Mac Pro enclosure is lacking

[StofUnited]

Interesting conversation, but . . .

Here is a somewhat intelligent blog on this topic:

http://brookwillard.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-state-of-apples-professional-line/

and another that shows some more good info:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23652/Apple_Loved_You_Pro_Users_Loves_Your_Money_More_Now

 

[deconstruct60]

Here is a somewhat intelligent blog on this topic:

osnews.... one

No, that is not a particularly intelligent discussion. It is a particularly concise characterization of the mindset that many folks are trapped in this forum, but is dubious a characterization of value.

For example take his first chart with Cinebench performance and system pricing.

Instead of plotting Cinebench and price, how about plotting $/c-bench. (i.e., how much does one c-bench point cost you. )

G5
3314 7457 10969 14673 15445
1999 2199 2299 2499 2499

0.60 0.29 0.21 0.17 0.16

As you can see the $/c_bench is going down over time. That means you are getting more bang for your buck with the newer systems. However, that doesn't particularly support the "Apple is gouging me premise" so you get the misdirection graph which doesn't clearly outline the value proposition. Since you are getting more value it should be a huge problem to pay more to get more value. if you get more it is generally ok to pay more if you can make more money with having more.


Plow past the misdirection (becoming fixated on CPU/System price ratio) about not getting as much value now and see that the blog is really about just simply paying less. It is railing against the computers not getting cheaper over time so that a more broader set of folks can afford them ( or that same folks can afford to buy other stuff and a Mac Pro.). Neither one of those is about the value proposition of the Mac Pro itself over time.


P.S. the second chart on beefier models

7002 9873 18833 19911 21144
3299 2499 2799 3299 3499
0.47 0.25 0.15 0.17 0.17

There is is a hiccup. That is in part because Intel is kneecapping the entry level dual package offering that Apple is using. The 2009/2010 models are more sensitive to detuned I/O and Apple is juicing the margins a bit more.
There wasn't a good component cost reason for the price jump between the 2009 and 2010 models. It makes the hex's $3,600 price point look a bit better given there is just a $200 gap for two less cores rather than a $400 one. If Apple had kept the price the same as 2009, it would be pretty close to the 2008 level.

 

[nanofrog]

So, since I have the Apple RAID card in the top 4x slot, would it be better to use the free 16x slot for my eSATA card, or leave it in the 3rd (4x) slot I have it in now? I wasn't aware of it being a shared slot.

The switched nature of Slots 3 & 4 are only a problem when both slots are being used simultaneously.

As per your situation, lane configuration is more of the issue when just looking at the specifications (8x lane card stuffed in a 4x lane slot). So moving it to Slot 2 (16x lanes) would make better sense by that logic (doesn't take into account real world conditions though). This basic logic actually holds true for most cases (i.e. if you were running an ATTO or Areca, and using sufficient drive counts; n >= say 5 SSD's or 12 mechanical HDD's).

Realities to consider for your card:

1. There's been mention that it will only work in Slot 3 or 4 due to the SATA port data connections over PCIe traces in the 2009/10 systems.
2. The card isn't fast enough to saturate the 4x lane slot anyway (it's a slow card for what you get - the price/performance ratio is horrible). 4 ports is the biggest limitation here, and it doesn't work with SSD's according to Apple (ignoring the rest of the card, such as the processor used).

So I'd put the time in to read the manual that came with your card to verify #1, and check your throughput data to check #2 (worst case, in an '06 - '08 system, Slots 3 & 4 are Gen 1.0 = 250MB/s per lane, so the slot is capable of 1GB/s, double that in '09/10 systems). Not sure of the card's specification in terms of lane spec (Gen. 1.0 or 2.0), but it's just not fast enough to matter from what I've seen anyway.

So to keep things simple, leave it where it is, and leave Slot 3 empty.

 

[deconstruct60]

Here is a somewhat intelligent blog on this topic:

http://brookwillard.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-state-of-apples-professional-line/

This one has the problem that it wanders all over the place.

