Eh? So heat paste which has been used for years and is a must for high speed cpu's doesn't work as well as solder? Or am I missing something?
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.
Intel Debuts New Xeon-W Chips Possibly Destined for iMac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eh? So heat paste which has been used for years and is a must for high speed cpu's doesn't work as well as solder? Or am I missing something?
Until the 4th gen core products the die was soldered to the heat spreader, (the thing they etch with the processor info) they no longer do that. You will still put thermal compound on the spreader before you put your heat sink on.
Must be an Apple thing then, I've used heat paste for years and years without any problems.
The solder vs. heat paste being discussed here is inside the CPU package.
Today's CPUs have the silicon die mounted upside down to a glorified circuit board. A metal lid covers and protects the silicon. At one time, the lid was soldered to the silicon. Today, Intel is using a heat paste (and gluing the edges of the lid.) Contrast that to AMD who is soldering the lids of Ryzen CPUs.
Ah I gottya now, that makes sense lol, I thought it was odd.. I guess cost cutting it to blame? I know exactly what you mean but never took that much attention to the lids.
I serviced my own 2011 iMac recently. Keyword being 2011. However, are you really comparing the glued up mess that is the post 2012 iMac with what went before? You have a cheek calling anyone hairbrained after that bait and switch.
You can no longer service the RAM in the 21" iMac any more than you can do that in any of Apple's current laptops. Servicing is now supplanted by replacing.
My 10 core i9 with vega (16gb), 32 gb ram, 2 x 34" dell screens, 2 x 1tb nvme (6000 read 4000 write in raid) runs high sierra perfectly, cost $5000. Oh, 5000 NZD is about 4500 USD.
And this is because a lot of the bits were used in my last rig. So I can get a system that does 50,000 (5200 per core) in geekbench for 5000 bucks. One of the beauties of modular systems
Wifi doesn't work - waiting for Apple to catch up, but who needs it in a proper computer anyway??
Offsetting that, my keyboard has cherry keys and a bunch of macro keys to make my modelling faster.
Hope this helps.
it's not how it works in any way.
Because of heat limitations in CPU's, you end up having to choose based on workload, which do you focus on, better parallel (high thread count) processing, which might improve someworkloads or serial based processing (high mhz count) which may improve some, but bottleneck others.
you can't just add up the MHZ and compare the two. workloads just don't work like that.
Last edited:
Yeah no sorry that costs way more than $5k also 6000 read 4000 write??? What brand a model sad is that? I've heard of the Kingston DCP1000 which does up to 6000 read/write (some reportedly even higher) but they only come in 1.6 or 3.2TB configs. Not to mention the price of them...the Samsung SSDs I found were 2x 1TB nvme : $1199.99 a piece so that's $2400 and they do about 3000 read/write.My 10 core i9 with vega (16gb), 32 gb ram, 2 x 34" dell screens, 2 x 1tb nvme (6000 read 4000 write in raid) runs high sierra perfectly, cost $5000. Oh, 5000 NZD is about 4500 USD.
And this is because a lot of the bits were used in my last rig. So I can get a system that does 50,000 (5200 per core) in geekbench for 5000 bucks. One of the beauties of modular systems
Wifi doesn't work - waiting for Apple to catch up, but who needs it in a proper computer anyway??
Offsetting that, my keyboard has cherry keys and a bunch of macro keys to make my modelling faster.
Hope this helps.
So either you're not factoring in all your PC's parts or you're lying about it.
Like the CPU I found newegg:
Intel Core i9-7900X 10-Core 3.3 GHz LGA 2066 140W : $979
then you have a PSU, motherboard blah blah blah, they add up to way over 5k.
Two Samsung evo in raid. You can get exactly twice the speed. My mobo supports 4 M.2 altogether.
I bought 1 for 750 (the evo is better value imho) and put it with the one I already had.
So new Radeon vega frontier edition, x299 mobo, i9 7900, 3600 32gb memory and samsung evo $4900 altogether.
I didn't factor in the $1500 I got for the old X99 bits btw. So really, the system cost me $3400.
And sorry, using my older bits is completely the point.
When you buy a new Apple, you can get pretty well nothing for the old one, maybe the same $1500 I got for my bits. Me, after the initial purchase, can simply keep a lot of the bits when I upgrade.
Which also means that I can make small yearly investments and have a super fast mac all the time, which means I can (when I'm not chatting to you on the internet) do my modelling work way faster and make more money to pay for computers.
This new computer will repay for itself after a few months in faster rendering times alone, so yearly upgrades (which Mac Pro ppl can't do btw) makes a LOT of financial sense.
