iMac Pro Base Model Teardown Reveals 2x SSD RAID Configuration and Four 8GB DIMM Modules

[Chicane-UK]

Kinda surprised by the pair of SSD's if I'm honest. It just seems a bit of a sneakier, cheaper way to boost storage capacity and performance at the potential cost of the system being more vulnerable from a single SSD failing. Then again, if you lose a single SSD normally anyway, you lose everything on that device so not sure that it's a significant risk increase going up from a single drive to a pair in RAID0. Certainly in my experience of years of using mechanical drives and moving up to SSD, SSD has been staggeringly reliable.

But given the nature of the machine, I'd have kind of thought RAID1 may have made a little more sense at the cost of the write performance. I'm sure some users would actually like the choice / option to reconfigure the RAID in such a way.

 

[MH01]

Have you completely missed the fact that the CPU is not soldered in and could potentially be upgraded too?

This is good news. I upgraded my 6 core to 12 core in the 2013 Mac Pro

 

[justperry]

It's dumb that you need to remove adhesive to open the thing. Would a few screws in the back really be that ugly? Or even a hatch? Given that it has the word "Pro" in the name, and that it's super expensive, it would have been nice to have more user-upgradeable stuff. Oh who am I kidding, the MacBook Pro isn't upgradeable either.

Or like in the earlier models, magnets.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Great tear down, a little surprising about the SSDs being raided instead of a single SSD

From the sounds of the video, the memory is not user replaceable - that's a bummer

You can quite clearly see the socketed DDR4 DIMMs as they are removed and placed on the workbench (scrub to 4:30). The biggest issue for users is that these DIMMs will most likely need to be purchased in groups of 4 of equal size (4x8GB, 4X16GB or 4X32GB) to get the best possible performance out of them. The iMac Pro contains a quad-channel memory controller and unless I am proven otherwise, an oddball config like 80GB (2x8, 2x16) or 96GB (2x16, 2x32) either won't work or will result in reduced memory performance system-wide.

What will also be interesting is whether or not faster timings for the DRAM will be supported by the iMac Pro - IF manufacturers even offer them. On the Windows PC side, many companies such as G.Skill, Corsair, Patriot and gEIL offer overclocked DDR4 DIMM modules up to 4600MHz. Overclocked ECC DDR4 really isn't a consumer-oriented thing.

At this point, it is really only a matter time before third-parties begin offering ECC DDR4 DRAM upgrades for the iMac Pro. I suspect Crucial, Kingston and OWC will be the first out of the gate.

Flash storage upgrades are more unlikely, although the modules are removable, due to the proprietary nature of the modules themselves. I do wish Apple would embrace m.2, but that is not going to happen.

CPU upgrades, although theoretically possible, will mess with the thermal engineering Apple has devised for the iMac Pro, as these are not off the shelf Xeon W CPUs, but custom versions created just for Apple. If Intel releases these lower TDP CPUs to the public, that would be great.

While still not the upgradeable Mac we all want, the iMac Pro does offer a bit of customization after purchase. It will be interesting to see what the community devises to get around Apple's self-imposed limitations.

Personally, I think I will wait for Apple to update the iMac 5K to 6-core Coffee Lake i5 and i7s before upgrading my Late 2013 iMac. The 8700K CPU coupled with 1 or 2TB of flash storage, up to 64GB of DDR 4 DRAM and maybe, possibly an AMD Navi GPU would be all the workstation that most of us would need and can afford. I am hoping for exciting things in 2018.

 

[nordicappeal]

I would think RAID 0 is perfect for speed and who would run with out Time Machine and a Backup anyway? I have never experienced a crash with dataloss on my Mac Pro

 

[Chicane-UK]

At least it is reasonably upgradable... RAM, CPU and SSD's potentially (depending on how the firmware sees / treats them) - given the all in one nature of these systems it's kind of a surprise that there is so much upgrade potential. Removing the screen doesn't seem completely terrifying either to be honest, if the teardown video is anything to go by.

 

[justperry]

Think about it. 2 drives in a RAID 0. Each has it's own electronics (controllers, power regulation, etc.). Either SSD can completely fail. If EITHER SSD fails, you lose the whole volume. Two SSDs = twice the chance of failure. It's basic math.

The post above me talks about how the chips (internally) have some protection against total failure, but that is not the same as how RAID 0 works, which has ZERO protection. It's two different things.

Here's just one which says SSD's are far more reliable.