One fundamental core problem with this one is that it doesn't take into account users switching between products. There are more folks now using iMacs instead of Mac Pro and it is better fit. That is not to say there are not folks for who it is a worse but Apple can't be everything to everybody. Again this long dissertation doesn't even try to quantatively measure value ($/performance or preformance/$ )

This is the other trap. "Power" == number and variation of gadgets I can easily plug into my computer. Also the other minor trap that the less than 5% of the "Pro" market users every were really the primary target for the machine previously.

MBP ... you can still replace he hard drive and memory. Can you do it with an indy car pit stop speed? No. Is it fairly straight forward ? Yes. The huge chuckle is that if look at Mac Pro instead of MBP the memory upgrade has gotten easier. So if that is such a major plus for the "Pro" users it went up, not down. .... But alas that doesn't match the presumed state of the world so just bury it with gobs of paragraphs on the MBP (and practically ignore the 17" model. )

For Mac Pro have already point out can do more with fewer slots. Nevermind the fact that Apple hasn't had a 6 slot expansion card machine in almost a decade. If it was such an absolutely critical factor how come the Mac Pro market hasn't completely collapse in that time period? ... absolutely nothing in the article addresses that.

 

[jav6454]

The switched nature of Slots 3 & 4 are only a problem when both slots are being used simultaneously.

As per your situation, lane configuration is more of the issue when just looking at the specifications (8x lane card stuffed in a 4x lane slot). So moving it to Slot 2 (16x lanes) would make better sense by that logic (doesn't take into account real world conditions though). This basic logic actually holds true for most cases (i.e. if you were running an ATTO or Areca, and using sufficient drive counts; n >= say 5 SSD's or 12 mechanical HDD's).

Realities to consider for your card:

1. There's been mention that it will only work in Slot 3 or 4 due to the SATA port data connections over PCIe traces in the 2009/10 systems.
2. The card isn't fast enough to saturate the 4x lane slot anyway (it's a slow card for what you get - the price/performance ratio is horrible). 4 ports is the biggest limitation here, and it doesn't work with SSD's according to Apple (ignoring the rest of the card, such as the processor used).

So I'd put the time in to read the manual that came with your card to verify #1, and check your throughput data to check #2 (worst case, in an '06 - '08 system, Slots 3 & 4 are Gen 1.0 = 250MB/s per lane, so the slot is capable of 1GB/s, double that in '09/10 systems). Not sure of the card's specification in terms of lane spec (Gen. 1.0 or 2.0), but it's just not fast enough to matter from what I've seen anyway.

So to keep things simple, leave it where it is, and leave Slot 3 empty.

Couldn't say it better.

Honestly, for a Pro system and the price Apple charges, you'd think they do a better job with the PCIe lanes than this screw up they have with x4 lane switches.

If anything, Apple should offer one of those 2.0 x4 slots are x8 and make slot 3 PCIe 1.0 at x4 (directly from the ICH10R). That would make having a peripheral card in there much more worthy and allocate precious bandwidth resources elsewhere needed.

 

[cube]

The right way would be to use Opteron instead of Xeon.

 

[nanofrog]

Honestly, for a Pro system and the price Apple charges, you'd think they do a better job with the PCIe lanes than this screw up they have with x4 lane switches.

If anything, Apple should offer one of those 2.0 x4 slots are x8 and make slot 3 PCIe 1.0 at x4 (directly from the ICH10R). That would make having a peripheral card in there much more worthy and allocate precious bandwidth resources elsewhere needed.

It was essentially forced by 2x decisions:

• Slots 1 & 2 = 16x lane for graphics cards.
• Apple RAID Pro; as there were only 4x lanes remaining, they had to either only have 3x slots, or use the PCIe switch.

They most likely figured not many users would be using Slots 3 & 4 simultaneously, so the performance hit wouldn't affect many users. So the 4th slot would be beneficial for more users than would be affected by the compromise.

