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.
Mac Pro Hands-On: Adding Additional SSD Storage Using a PCIe Slot
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having a T2 chip is not actually much more secure compared to let say Linux LUKS disk encryption. This is because T2 chip partly relies on obscurity for its security. Meaning we really do not know how things are being done inside the T2 chip. Who knows there is a backdoor or since it can't be audited by 3rd party then we can't really say that the system is to be trusted because in terms of security the first thing to take into consideration is TRUST and trust means transparency.
One argument of having a T2 chip is so that key management is not done by the OS or CPU which might be compromised already. But my take on that argument is that, if the OS or CPU is already compromise then the T2 chip can not protect your data because it will happily decrypt the data and serve it to the OS. I don't think it has the facility to detect if the OS is compromised. I don't think disk encryption was design to protect your data while the machine is on, i think its core design is protecting data at rest.
Another feature of T2 is it always encrypt your data in the SSD whether FileVault is On or Off. FileVault turing ON means merely requiring you to provide password before T2 chip starts decrypting the drive. This means that the master key for decrypting the drive is stored inside the T2 chip and is not protected by your own password. This means anyone who can gain access to the T2 chip will be able to decrypt the drive. I think thats where the obscurity part is involve. Since no one knows except Apple on how T2 chip is managing the keys inside then we are just hoping no one will be able to hack or defeat the whole system. But of course Apple technicians can always access the T2 chip and probably can decrypt your drive for you. And thats a problem since you really don't have total control on the security of your data. It is different from let say Linux LUKS disk encryption in which it will create a master key for encryption/decryption and encrypt this master key using your password or passphrase. This way no one will be able to decrypt your data without your password. Of course they can always torture or intimidate you so that you will give them your password
So to the question, do you really need to lock the drive to the T2 chip to provide better security. I don't think so.
I wish they could have just implemented it in a way that every time you plug-in a different SSD the T2 chip will format the drive and generate a key for that drive and start encryption/decryption on the fly. This way you can swap your drive without the need to visit Apple which hold the key to your SSD. Sadly you do not hod the key to your data
And also, if the T2 chip dies then there is no way to recover your data without recovering first the key. But fortunately T2 chip is robust enough that they don't just die on their own.
Wow. Nearly everything you've stated there is wrong. For one, Apple do NOT hold the key to your SSD. And if the T2 chip dies then it's no different to your drive dying. The way to recover your data is to get it from your backups, which you are keeping, right?
The FUD and misinformation on this forum about what the T2 chip is for and does is astounding. Sigh.
Thankfully that misinformation is not ubiquitous here. See a couple of the other replies to the question you're replying to for significantly more accurate information.
[automerge]1578200205[/automerge]
Hmm... It's not? What it is it?
Actually maybe I get what you're saying. It's not a standard PCIe connector. But it's PCIe protocol similar to how Thunderbolt is PCIe protocol (but not PCIe connector)... isn't it?
At least that's what I meant when I said what I said. But if that's wrong also, I'd be interested to know what it is instead.
I can change the engine myself in a Hyundai. Can't do that with a BMW. (I wonder if that has anything to do with why the Hyundai doesn't handle anything like the BMW does).
I guess BMW will never ever give us the same flexibility as a Hyundai car.
[automerge]1578201175[/automerge]
Not the needs of the people who this Mac Pro is for.
[automerge]1578201381[/automerge]
Exactly this. This addresses nearly every objection to Apple's internal SSDs.
Last edited:
Why? Why would they want to do that, when they can add much better drives (bigger, faster, etc.) to the PCIe slots?
Why would anyone feel this NEED to take out the internal base model drive? Just ignore the damn thing if you don't want to use it.
I'm pretty confident that Apple's expectation for a lot of their customers is that they'll put whatever drive types, configurations, etc. at whatever price points they want, into the PCIe slots and mostly ignore the internal drive. That's why the base SSD is so small. Y'know, I wonder if all this hoopla might have been avoided if Apple just didn't include an internal SSD at all. (Except what's the point, when that internal 256 is dirt cheap. Excluding it would have made negligible difference to the price, so that's the base, and it's a good emergency fallback for support and troubleshooting, when something goes wrong with the third party pieces you added).
So why have order-able options up to 8TB then? Because there are the other customers who don't want to bother with any of that and like the fact that they can order it and have it delivered, with everything they could possibly want in it out of the box, at any price, because their time is worth much more financially to them than the money they'll save trying to build their solution from multiple vendors. And frankly, there will be a lot more of these types of customers buying this Mac Pro than the first type.
