Sounds like a dubious foregone conclusion of "a naïve implementation of parallel I/O is striping; therefore, Apple uses striping".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac Pro Base Model Teardown Reveals 2x SSD RAID Configuration and Four 8GB DIMM Modules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like a dubious foregone conclusion of "a naïve implementation of parallel I/O is striping; therefore, Apple uses striping".
That joke didn't make any sense, I get it now but still it doesn't make any sense.
I suppose they could be writing complete data sets to one SSD at a time and interleaving them. So if I save a Word document, it goes to one SSD and then save an Excel spreadsheet, it goes to the other. But there will be a performance hit for that compared to writing and reading part of each file to and from both SSDs using data striping. And file interleaving doesn't really help with data redundancy since if there is an SSD failure, the files on the failed SSD are still gone so I'd still lose up to half my data and need to restore from a backup once the failed SSD is replaced.
So based on what Apple have said, it's effectively RAID 0 even if they are not explicitly calling it RAID 0.
Exactly!
Unfortunately this thread just keeps going round in circles because some people don’t understand nuance and stubbornly condemn RAID 0.
My point was... external speakers give you something that you simply won't get with internal speakers. Look at a set of 8" studio monitor speakers. You'll never get that kind of sound out of an all-in-one computer.
And external storage is already a thing that is used today.
To your point... I think external GPUs have a place. Though I'm not sure what an external CPU is...
Well...
1) ECC RAM is not available in 3800MHz.
2) Even if someone did come out with a 3800MHz ECC module, it would still be running at 2666 MHz because that is the maximum speed the Intel memory controller supports.
My point was... external speakers give you something that you simply won't get with internal speakers. Look at a set of 8" studio monitor speakers. You'll never get that kind of sound out of an all-in-one computer.
And external storage is already a thing that is used today.
To your point... I think external GPUs have a place. Though I'm not sure what an external CPU is...
External cpus can be a thing. Used to have one for my ti-99/4a.
My point is that by your argument they may as well not include ANY speakers. It’s not a bad thing that Apple chose to put decent sound in the thing. For some percentage of the audience that will prevent the need for external speakers.
LOL... no I'm not suggesting they don't put speakers in it at all.
I was just saying that no matter how good they make the speakers... there will always be someone who wants (or needs) something more.
You're right though. My bad.
I agree that iMac user understand the limitations of the AiO design, but I think that many current iMac buyers, both Pro and nonPro, would prefer an upgradeable system, but have bought an iMac because that is the 'best' Apple offers. If we think back 15 or 20 years that iMac AiO was a low to mid range computer, if you were a Pro or even a power user you would buy a PowerMac tower. Over the years the AiO product called the iMac has become more powerful and high end and the Mac Pro tower has become more only for the very high end. This tend continued to point, about a year ago, that Apple decided to make the iMac Pro and presumable kill the Mac Pro line - Apple's highest end systems would be the iMac Pro and MacBookPro.
Now that Apple has changed their mind and said there will be a new Mac Pro, but the iMac was conceived in a Mac line up without the MacPro were it would be the highest end. Now that the iMac Pro exists, I think there is a possibility that the next Mac Pro will be very high end and very expensive, more than $5000, without a screen. Maybe dual Xeons starting at 2 x 10-core and 128GB of memory. Many potential iMac Pro buyers may want an upgradable nonAiO, but may not be able to afford it.
I would almost have bought this machine IF the ram was user upgradable. Not keen on paying Apple a 100% price-up on standard memory.
Today, a completely upgradeable Hackintosh is for the pros, after apple stopped making the towers.
I am currently considering assembling an Intel C422 based machine with the XEON X-2195 18-core. Biggest problem right now is parts availability.
It will go up to 512GB ram, interchangeable GPUs and loads of storage possibilities.
If you want real upgradeability for the future and decent power for every dollar Hackintosh is the only way forward.
Today, a completely upgradeable Hackintosh is for the pros, after apple stopped making the towers.
I am currently considering assembling an Intel C422 based machine with the XEON X-2195 18-core. Biggest problem right now is parts availability.
It will go up to 512GB ram, interchangeable GPUs and loads of storage possibilities.
If you want real upgradeability for the future and decent power for every dollar Hackintosh is the only way forward.
Last edited:
Hmmm... My $249 8 core/16 thread Ryzen 7 1700 is about as fast as the low end iMac Pro. It's a beast.
[doublepost=1514514898][/doublepost]
Did you have a Geneveve 9640? Cut my teeth on a TI-99/4A back in the 80s. Awesome little computer.
The RAM might not be (easily) user-upgradable... but it is possible. It can also be upgraded by Apple or an authorized service center.
One thing to note... it's quad-channel memory and all the slots are filled. The base-model 32GB iMac Pro has 4x8GB sticks. So you can't just pop in some extra RAM like you could with the regular iMac.
In order to upgrade to 64GB... you'd have to replace all the sticks with 4x16GB.