Did you actually try pricing the parts?
The CPU is $1000
The GPU is $1000
You can get a fast 1TB PCIe SSD for $430... so two of them would be $860
So that's an estimated $2,860 so far.
Motherboard can be had for around $400
32GB of RAM isn't as expensive as Apple would make you think... less than $300 for 32GB quad-channel DDR4 kit.
Power supply for $150
So that's roughly $3,700 without monitors.
With $1,300 left for monitors... I believe he could do it all for $5,000.
I'm sad that you're calling him a liar though...
Last edited:
It's not something you can use you don't have a choice.
We all buy processors and whatever cooling we want in my case a dark rock pro 3 we drop the processor in lock it down put a pea size bead or line or out favorite thermal compound and attach out heat sink and enjoy our quiet systems.
The solder/thermal compound debate is what lies underneath that nice silver piece of metal that your heat sink interfaces with and what caused the de-liding trend in 2012.
It absolutely DOES work that way and bollman's "total Ghz" approach of multiplying cores by Ghz is valid as a first approximation. He made a math error but that in no way invalidates the concept. He didn't "add up the Mhz" -- he *multiplied* the Ghz by the number of cores on each CPU and compared the two products, not the sums.
This can be seen by the Geekbench multi-core scores of a 12-core nMP vs a 2013 4-core iMac 27, both with roughly the same generation CPU:
12 cores * 2.7 Ghz = 32.4 "total Ghz" and 29,300 in multi-core Geekbench 4
4 cores * 3.5 Ghz = 14 "total Ghz" and 15,000 in multi-core Geekbench 4
You can see the "total Ghz" roughly approximates the actual benchmark performance. This becomes less accurate if compared across greatly varying CPU generations since new chips have improved IPC (Instructions Per Cycle).
The video you posted has nothing to do with this.
Think it'll be wiser to go for the 8 core in terms of temperatures?
64GB should be plenty for my uses (heavy FCPX). Would love to go 16GB GPU and 1TB SSD is standard, and I think that's enough... I don't need more.
These Xeons are great processors. I don't have a Mac Pro but I bought an HP workstation that came off lease. HP has a line called Z440 or Z840. Mine as a Xeon e5-2690 and 64GB of ECC RAM. Paid $550 I added an SSD and Nvidia graphic card. Runs Lunx/Ubuntu now. The computer is used for machine learning projects.
Companies get these on 3-year leases then they are basically dumped by the leasing company.
Companies get these on 3-year leases then they are basically dumped by the leasing company.
Hahahahaha YES!!!!
I need to look at that on the current processors. There may or may not be a difference in temperature. The speed is dropped when there are more cores...what this does for temps, I don't know. Also, I'm debating the cost of 20% multicore performance boost. I guess I'll weigh that when I finally see the Apple cost. $700, I'll go 8 Core. $350, I might go 10 core.
Cores totally depend on your software. For the same temps, less cores have better single core performance comparative to multi core. More cores = better all core performance but worse single core.
If, like most of us, you use word processors and browsers as well as your whatever - for me, rendering with CPU software, you need to make a call - how often do you need all those cores vs how snappy you like your computer. High core counts are usually pretty poor for everyday tasks. 10 cores is the sweet spot for me.
Forget about cooling, any reasonably good air cooling will work for a xeon and costs less than $100.
This is why I believe Apple has completely gone back to the drawing board with the Mac Pro workstation and will take so long before we see a new model released. I think they actually got the message that high end "Pro" workstation users have expectations of doing modular upgrades to components inside. That idea runs COMPLETELY counter to the trend they've followed for the last 5 years or so, as they've decided computers should no longer need people opening them up and messing with parts inside them.
It's too early to know much, but the sparse rumors I keep reading indicate to me that the next Mac Pro tower might be more a of modular thing, something like LEGO bricks. You pay $X for the base unit and then snap on pieces that house such things as drive arrays or video processors to customize it for your needs. This, in turn, means Apple can regularly offer upgraded modules to attach to the existing machine. You might not get to plug a video card into a slot anymore. But you'll get to buy the plastic "brick" containing the latest one Apple offers for your system and accomplish the same thing.
It may not materialize like that at all -- but there was at least one PC builder who already tried to sell such a thing a while back. (It failed because the Windows PC market will generally resist such an idea, with so many options that use their existing standards for installing components.) For Apple though? I think this is ideal. It ensures any user can do an upgrade without risking frying the motherboard, or even having to touch a screwdriver. It gives Apple a way to retain control over what hardware goes into what it builds. It gives users the expansion options and ability to buy a new Mac that doesn't have things they don't need, just to get something they do need. And it means you can sell off your old modules when you upgrade them.