Certainly in my experience of years of using mechanical drives and moving up to SSD, SSD has been staggeringly reliable.

Edit: I also found this

Recalculating the limit until data becomes compromised at 300TB, an SSD like the Samsung 840 Series is theoretically reliable up to 21.4 years. Compare that to the fact that an HD drive is 50% likely to fail after 6 years.

 

[dannys1]

Still, I feel this machine shouldn't exist, and they should have gone back to a tower form factor Mac Pro like they used to have. Once you're paying $5K for a machine it really should be serviceable and expandable.

I don't really understand this line of thinking - that an expensive computer should be upgradeable. Why? It makes no difference, in fact it's more likely to hold it's price as a unit that comes only with Apple RAM so when you sell it and upgrade it costs you less than buying more ram down the line - which also begs the question why can't you afford the ram you need at the time?

Also if you're buying a system like this you're concerned with performance more than just a ram upgrade could offer, in 3 years time there will be many new upgrades you couldn't add to this that are logic board dependant.

I own things that cost many thousands more than an iMac Pro that I can't "upgrade" and nor do I feel it is my right to demand it so. I paid nearly $6000 for a 65" OLED TV, guess what, you can't upgrade the RAM in that either, nor anything else and in 2-3 years time it'll be far more out dated than the iMac Pro is. I paid $100,000 for my Tesla and whilst it'll get over the air the updates (as does the iMac Pro) and you have to replace maintenance parts on it, it too isn't really upgradeable past what I specced out at the start. It's a hell of a lot more expensive than the iMac Pro but in 3-4 years i'll have a different one of those too.

Hell audio pro's spend $4000 on external audio cards which do nothing but provide a single 2 channel stereo output, they can't be upgraded either, and in theory they do 1/100th of what an iMac Pro can do.

 

[Marx55]

Apple should have used the best SSD in the market, which are Samsung 960 Pro:
Massive sequential R/W (read/write) speeds up to 3,500/2,100 MB/s and random R/W speeds up to 440/360K IOPS, respectively
http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/consumer/960pro

I do not want RAID 0, but if Apple had used those, the iMac Pro would be much faster. So, I guess Apple did that just to earn more money. As does with RAM, and much more in this case, in which all four slots are filled. Not good for users. Apple should use standard parts and allow users to replace or upgrade them in an easy way. And make headless Macs (mini, Mid and Pro). CPU may last for seven years (then you cannot upgrade macOS) but displays last for more than 20 years. Again, that is a huge environmental impact!

 

[dannys1]

Those formerly top end Xeon sell for a pittance. In for or five years when the iMac Pro is starting to show it's age. You could bump it up to the 18 core for $100 to $200. Getting a few more years out of it.

And this is what an enthusiast does, not an actual pro who wants reliability, warranty, support and guaranteed up time - not to save a few hundred bucks by fiddling around (which they could have earn more than in the time it took to complete the job they might not be at all experienced with)

There is a market for the person you're talking about but it's an enthusiast not a "pro" and they never generally liked buying Macs if they were up for changing CPU's anyway. Hell i've ripped multiple 27" iMacs completely apart and even I wouldn't want to muck around changing the CPU no matter how much money it saved me.

 

[pianoman88]

Great tear down, a little surprising about the SSDs being raided instead of a single SSD

From the sounds of the video, the memory is not user replaceable - that's a bummer

no audio for me - system audio is working.

 

[mabhatter]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but does anyone get the feeling that this was going to be the new Mac Pro? Just wondering if this was supposed to replace the trash can and the "modular" Mac Pro came out of backlash from the consumer.

Yes, totally. Just wait a few months for them to say how great sales are and that “nobody wants” the Mac Pro anymore.

 

[Rob_2811]

Newsflash - they ARE building a new Mac Pro. There is room in the product line for both the iMac Pro and a Mac Pro.

NEWSFLASH. You've got absolutely no idea when that Mac Pro is going to ship (other than to say five years after the last version) or how user upgradeable it is going to be. Apple was very careful in describing it as "modular" which isnt the same thing as being user serviceable.

 

[Chancha]

I am more interested to see if the dual SSDs actually can be split and operate separately, the specific number of channels allocated etc. If they are, it is a pretty big plus from the regular iMac where you are only limited to a 2nd SATA bay even after intense DIY. Having discrete physical volumes as logical volumes can be beneficial in some workflows where a fast and large cache is needed.

 

[GoodWheaties]

No other configuration would make sense. Why would one want to sacrifice 50% performance?

It seems doubtful that it would be anywhere near 50% performance considering single-channel to dual-channel is only 5-10% improvement in most workloads.

 

[craig1410]

NEWSFLASH. You've got absolutely no idea when that Mac Pro is going to ship (other than to say five years after the last version) or how user upgradeable it is going to be. Apple was very careful in describing it as "modular" which isnt the same thing as being user serviceable.

You are mistaken, I have at least SOME idea of when the Mac Pro will ship. The fact is that Apple have publicly pre-announced the Mac Pro and in terms of timing they only said that it wouldn't ship in 2017 so whether that means 2018 (I'd say there's a very good chance of that) or 2019 (almost certainly if not in 2018) it matters not. My guess is that we'll get an update and probably a preview at WWDC 2018 and it will ship between the autumn/fall and the end of the year. A bit like they did with the current Mac Pro.

As for what Apple said, let's just quote them to avoid further confusion:

"In addition to the new iMac Pro, Apple is working on a completely redesigned, next-generation Mac Pro architected for pro customers who need the highest performance, high-throughput system in a modular, upgradeable design, as well as a new high-end pro display."
​

Note they (very carefully as you said) say both module AND upgradeable. Granted, they don't say "user upgradeable" but for true pro users spending thousands of dollars on their machine, it's not the end of the world if they have to take it to a certified service centre or Apple store to have it upgraded. Not many people who own Ferrari's tend to service them themselves these days...
That said, I personally think there is a very good chance that the Mac Pro will have some degree of user upgradability, at least for RAM, quite possibly storage and hopefully GPU cards but that's just my speculation at this stage. Who knows, Apple may even opt for some sort of stackable design where the CPU module is separate from the GPU module and storage module. I'm well aware of the technical difficulties that this would create, especially in terms of connecting the modules with fast enough interfaces to avoid performance bottlenecks but maybe that's what they are "working on". Again speculation for now.

In any event, as others have said, the iMac Pro doesn't need to be upgradeable to be a great machine for certain types of "Pro" user, myself included. You can buy a 10-core machine with 64GB RAM and 2TB SSD, and in 3-5 years that will still be a fantastic machine. In fact, for most customers that will probably be the sweet spot. Of course, many people who are poo-pooing the iMac Pro don't understand the value of Xeon class CPUs with all those extra PCIe lanes, or ECC RAM but honestly those people were never intended to be customers of the iMac Pro, or Mac Pro for that matter.

Final thought - another thing worth considering is that Apple may not be doing RAID-0 in the usual way. We already know that the T2 chip is heavily involved in the storage subsystem doing secure boot and hardware disk encryption so it is at least conceivable that they have done something to mitigate any potential reliability concerns that striping data across two SSDs might bring. Let's face it, they probably are aware that RAID-0 is usually less reliable than separate drives and are unlikely to have just decided to flip a coin and hope for the best!

 

[shamino]

iFixIt takes their time and does teardowns right. Wait on them if you really want to learn how this machine goes together.

Although OWC called this a teardown, that's clearly not their intention. They simply wanted to show the inside for the purpose of letting future customers know that the RAM and SSDs are replaceable and that they will (in the future) be selling upgrade kits.

I'm kind of surprised that they didn't talk about SSD upgrades - they only mentioned RAM. I think they were truly surprised to find socketed SSDs in there.

It's dumb that you need to remove adhesive to open the thing.

People have been complaining about that for years. It is the standard way all iMacs are opeed these days.

But it's better than the previous models, which were harder to get into and buried the power supply in a place that makes it easier to accidentally touch a high voltage circuit. The PS didn't even need to be removed as a part of removing the motherboard, which will make future RAM/SSD upgrades somewhat easier than in those iMacs that lack RAM access doors.

 

[now i see it]

Unless someone absolutely needs a new hi end mac right now, prudence dictates waiting to see what the mMP design (and price) will bring.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Apple should have used the bests SSD in the market, which are Samsung 960 Pro:
Massive sequential R/W (read/write) speeds up to 3,500/2,100 MB/s and random R/W speeds up to 440/360K IOPS, respectively
http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/consumer/960pro

I do not want RAID 0, but if Apple had used those, the iMac Pro would be much faster. So, I guess Apple did that just to earn more money. As does with RAM, and much more in this case, in which all four slots are filled. Not good for users. Apple should use standard parts and allow users to replace or upgrade them in an easy way. And make headless Macs (mini, Mid and Pro). CPU may last for seven years (then you cannot upgrade macOS) but displays last for more than 20 years. Again, that is a huge environmental impact!