 

[wonderspark]

Well, I had the choice of putting this NewerTech 6G eSATA card into slot 2 or 3, and I chose #3 thinking it would leave me the x16 for something else in the future, while making good use of the x4 slot. Now that I know that slot isn't dedicated, and might be an issue with my RAID card in #4, I moved the eSATA card to #2. It all looks the same in the profiler... 5GT/s link speed, etc. but I feel better about it anyway. Thanks for the info on the slots. I could not find mention of the switch / share anywhere after an hour of google searching, but I believe you anyway.

 

[Ryan P]

It was essentially forced by 2x decisions:

• Slots 1 & 2 = 16x lane for graphics cards.

• 
  
  This isn't a criticism just a question. What possible uses are there for two 16x graphics card slots without SLI support?

 

[Hellhammer]

This isn't a criticism just a question. What possible uses are there for two 16x graphics card slots without SLI support?

You can still use dual GPUs, their computing power just won't be combined. The real benefit of SLI and CF seems to be for gamers though some high-end apps would benefit off the extra computing power. It's mainly for multiple displays and you can use CrossFire and apparently SLI too in Windows

 

[wonderspark]

It was essentially forced by 2x decisions:

• Slots 1 & 2 = 16x lane for graphics cards.
• Apple RAID Pro; as there were only 4x lanes remaining, they had to either only have 3x slots, or use the PCIe switch.

They most likely figured not many users would be using Slots 3 & 4 simultaneously, so the performance hit wouldn't affect many users. So the 4th slot would be beneficial for more users than would be affected by the compromise.

It would have been nice of them to document this info somewhere. again, much appreciated that you shared this!

 

[nanofrog]

Well, I had the choice of putting this NewerTech 6G eSATA card into slot 2 or 3, and I chose #3 thinking it would leave me the x16 for something else in the future, while making good use of the x4 slot. Now that I know that slot isn't dedicated, and might be an issue with my RAID card in #4, I moved the eSATA card to #2. It all looks the same in the profiler... 5GT/s link speed, etc. but I feel better about it anyway. Thanks for the info on the slots. I could not find mention of the switch / share anywhere after an hour of google searching, but I believe you anyway.

The information came from pulling a P/N off of the chips on the backplane board. Searched Intel's site, and it came up as a PCIe Switch.

So long as Slots 3 & 4 aren't used simultaneously, it's not a problem. And it may not be that big a deal if they are (depends on the bandwidth consumption of each card and freqency it has to switch the lanes).

But it all comes down to the specifics.

This isn't a criticism just a question. What possible uses are there for two 16x graphics card slots without SLI support?

Separate cards can increase the monitor count for a user (past that of whatever one card is capable of, such as the model that shipped with the system). Some find this very handy.

And there's still the possibility a second card can be used for GPGPU processing, even without Crossfire or SLI under OS X (assuming the software used supports it).

 

[jav6454]

This isn't a criticism just a question. What possible uses are there for two 16x graphics card slots without SLI support?

There is more to a GPU than just gaming, SLI & Crossfire. However, that still doesn't mean, Apple couldn't just routed those x4 lanes to thenSlot 3 (hence making it true x4 speed) and have Slot 4 be fed by the ICH10R directly at a x4 speeds, albeit under PCIe 1.x speeds. Sure it might be prior generation PCIe specs, but that is still 1GB/s of raw bandwidth. Enough to support a RAID card, and seeing as Apple doesn't even allow SSDs on the Mac Pro RAID card anything beyond 1GB/s is wasted bandwidth.

 

[alphaod]

Look on the bright side: The Mac Pro is quiet and air-cooled, and yet every component remains cool; let's see that out of any other system.

Sure we have to make do with 4 PCIe slots, but at least they are all full-length! You don't have to decided which cards go where because you were stuck with a x1 sized slot and 2 cards that both needed longer slots.

GPU options are limited anyways and you learn to buy combination cards. Maybe mixed FW and USB? You need eSATA, consider one with both internal and external ports. You need to a battery backup for RAID? Consider placing it in a more creative place.

 

[jav6454]

I don't usually get into this type of long arguments, but I have to point out somethings here:

Look on the bright side: The Mac Pro is quiet and air-cooled, and yet every component remains cool; let's see that out of any other system.

