 3.2
Shortly after I ordered my 2.8x2, I called Apple to see if they were the same MLB, because I was curious about CPU upgrades in the future--although at this point I'm leaning towards eBay/buying new the next time I need an upgrade. The woman I spoke with said she wasn't sure and put me on hold to ask a superior. If I was given an answer on the spot I wouldn't have trusted this, but I had hope I could believe it since she claimed to try to find out the correct answer.

Is this a FACT? Where is this fact coming from? Do you know what the differences are? I figured the X5482 would get a beefier heatsync, but are there other differences in the boards between the Mac Pro models?
thevibesman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 02:16 AM   #16
echoout
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Yeah, I just sold my liquid cooled G5 Quad for $1800. Great machine.
echoout is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible to put GPU on water in 5,1 Mac Pro? Redneck1089 Mac Pro 5 Apr 15, 2014 10:43 PM
How much would you spend on a water cooled MacBook Pro stand smellalot MacBook Pro 36 Dec 13, 2012 03:32 PM
Water-cooled PowerMac G5: Leak testing El Awesome PowerPC Macs 19 Dec 7, 2012 03:46 PM
Water cooling for Mac Pro El Awesome Mac Pro 33 Nov 25, 2012 08:33 AM
So I just dumped a full glass of water on top of my Mac Pro ratfink Mac Pro 15 Sep 21, 2012 10:46 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps