Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Teardown of New Mac Pro Reveals Surprising Amount of Accessibility, Circular Daughterboard

neuropsychguy said:
leo.andres.21 said:
I wonder how does a 450W power supply could drive 2 high end AMD cards and a beast of a processor?:confused:
Click to expand...
There's a reason the Mac Pro is designed as a wind tunnel (think jet engine). It allows for greater efficiency. The graphics cards and processors are quite energy efficient & add in across the board efficiencies from Apple's design, 450W is plenty of power. Apple is one of the best at electronic efficiency. Anyone can make a beast of a computer that runs on a 1000W power supply but to make a beautiful beast of a computer run on 450W is elegant engineering.
Click to expand...

So if you arrange the components in a certain way, they use less power?

Wow, i learn something new every day.
 
Patrick J said:
Apple aren't scared of cannibalising their existing options. The iPhone all but killed the iPod.
Click to expand...

Michael Scrip said:
Apple shouldn't care what you buy... as long as it makes them money.

People have been screaming for a headless xMac for years. But Apple only sells a tiny cigar box Mac Mini... an all-in-one iMac... and a powerful Mac Pro workstation.

Who cares if sales of the xMac would take away sales from the iMac? A sale is a sale! Everything Apple sells makes them a handsome profit anyway... so it shouldn't matter what you buy.

Selling an xMac would be better than selling no Mac at all... and that's exactly what happens. A lot of people are turned off by the idea of the iMac... but the Mac Mini isn't a great solution either.

So they buy NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Exactly. xMac would be the only Mac desktop Apple ever need. You can configure it starts from as low as $699 like Mac mini, mainstream like iMac, or going all out with Xeon BTO. Storage can be configured as Fusion Drive, pure SSD along with single/dual CPU or even graphic. All of those configurations in one, single design .. No need for naming BS. Simply call it Mac. Buy it from $699 up to $9950 if you want.

I would ditch my iMac soon for this kind of Mac.
 
wiz329 said:
OK, so you want to buy a new graphics card, so you need a new logic board. What on the system AREN'T you replacing then? If you're going to a new socket, you'd also have to replace the CPU, no?

May as well just buy a new system.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with this, but a lot of computing speed is about bottlenecks. I have a 5,1 mac pro with a 12-core processor. I am a casual user, but got the system on a 'too good to pass up' deal last year. What I find, however, is that I can't even run the processors up to 35% of their capacity because the disk drive speed is the limiting factor on most tests. Once upgrade that (and I will), I expect that the video card will be the limiting factor.

What it seems Apple has built this time is a system with better-integrated components that really should be used until it is not fast enough anymore, then sold to someone who needs less speed and replaced.
 
Pompiliu said:
So if you arrange the components in a certain way, they use less power?

Wow, i learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

it's not necessarily the arrangement (though they do have to be arranged a certain way for this to work) but i speculated over the last months that apple is using a 12v only psu..

wikipedia said:
12V-only supplies
Since 2011, Fujitsu and other Tier 1 manufacturers have been manufacturing systems containing motherboard variants which require only a 12V supply from a custom made PSU (typically rated at 250–300W). DC-DC conversion, providing 5V and 3.3V, is done on the motherboard; the proposal is that 5V and 12V supply for other devices, such as HDDs, will be picked up at the motherboard rather than from the PSU itself (though this does not appear to be fully implemented as of January 2012). The reasons given for this approach to power supply are that it eliminates cross-load problems, simplifies and reduces internal wiring which can affect airflow and cooling, reduces costs, increases power supply efficiency and reduces noise by bringing the power supply fan speed under the control of the motherboard. Other advantages it offers is the potential ability to power a PC off a sealed lead-acid 12 volt battery, or from automotive power without using a power inverter.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_supply_unit_(computer)



it's still a bit unclear to me on whether or not they actually did this but the ifixit write-up does give more evidence to it (they say the psu is rated at 12v and no other voltages are listed)..

we still need an uber-electro-geek to get in there and really analyze the way it's powered.
 
Piggie said:
Indeed, we all know that, but apple won't make what many want, they make what they want people to buy.

If they made what people want it will hurt iMac or mac pro sales.
Click to expand...

more like- if they made your xMac then decided to make an imac and mac pro, the imac and mac pro would cannibalize xmac sales..
you don't see that?
 
pertusis1 said:
I can't believe I find myself agreeing with this, but a lot of computing speed is about bottlenecks. I have a 5,1 mac pro with a 12-core processor. I am a casual user, but got the system on a 'too good to pass up' deal last year. What I find, however, is that I can't even run the processors up to 35% of their capacity because the disk drive speed is the limiting factor on most tests. Once upgrade that (and I will), I expect that the video card will be the limiting factor.

What it seems Apple has built this time is a system with better-integrated components that really should be used until it is not fast enough anymore, then sold to someone who needs less speed and replaced.
Click to expand...

You're right. My MP 5,1 quad with 24GB RAM and an ATI 5870 has always bogged down and beach-balled a lot. Moving the the boot drive to a Crucial M500 960GB SSD plugged in to a SATA2 port sped up the thing noticeably.

Putting the M500 on a SATA3 Sonnet Tempo PCIe card moved performance up another very usable notch. Sadly my new 2012 MBP 2.3 quad with 16GB RAM and a 960GB M500 still out scores the MP in both Geekbench 2 and 3!
 
flat five said:
more like- if they made your xMac then decided to make an imac and mac pro, the imac and mac pro would cannibalize xmac sales..
you don't see that?
Click to expand...

No because the other product need never exist as the xMac, like a PC could do anything you wanted.

From a web browser to a pro workstation.
 
DrManhattan said:
You're forgetting a fan also uses power. More efficient cooling allows for less fan use and therefore less energy.
Click to expand...

It is true of course but the fan uses very little power compared to the GPU board. So whatever efficiencies Apple got from the design of the case they are relatively small. It looks like the main power saving compared to regular workstations come from under-clocking the GPUs (and those are not the most powerful GPUs to begin with)
 
cclloyd said:
Any chance I can get a DIY build that isn't "pro" specs but still that awesome quiet shape?
Click to expand...

Build it in a traditional tower and then place the tower in a larger cylindrical object. :D Maybe something like this? :D:D

410a97fbMSL._SY300_.jpg
 
lilo777 said:
It is true of course but the fan uses very little power compared to the GPU board. So whatever efficiencies Apple got from the design of the case they are relatively small. It looks like the main power saving compared to regular workstations come from under-clocking the GPUs (and those are not the most powerful GPUs to begin with)
Click to expand...

So you're saying I'm correct. Gotcha.
 
bagelche said:
Not sure what programs you're using, but it looks like the 700s are a significant upgrade over the 500s. With many programs now (or soon to be) relying heavily on the GPUs for rendering and video crunching that looks like an upgrade worth doing. In various video forums I trawl, it looks like the preference is for 6 core/700 combo (or 8/700 if you can swing it).
Click to expand...

Hmmm thanks for the advice. I was on the fence, but think you're right. Given the boost, it's not much cost.

Speaking with a friend about these guys, am I correct in stating the base models D500 will be dual 3GB (6GB) and 6GB (12GB) total? I can't imagine it's dual 6GB, I must be reading it incorrectly.
 
Michael Scrip said:
Selling an xMac would be better than selling no Mac at all... and that's exactly what happens. A lot of people are turned off by the idea of the iMac... but the Mac Mini isn't a great solution either. So they buy NOTHING.
Click to expand...
You are WRONG. When you are philosophically against the concept of iMac, than you are either a Mac mini or a Mac Pro. Either you need that power or you don't. There is no benefit in having only a little more.

Just like there is no proper use case for a Phablet. If the iPhone screen is too small for you, than buy an iPad mini. Don't fool yourself in thinking only one inch more will do all the difference. That's not the case.

Apple must see the use case for an xMac or it is not going to happen.
 
iSayuSay said:
Exactly. xMac would be the only Mac desktop Apple ever need. You can configure it starts from as low as $699 like Mac mini, mainstream like iMac, or going all out with Xeon BTO. Storage can be configured as Fusion Drive, pure SSD along with single/dual CPU or even graphic. All of those configurations in one, single design .. No need for naming BS. Simply call it Mac. Buy it from $699 up to $9950 if you want. I would ditch my iMac soon for this kind of Mac.
Click to expand...
You are clearly a guy with a Windows mindset. How will the Mac mini profit, from putting it in a larger box? How will the boxless iMac profit, from putting a box next to it? All Macs are named aptly, wether you are able to understand them or not. If you want a Mac (Pro) and Monitor separately fine, buy it. Just don't question the concept behind other form factors. They are good for what they are.

If you don't believe Apple, than ask Intel what's so good about AIO and NUC.
 
prowlmedia said:
I think this is an SLI setup no?
Click to expand...

SLI is basically combining the processors on two graphics cards to output the equivalent of a much faster single graphics card. That is different from what Apple has here which is simply multiple video cards to support the output of multiple monitors (up to 3 UltraHD or 6 regular I believe). It does come to mind that the UltraHD monitors is an odd number, though so I can't say for certain they don't have some kind of SLI thing going on.

And I think you are confusing a consumer unit with an enthusiast unit. A consumer unit is like the mac mini. I reckon 90% Consumers won't have ever opened their machine ever or even think about it. and those that have, have put in more RAM or swapped out a Hard drive.
Click to expand...