There are many systems out there that match a Quad or Octo Core Mac Pro in performance and are still even more so quiet than a Mac Pro. In case you are wondering which manufacturer, those are custom built PCs.

Sure we have to make do with 4 PCIe slots, but at least they are all full-length! You don't have to decided which cards go where because you were stuck with a x1 sized slot and 2 cards that both needed longer slots.

x16 physical lanes matter little if the speed is cramped down to x4. Might as well have an x4 physical slot in there and let the user know, that's as fast as it's going.

GPU options are limited anyways and you learn to buy combination cards. Maybe mixed FW and USB? You need eSATA, consider one with both internal and external ports. You need to a battery backup for RAID? Consider placing it in a more creative place.

In a Mac Pro setup the only recommendation is, if you need heavy graphics work, then buy the most powerful single GPU on PBC card on the market. A combination of cards would just slow you down, and seeing as how the Mac Pro doesn't even have enough space for 2 dual slot GPUs, it would be a waste; unless the smaller GPU is solely for external display support.

RAID cards, extra USB & FW cards are about it, but lacking. eSATA? Even better considering the current limitations of USB & FW.

 

[Macinposh]

Stuff.

Other stuff.

Dudes. Too confusing,either of you have step down, you cant use the same avatars.

Try something like theese :

or

 

[deconstruct60]

Trying to accommodate folks putting in 2 16x graphics cards kills off the wires for the remaining slots. For everybody, not just Apple.

Honestly, for a Pro system and the price Apple charges, you'd think they do a better job with the PCIe lanes than this screw up they have with x4 lane switches.

Since both the X58 and the 5520 chipsets are capped at x36 PCI-e lanes, what magical thing are the other vendors doing when they offer more than 4 slots that Apple does ? There are doing it without switches/multipliers ?

HP Z800 (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/12454-12454-296719-307907-4050865-3718645.html) ....

Doesn't have two 16 electrical PCI-e slots. They avoid the switch by just putting a physical 16x card in there, but not wiring it up. With those 8x extra you can do more slots. But only have one 16x socket.

Dell T7500 (http://www.dell.com/us/en/enterpris...efid=workstation-precision-t7500&s=biz&cs=555)


One PCI-e x16 Gen 2 wired as x4
Two PCI-e x16 Gen 2 slots wired as x8 (one is half length)
Two PCI-e x16 Gen 2 graphics slots
One PCI-X 64bit/100MHz slot with support for 3.3v or universal cards
One PCI 32bit/33Mhz 5V slot

Hmm, 4 + (2 * 8 ) + ( 2 * 16 ) = 52 and haven't even tapped 1x or 2x to hook the PCI-X / PCI legacy adapter to although may be doing that off the southbridges links. ). There is no switch/multiplier in there somewhere ?

If anything, Apple should offer one of those 2.0 x4 slots are x8 and make slot 3 PCIe 1.0 at x4 (directly from the ICH10R). That would make having a peripheral card in there much more worthy and allocate precious bandwidth resources elsewhere needed.

There is other stuff to hook to the ICH10R beside composing more empty slots. Firewire consumes one link. Seriously don't see how it is "progress" to be offering up PCIe v1.0 as external expansion.

 

[Inconsequential]

The Mac Pro has a 1200W PSU.

I think that is more than enough for anything you could possibly want to fit in it.

Personally all the Mac Pro requires is 2x SSD slots and 7 HDD slots (Second row below the current allowing for this) along with a chipset that can do more than 660Mb/sec

PCI-E lanes are dictated by the chipset Intel provide, not Apple.

 

[hakuryuu]

4. Extreme users (like I said) go with a custom built and variety of options. They do not pick Apple.

Yes, extreme users (mostly spec nerds). Not your average professional. The very high end professional is likely doing work not suitable to just a single workstation enclosure anyways and will either have a box outside of the tower or is sending it to a cluster of servers. Either way Apple really doesn't have a reason to offer a machine that even I would not buy. Go buy a Dell T7500, HP Z800, or custom build if you need that much stuff in one enclosure. If you need Apple hardware then live with it and/or look for solutions outside of the enclosure.