It's too early to know much, but the sparse rumors I keep reading indicate to me that the next Mac Pro tower might be more a of modular thing, something like LEGO bricks. You pay $X for the base unit and then snap on pieces that house such things as drive arrays or video processors to customize it for your needs. This, in turn, means Apple can regularly offer upgraded modules to attach to the existing machine. You might not get to plug a video card into a slot anymore. But you'll get to buy the plastic "brick" containing the latest one Apple offers for your system and accomplish the same thing.
It may not materialize like that at all -- but there was at least one PC builder who already tried to sell such a thing a while back. (It failed because the Windows PC market will generally resist such an idea, with so many options that use their existing standards for installing components.) For Apple though? I think this is ideal. It ensures any user can do an upgrade without risking frying the motherboard, or even having to touch a screwdriver. It gives Apple a way to retain control over what hardware goes into what it builds. It gives users the expansion options and ability to buy a new Mac that doesn't have things they don't need, just to get something they do need. And it means you can sell off your old modules when you upgrade them.
I could see Apple ending their Intel partnership possibly sooner as opposed to later, with the biggest indicator being Thunderbolt 3 getting unlocked for non-Intel components in January (per Apple's request, not Intel's). With the extra cores, threads, cache, and PCIe lanes that Epyc has over Xeon, an Epyc-powered iMac Pro would make a killer workstation. Potential iMac Pro redesign, in the not too distant future (fingers crossed):
Epyc 7351P/7401P/7551P CPU or their next cycle refresh equivalents (perhaps even a workstation-specific CPU that has slightly lower TDP than the existing SKUs, and they could call the workstation CPU the Epyc Wyn
).Up to 2x16 GB Radeon Pro Duo (Vega or later) GPUs.
Up to 2 TB of ECC DDR4-2667 (or higher speed) RAM.
Up to 8x2 TB NVMe SSDs in RAID.
8xUSB 3.0 ports, 8xThunderbolt 3 ports, 2x10GbE Copper Ports, 1x3.5mm Headphone Port, 1xSD Card Reader (duh!).
32" Retina 8K screen.
Support for up to 2 external 8K displays with Thunderbolt 3 connectivity (each display will require 2 Thunderbolt 3 cables to display 8K/60Hz).
Indeed a killer workstation.
Last edited:
After rebuilding my computer with RyZEN instead of Intel's i7 series. AMD has themselves a real winner on their hands.
it reminds me back in the Pentium v Athlon days. did the Athlon's keep up clock for clock? no. But were their price to performance value there? yes. Emphatically Yes.
Remember buying a 1.5ghz Athlon 64 and comparing it to a 3.2ghz Pentium 4. Not only did the Athlon cost fraction of the Pentium's price. But it kept up within acceptable margins. Intel's last 3-5 months of product releases seem very knee jerk to AMD's threat in the CPU space. On top of that, AMD managed to make their Zen cores so scaleable, that they can offer esssentially the same performance per core accross their entire lineup, only varying how many cores they bolt together. That's not something Intel currently has. And for consumer focused pricing, Intel still doesn't have a 4+ core chip that is competitively priced.
the i9 might be great for enthousiasts to make up the difference, but they're costly and come with some caveats
That's great and all... but Apple doesn't need to get all "clever" with their pro workstations.
It's right there in the name: WORK
It's not a piece of art.
Apple used to make a standard tower workstation and it was fine. People know how to use a screwdriver (or their IT department) and it was fine.
Then Apple made a "pretty" tube that put looks over functionality and expandability... and people lost their mind. And people lost interest in Apple's workstation.
If Apple goes with the LEGO brick idea for videocards and drives... they're obviously creating some new connection scheme. Some sort of pogo pins or whatever.
Why, why, why do that when PCIe cards are already a thing? Screwdrivers aren't that scary.
There's a reason why standards exist. All the hard work has already been done. These parts are good enough for EVERY other PC manufacturer to use.
AMD and NVidia already make PCIe GPUs. Samsung already makes M.2 NVMe SSDs that hit 3,200MB/s.
There's no need to re-invent the wheel on any of this stuff.
But you know Apple... they need to make a fashion statement.
This is a really helpful post - thank you!
I use Final Cut Pro X, iTunes and Compressor usually. Sometimes add in PhotoShop CC as well.
What do you think will be the best option for an iMac for a videographer who shoots 3-4 4K streams and syncs in a MultiCam project in FCPX?
I think 8GB VRAM and 64GB RAM will be enough with an 8-core chip?