And that leads to the next part... price.
It costs $800 to go from 32GB to 64GB when you configure the iMac Pro. I'm sure you noticed that.
BUT... Crucial sells a 64GB kit (4x16GB) of ECC RAM for $931.99...
You could probably sell the old 32GB to recover some money. But you still have to attempt to install it yourself (and void your warranty) or you could have an authorized service center install it (and pay them to do it)
In other words... it'll probably cost the same either way.
My advice: Find the extra $800 at the time of purchase... otherwise you'll end up paying roughly the same price (and hassle) later for aftermarket RAM.
The big point is... it doesn't appear that there is a 100% markup on RAM anymore... especially when you consider all the hoops you have to jump through.
I hear you though... it would be nice to just open a door and swap out the RAM.
But even with a door... the price advantage of aftermarket RAM is gone.
Last edited:
People seem stuck in their spinning disk thoughts. Yes with spinning disks Raid 0 was decidedly riskier than a single drive.
Raid 0 is just how the SSD drives work and what is described here is just a matter of packaging. There is no need for anyone to fret over this.
6 pages of silly arguing over RAID0 SSDs. Give me a break. Who the heck CARES! We all know we ought to backup. That's on us. END OF STORY.
The REAL CAVEAT to these iMac Pro machines is the T2 chip which provides "secure boot." If your iMac Pro cannot boot for some reason, you need another modern Mac to which to connect your poor iMac Pro and use special software to try to get it to boot again:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/15/bricked-mac-pro-how-to-restore/
That's going to be a big surprise for people who buy the iMac Pro as their first Mac, only to find their $5k machine won't boot one day and they need another Mac or an Apple Store to help them boot it. To me, that's just crazy.
The REAL CAVEAT to these iMac Pro machines is the T2 chip which provides "secure boot." If your iMac Pro cannot boot for some reason, you need another modern Mac to which to connect your poor iMac Pro and use special software to try to get it to boot again:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/15/bricked-mac-pro-how-to-restore/
That's going to be a big surprise for people who buy the iMac Pro as their first Mac, only to find their $5k machine won't boot one day and they need another Mac or an Apple Store to help them boot it. To me, that's just crazy.
It is crazy, but it is a major request of many modern corporations and environments where security is a major concern. I can see many orginizations that would buy the iMac Pro instead if the iMac for this feature alone. It will likely role out to other Mac products MacBook Pro for sure.
I personally couldn't care less. That RAID0 argument is valid when it comes to spinning platter HDDs which fail regularly, but the same argument cannot perfectly be made for multiple SSDs which are CHIPS, not spinning media. Sure, they might fail too, but compare the failure rates. No contest.
If anyone rules out the iMac Pro, it surely should be about the T2 chip caveat I mentioned in my previous post. It's far more likely that something will happen to your iMac Pro down the line that prevents booting than for one of your SSDs to up and fail. Who among us hasn't had a boot problem at least once in our Mac life? Seriously, it's a big issue. And shockingly, no one is really talking about it, except for that one MacRumors article I linked to in my previous post.
Can you even disable secure boot? The MacRumors article makes no mention of that, simply closing with the following paragraph...
Among other improvements, the T2 chip encrypts all of the data on the iMac Pro's SSD using dedicated AES hardware that doesn't impact the performance of the SSD. It also ensures a secure boot up process, making sure no unapproved software loads at startup.
Among other improvements, the T2 chip encrypts all of the data on the iMac Pro's SSD using dedicated AES hardware that doesn't impact the performance of the SSD. It also ensures a secure boot up process, making sure no unapproved software loads at startup.
Is it confirmed that the 2 SSDs cannot be logically split into 2 volumes/partitions, since the T2 is now responsible for the controller role? If so then this parallel nature is down to firmware level, deeper than hardware RAID, and much deeper than the conventional software RAID0 this thread has been arguing about. Probably as good as your clustered chips on a "single" SSD if disk failure is a concern.
Lots of RAID 0 comments which is interesting. Personally, I can see why they went for this arrangement as they wanted to get the best performance which is likely what you need most of the time. Also unlike spinning rust, it is much easier to predict the failure of an SSD so failure can be more easily predicted and I am sure Apple will not be buying low-end SSDs or are hugely overprovisioning. The only real additional risk element is the RAID controller. Anyway, you will be keeping backups right?
It's not a real computer unless it weighs 1800 lbs, requires 3 phase power, and bootup consists of an elaborately choreographed dance of turning on three dozen subsystems in sequence, lest the electrical subsystems die in the attempt.
The Rizen 7 1700 averages 3163 in single-core and 18814 in multi-core.
The Xeon W-2140B averages 4715 in single-core (49% more) and 29080 in multi-core (55% more).
That's… stretching "about as fast" quite a bit.
Heck, you can configure the iMac non-Pro with the 7700K, and still end up well ahead of the Ryzen: 5613 single-core (77% more) and 21181 multi-core (26% more).