 

[nanofrog]

The Mac Pro has a 1200W PSU.

Where did this value come from?

 

[VirtualRain]

Where did this value come from?

A quick search on eBay reveals that the PSU in current MP's is 980W... (not 1200W, but still plenty for the peripherals you can put in a Mac Pro chassis)

 

[jav6454]

Trying to accommodate folks putting in 2 16x graphics cards kills off the wires for the remaining slots. For everybody, not just Apple.

Many motherboard manufacturers have better wiring for PCIe lanes, Apple is just being sloppy. I am not talking about Dell or HP or the likes. They are even worse than Apple. Take Asus for example. They do a nice job on motherboards, so does Gigabyte. No need for switches.

There is other stuff to hook to the ICH10R beside composing more empty slots. Firewire consumes one link. Seriously don't see how it is "progress" to be offering up PCIe v1.0 as external expansion.

The ICH10R has more than x1 PCIe lanes available, in fact it has 6 x1 lanes, of which you can configure them into x4 and x1 x1 configurations. Also, allowing 1GB/s of data thru the x4 is better than having to share it thru some latency ridden switch.

The Mac Pro has a 1200W PSU.

I think that is more than enough for anything you could possibly want to fit in it.

Personally all the Mac Pro requires is 2x SSD slots and 7 HDD slots (Second row below the current allowing for this) along with a chipset that can do more than 660Mb/sec

PCI-E lanes are dictated by the chipset Intel provide, not Apple.

1.2kW? Are you certain or making that number up? Also, Intel provides the links, it's up to the manufacturer how to use them.

Yes, extreme users (mostly spec nerds). Not your average professional. The very high end professional is likely doing work not suitable to just a single workstation enclosure anyways and will either have a box outside of the tower or is sending it to a cluster of servers. Either way Apple really doesn't have a reason to offer a machine that even I would not buy. Go buy a Dell T7500, HP Z800, or custom build if you need that much stuff in one enclosure. If you need Apple hardware then live with it and/or look for solutions outside of the enclosure.

I am not advocating buying a PC, I am saying Extreme users have no need for a Mac Pro, but a pro user is fine.

 

[nanofrog]

A quick search on eBay reveals that the PSU in current MP's is 980W... (not 1200W, but still plenty for the peripherals you can put in a Mac Pro chassis)

980W is what I expected, as that's what was used in previous systems. But I thought it a good idea to be sure.

BTW, thanks for the photo; can't get any clearer answer than that.

 

[PurrBall]

The Mac Pro has an extremely durable chassis, you have to give it that.

The unit in the studio has fallen off a rolling desk and the only resulting damage is that it sits a bit crooked. I wouldn't expect any system to survive that fall at all.

 

[alphaod]

There are many systems out there that match a Quad or Octo Core Mac Pro in performance and are still even more so quiet than a Mac Pro. In case you are wondering which manufacturer, those are custom built PCs.

You're correct to say there are systems like this, but the ones I've seen are either bigger, use alternative cooling, or are really expensive (if not more than the Mac Pro).

I've already tried to build a Mac Pro -like machine; it turned out to be more expensive. I'm just saying for the size and efficiency of the Mac Pro, it's not so bad. We could argue about this all day as there are always exceptions, but I'm just pointing out what I've observed.

x16 physical lanes matter little if the speed is cramped down to x4. Might as well have an x4 physical slot in there and let the user know, that's as fast as it's going.

You're right to say consumers when presented with the full length slot should expect full length capable speeds, but I said, "You don't have to decided which cards go where because you were stuck with a x1 sized slot and 2 cards that both needed longer slots."

Why do I say this? I have a RAID card for my Mac Pro; it's runs the RAID 5 in my system and according to the documentation, it needs a x8 slot; as it turns out, it only needs the x8 length of the slot because even if were to use 4 striped SSDs, I cannot exceed the bandwidth on a PCIe x4 lane. But I have a full length card and if I did not have all full length slots on my machine I would have need to remove the second video card I need to drive a third monitor. Here I am able to fit a second video card that really needs the full x16 slot and then fit the RAID card in the x4 slot that is full length.