Well, an enthusiast is still a consumer so I think we're splitting hairs. Besides, not all "gamers" are extremist gamers. I game quite a lot (I bought over a dozen new games over the past three weeks alone...and they were Mac games at that). I mean does someone have to game 24/7 to be a "gamer"? Some of us would simply like a "better" machine from Apple in terms of gaming ability. I still do a lot of things other than gaming or I'd own a Windows PC. That doesn't mean I want to maintain multiple computers (regardless if I can boot into Windows on the Mac, the Mac hardware is still a limitation). I'm not a huge fan of consoles due to the forced use of gamepads. I do like gamepads for some types of games, but not typically first person shooters, for example or RPG games (then there's flight simulators and driving games which I have specialized controllers for; the driving controller is on my old PC, though since most driving games that support that level of force feedback, etc. are Windows games (e.g. Test Drive Unlimited 1 & 2, Race '0X, etc.)

Gamers are different and want 100% the fastest machine they can
Click to expand...

I'd like a GOOD machine, but I'm not going to spend $3k to get the top of the line triple-SLI or whatever just to eek out the maximum frame rate on a 42" UltraHD monitor or something. The point is that even a top of the line iMac pushing near $3k pales to what you could get in the PC world for even $1200 and it doesn't need to be that way. Even without SLI (there ARE some downsides to it people don't often talk about) Apple could offer a Mac Mini with a gaming level card or even a consumer (enthusiast if you like) machine in the new Mac Pro case with a different name attached to it for a more reasonable price (like I said, a $2k machine would make sense with a Quad i7 and a really good video card). Mac users would then have something worthy of Mac gaming and yet still be able to boot into Windows with excellent hardware for that as well and yet still be able to do all their day-to-day stuff, surfing, video, music, etc. in OSX (where I prefer to work). I think such a machine would sell well even to casual gamers. I mean no one wants crappy frame rates and such a machine would be good at pretty much everything. In fact, the only area my 2012 Quad i7 Mac Mini performs poorly IS gaming.
 
Pompiliu said:
So if you arrange the components in a certain way, they use less power?

Wow, i learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

There's much more to it than that (integration of hardware and OS, underclocking, etc.) but basic E&M physics demonstrates that arranging electrical components in different ways can affect power consumption and efficiency. So yes, it really can. In some cases the differences are negligible but they can add up.

There's a large part of design aesthetic playing a role though. In this case the whole design is about efficiency (not just power). There is one massive heat sink instead of three. There is one fan instead of multiple fans. Apple cut down on "wasted" internal and external space that most people who will buy the Mac Pro frankly will never use. Apple does their research. They removed optical drives from MacBooks and iMacs because it saves space, money, and breakage but also because most people don't use them (or use only rarely). It's an efficiency of design - fewer materials used, less space taken up, less heat produced, less sound produced, and so forth. It gets a little dicier if you have to add in a lot of external components that might otherwise fit internally but in general, people aren't as willing to have large computer cases taking up space in their offices. You can use other words for it but efficiency is a large part of what Apple is doing with the design of the Mac Pro.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone remember when the first G5 imac came out and remember how user serviceable it was. Now look at the imac, closed system. 180 degree change.
Same thing here. At first the early units will be user serviceable and in a few years it'll be closed like the current imac.
 
Gudi said:
You are clearly a guy with a Windows mindset. How will the Mac mini profit, from putting it in a larger box? How will the boxless iMac profit, from putting a box next to it? All Macs are named aptly, wether you are able to understand them or not. If you want a Mac (Pro) and Monitor separately fine, buy it. Just don't question the concept behind other form factors. They are good for what they are.

If you don't believe Apple, than ask Intel what's so good about AIO and NUC.
Click to expand...

In short if Apple does something than it must be perfect and it's for the good of the universe? I don't see what's good about current classification of mac desktop

  • Mac mini: Relatively cheap by Apple standard, but you don't get much either. Basically it's a 13" MBP without the display
  • iMac: Most decent Mac desktop with surprisingly reasonable price. But being all in one bring more harm than good. One thing dead inside and I need to lose the whole system for repair.
  • MacPro: It's a workstation but the price point may be nauseating for most consumer. Basically it's either underpowered but cheap or great but too expensive. Nothing in between.

What prevents Apple become profitable from "one Mac for all"?
You get the exactly same design either you buy a cheapo 16GB WiFi iPad or the flagship 128GB LTE one. No need for different design or special engrave or finish to show you buy the highest end now, doesn't it?

Same case with macpro. Either you get the $2999 MP or going all out with $9599, you'd still get the same design, same color, same interfaces. Doesn't prevent Apple to profit from it.

I thought Apple hates fragmentation? :rolleyes:
 
JosephAW said:
Can anyone remember when the first G5 imac came out and remember how user serviceable it was. Now look at the imac, closed system. 180 degree change.
Same thing here. At first the early units will be user serviceable and in a few years it'll be closed like the current imac.
Click to expand...

hmm.. on the current 27" imac, a user can swap ram, 2 available drive slots, & swap cpus..
the recent version is more serviceable than the prior model.

(granted, getting inside to the drives & cpu is kinda a pita but fully doable if you're a tinkerer/enthusiast)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back