But it's great either way. That's the point of this Mac Pro. Its flexibility for both types of customers.
But gees... even with all those options and possibilities, that cater to both types of customers... some people still aren't happy and think it's all about Apple being nefarious.
Good grief.
[automerge]1578202459[/automerge]
It IS possible. Not by default out of the box - because Apple defaults to the most secure options out of the box for the people that don't want to mess with it. But for the people that don't mind messing with it: you boot into Recovery mode and turn off the security settings that block it by default ("Startup Security Utility").
It's not some unauthorized hack. It's a fully authorized option as part of the OS and the hardware.
About Startup Security Utility on a Mac with the Apple T2 Security Chip - Apple Support
Use Startup Security Utility to make sure that your Mac always starts up from your designated startup disk, and always from a legitimate, trusted operating system.
Except you can. See above.
All this FUD and misinformation about the T2 is ridiculous.
[automerge]1578202932[/automerge]
Because installing any industry standard PCIe SSD or PCIe to M2 NVMe adapter card with whatever drive(s) you want on it in any of the 8 PCIe slots in this machine, is not an option... right?
Those techs at Apple really f'd that up didn't they. All that work they put into locking the customers out from upgrading the storage, destroyed by completely missing that enormous PCIe loophole. Someone's gotta get fired over that one.
/s
Last edited:
Well... that's your experience... or probably just your opinion without any actual experience.
My experience says otherwise. All my work with databases sees dramatically different results between SATA SSDs and NVME SSDs. Heck even the startup time is almost an order of magnitude faster.
It appears you have no idea what you're talking about... or at least I have no idea what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Lols
Your funny ..I did not literally mean Apple has the key but Apple is the only one who has access to the T2 chip which ultimately holds the volume key.
I've used USB drives as a boot drive for my 2018 MacBook Pro. Chances are it's not that different.
The Mac Pro has eight PCIe expansion slots, which allow for extra USB ports, graphics cards, audio cards, and more storage, so that's an easy way to get additional storage space.
=
Having eight PCIe expansion slots, the Mac Pro allows for extra USB ports, graphics cars, audio cards, and storage; making it easy to gain additional space for storage.
...
Sometimes I feel y'alls proofing could be better.
=
Having eight PCIe expansion slots, the Mac Pro allows for extra USB ports, graphics cars, audio cards, and storage; making it easy to gain additional space for storage.
...
Sometimes I feel y'alls proofing could be better.
Which are what? You're not editing uncompressed 4k or 8k on the local storage. The disk space requirements are too much - 90 minutes of uncompressed 4k is 6TB...
Nothing wrong with SATA - yes it's slower but for most you won't notice the difference. I've got a mix of SATA SSD's and NVMe in my Windows box in a pool and don't notice which is which in day to day use.
I could see photographers and developers or even data scientists where you could load part of a huge DB locally. Or the editor shooting compressed 4k/8k stuff.
I think the use case is someone who wants a fast, expandable, and quiet Mac. It's neither the fastest machine (Threadripper beats it there for most tasks) not the cheapest. Objectively looking at this machine it's a crazy expensive machine for what it is and another example of Tim's gouging of the faithful.
[automerge]1578234153[/automerge]
Databases are one of the workloads that benefits greatly from SSD's or large RAID arrays. Lots of reads and writes especially at startup and definitely when in operation. For the average user the difference is negligible. If you're doing DB work you need all the fast space you can get.
Tom says otherwise. Well they Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Core Combat: Intel Xeon W-3175X vs. AMD Threadripper 2990WX
AMD's Threadripper 2990WX challenges Intel's pricey Xeon W-3175X in this battle of the behemoths of the processor market.
www.tomshardware.com
Look a threadripper is fantastic but it's not all about the core counts. There are other things to take in to account like the Memory channels - 4 on the AMD vs 6 on the Xeon. It wouldn't be able to have 8 PCIE slots for example.
The AMD EYPC chips are actually workstation chips but they are as expensive as the Xeon.
The new 64 Core Threadripper and EYPCs will be even better - but well they don't exist yet!
Yep .. had a horrible experience with iMac myself. It's not a laptop (obviously) but not really a desktop either. It, however inherits all of their disadvantages.