Apple has used Samsung SSDs (albeit in a custom proprietary design package) in it's computers and has for years, so this is a non-starter. Apple chose to use two 2GB flash storage drives and RAID them together to keep it's costs down, but also because, it probably felt that even Pros are not going to spring for the cost of a single 4TB module. Also, be aware that Samsung does not offer the 960 M.2 SSD in a 4TB size, which means they probably cannot fit it on a single M.2 module and/or the heat dissipation was just too great to fit into Apple's thermal envelope. Even tower-based Windows PCs can have issues with dissipating heat from high density m.2 modules.

The Xeon W in the iMac has a quad-channel memory controller, it's built for performance, for Pros users and those DDR modules are standard parts.

A display may last 20 years, but who wants to use a CRT-based monitor or an 800X600 15" LCD from 1997? I am not following your logic at all on this one.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

RAID 0 with two drives doubles your chances of a complete volume failure. I would never want all my data (or even worse, a "Pro's" data) sitting on a RAID 0 volume. It seems it wouldn't take more than a little "glitch" to render your drives useless.

Pros all keep their DATA on external storage. Only the easily-replaced OS and Applications ends up on the boot volume.

 

[Chancha]

I'm kind of surprised that they didn't talk about SSD upgrades - they only mentioned RAM. I think they were truly surprised to find socketed SSDs in there.

It may have to do with the presence of T2 as a SSD/RAID controller. If there are firmware level trickery required for the SSDs to be functional, then they surely need more time to test/reverse engineer.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Yes I’m aware of that. That’s exactly what I said on my post as well.
Just in case you’re not aware RAID0 means that if something goes wrong with one drive you lose both drives.

And if it was one physical SSD and something went wrong with it, you'd lose THAT drive, too.

IOW, what's the difference?

Oh, and it's called "Time Machine". Look into it. Lose your drive, lose up to one HOUR's work. Most people can live with that.

 

[Glockworkorange]

While we await iFixit's inevitable comprehensive teardown of Apple's new iMac Pro, third party Mac component supplier OWC has just published its own teardown video, providing some interesting tidbits on the internal configuration of the non-user upgradeable machine.

Whereas standard 27-inch iMacs have a small hatch in the back that allows the RAM in the machine to be upgraded after purchase, the iMac Pro does not. Fortunately, an Apple Store or an Apple Authorized Service Provider is able to open up the iMac Pro and swap out the RAM, and here's what they can expect to find upon doing so.

Four DIMM memory modules (left) and two solid-state drives (right)​

The teardown reveals that in the 32GB base model, there are four 8GB DIMM modules, a configuration type that appears to be mirrored in the 64GB (4 x 16GB) and 128GB (4 x 32GB) models. The good news is that this means the iMac Pro supports quad-channel memory, but the bad news is that it also means users looking to upgrade from, say, 32GB to 64GB will have to replace all four modules to do so.

The teardown also reveals that in the iMac Pro 1TB base model, Apple has chosen to use two 512GB SSDs in a RAID configuration. Rather than soldering the flash storage on the main board, both drives exist as separate modules that are attached via screws, so replacing them is at least technically feasible, even if Apple does not make it easy.

OWC says that in the near future it will be offering a DIY memory upgrade kit for the iMac Pro, although most users are likely to hand over such an undertaking to a qualified service provider. For more details on the iMac Pro's internals, including the Intel Xeon W eight-core processor, be sure to watch the video embedded above.

Article Link: iMac Pro Base Model Teardown Reveals 2x SSD RAID Configuration and Four 8GB DIMM Modules

There is a very noticeable size discrepancy between those two guys...

 

[ValSalva]

Unfortunately this teardown reveals a typical Apple thermal paste mess. Proper thermal paste application impacts both performance and lifespan. Apple pays so much attention to so many tiny details in all its products. It's always amazed me that their thermal paste application gets such short shrift.

 

[Chicane-UK]

Unfortunately this teardown reveals a typical Apple thermal paste mess. Proper thermal paste application impacts both performance and lifespan. Apple pays so much attention to so many tiny details in all its products. It's always amazed me that their thermal paste application gets such short shrift.

I was pretty surprised by how much was thrown all over the GPU!