Immobile (unless you want to lug the thing around your local Starbucks.. well, not impossible), yet not-upgradeable (at least not if you want to keep its warranty intact). It is a good-looking computer, you could use one for a front desk, or showing it off at the office for more "professional looks". But for actual, long term ownership..? meehhh.
"T2 as an option" should be owners of computers can choose add/change ssd's without Apple service.
I want control of my $8k+ computers and I don't have a choice other than purchasing PCIe ssd cards for boot.... I want to add/change the ssd without Apple service. Also, the T2 is there not just for security!
Lols
I did not literally mean Apple has the key but Apple is the only one who has access to the T2 chip which ultimately holds the volume key.
As I understood it you implying that Apple has access to my encrypted data when in some cases I do not. If that's the claim you're making then it's false. If that's not the claim you're making then ok... I might need more clarity on what it is you're actually saying. 😊
"For the average user" -- and this is my problem with nearly every objection to the Mac Pro.
Everyone complaining about the Mac Pro, or any of these other topics related to it (eg. SATA vs NVMe) in some form or another - including you - keep making their claims based on that statement: "for the average user".
This machine and all the various options for it are not for the average user so every "for the average user" statement is pointless and meaningless in a conversation about adding expensive storage to a genuinely professional machine.
Needless to say, I'd even argue that a lot of people who use Macs in general (not just Mac Pros etc) are not "the average user".
At least some of "the average users" appreciate even the simple things like faster startup times, snappier web browsing (cache stored locally, etc), snappier, well, everything, because that's the end result of faster storage. You don't have to be editing large databases or videos to notice a difference. I know, because my parents and sister notice the difference and they do "average" tasks like email, web browsing, accounting, writing, basic photo management and editing.
There's another example - the average user will notice the difference between SATA and NVMe scrolling through a few thousand photos in the Photos app. Again, my family members did when they made that change.
As for disk space requirements are too much for editing uncompressed 4K. Well ok, maybe so. Or maybe I am installing 40TB of striped 12GB/s+ NVMe drive arrays in my PCIe slots if I want to (no, personally I'm not, but I imagine Kevin Feige wouldn't have any trouble doing that if he wanted to). Sure, that's probably not the best solution. I know for what I do - large databases. If I was in the market for something like this and I was going to be spending any significant time working on them, my workflow would be that I'll copy them off the SAN onto my internal 12GB/s NVMe array, work with it, then copy it back. Depending on what I'm doing with it.
The point is, as always, this machine provides options. And if I sound like I'm on a rant, it's because so many people here keep pushing their opinions based on their own workflows or some narrow limited imagined workflows, and just can't see past those to see how this thing provides enormous flexibility and options for all kinds of workflows. Which is the whole point of it.
So to your next point about how overpriced you think it is. Compared to what? As others have done here and in multiple other places, spec it out against comparable Dell servers, or HP workstations, or any number of other competing machines and it's not overpriced at all. Ok, maybe you want to compare it to the high end iMac or iMac Pro. Sure, spec for spec (CPU, GPU, storage, RAM) yep, it's more expensive. Why do you think that is? Because those machines don't have the EIGHT PCIe slots, the insane cooling, the modularity, the engineering that makes it all work together properly, and all the other things that make this what it is and what those machines aren't. If you want the CPU, GPU, RAM, and storage, all at iMac prices, then get an iMac. If you want all the other stuff that this machine has that makes it more than those then you don't get that for free.
As for your "Threadripper" example. Spec one of those out spec for spec and tell me how this is more expensive. And no, "build-your-own" doesn't count. The other thing that this machine comes with that its target market needs is that they buy it, pull it out of the box, turn it on, and get to work. For these people their time is their most valuable commodity. They get paid multiple hundreds of dollars per hour for the professional WORK they do. Every hour they spend building their own machine - or even researching all the ways they can buy third party RAM instead of Apple's RAM and install it themselves - costs them significantly more than what they'll pay Apple to build this for them instead. If you don't understand that then you just don't understand who this machine is for. And if you're not one of those people whose time is worth something significant then this machine is not for you, nor is it for anyone else on here making similar arguments.
One more thing: Your Threadripper machine doesn't have macOS. macOS isn't free. There's a reason Apple's license agreements say you're not allowed to run macOS on anything other than Apple hardware (even virtualized). That's because Apple's hardware is what pays for macOS. How about Apple change their business model? What's macOS worth? I mean it must be worth something, otherwise why are we even here arguing about this? The ONLY reason anyone would want a Mac Pro instead of a similar specced PC, if they genuinely think the Mac Pro is expensive, is for macOS, right? The only reason we're here complaining about or even discussing Apple stuff is not for the hardware, it's for the OS. Without macOS, there are an enormous amount of alternatives to choose from and Apple becomes a very niche hardware maker with no significant differentiator. So therefore macOS is worth something, for Macs in general to create all this hoopla, right? So what's it worth? Should they just give it away for free? Hardly. You're not going to agree with this but I'm going to argue that it's worth a LOT more than Windows 10 - why? Because it's worth all this fuss. If it's worth all this fuss then it's better than Windows 10, at least for the people who are making the fuss. And it's better because it's had a lot more time, R&D, etc. put into it than Windows 10 has. And even if we look at the $200 price of Windows 10 alone, that's before you include the virus protection and other stuff you have to buy to go with Windows to make it anything close to on a par with macOS. Whatever we price it at, it's included in the price of every mac. So factor that in when you're speccing out your Threadripper machine as well.
I just want to see someone throwing around all these arguments about how this Mac Pro is overpriced show me something comparable by any other decent manufacturer, that's significantly cheaper. No one's been able to do this yet. Anyone want to step up to the plate on this one?
[automerge]1578252078[/automerge]
Yet Apple keeps selling millions and millions and millions of them... so weird.
[automerge]1578252330[/automerge]
Why? What's wrong with adding a PCIe SSD card for storage? Why is this such an issue?
You effectively do have T2 as an option (for storage) because you CAN add SSDs without Apple service. That's one of a million options the PCIe slots are for! Are you saying they got that wrong and you should be able to add storage through some means other than PCIe?
If you don't like the internal drive and its reliance on the T2 then ignore it. Add whatever cheap or expensive storage you want in the industry standard PCIe slot and boot off that. There... full control to you.
What on earth is the problem???
Last edited:
Not another “it costs too much “ whining thread, please !
[automerge]1578256656[/automerge]
Apple is not selling gaming computers. T2 chip is there for a reason.
[automerge]1578257121[/automerge]
It won’t run any circles, since it won’t run MacOs so will be just another pointless Windows computer to me.
But you would be pleased by useless synthetic benchmarks.
Last edited:
"For the average user" -- and this is my problem with nearly every objection to the Mac Pro.
Everyone complaining about the Mac Pro, or any of these other topics related to it (eg. SATA vs NVMe) in some form or another - including you - keep making their claims based on that statement: "for the average user".
This machine and all the various options for it are not for the average user so every "for the average user" statement is pointless and meaningless in a conversation about adding expensive storage to a genuinely professional machine.
Needless to say, I'd even argue that a lot of people who use Macs in general (not just Mac Pros etc) are not "the average user".
At least some of "the average users" appreciate even the simple things like faster startup times, snappier web browsing (cache stored locally, etc), snappier, well, everything, because that's the end result of faster storage. You don't have to be editing large databases or videos to notice a difference. I know, because my parents and sister notice the difference and they do "average" tasks like email, web browsing, accounting, writing, basic photo management and editing.
There's another example - the average user will notice the difference between SATA and NVMe scrolling through a few thousand photos in the Photos app. Again, my family members did when they made that change.
As for disk space requirements are too much for editing uncompressed 4K. Well ok, maybe so. Or maybe I am installing 40TB of striped 12GB/s+ NVMe drive arrays in my PCIe slots if I want to (no, personally I'm not, but I imagine Kevin Feige wouldn't have any trouble doing that if he wanted to). Sure, that's probably not the best solution. I know for what I do - large databases. If I was in the market for something like this and I was going to be spending any significant time working on them, my workflow would be that I'll copy them off the SAN onto my internal 12GB/s NVMe array, work with it, then copy it back. Depending on what I'm doing with it.
The point is, as always, this machine provides options. And if I sound like I'm on a rant, it's because so many people here keep pushing their opinions based on their own workflows or some narrow limited imagined workflows, and just can't see past those to see how this thing provides enormous flexibility and options for all kinds of workflows. Which is the whole point of it.
So to your next point about how overpriced you think it is. Compared to what? As others have done here and in multiple other places, spec it out against comparable Dell servers, or HP workstations, or any number of other competing machines and it's not overpriced at all. Ok, maybe you want to compare it to the high end iMac or iMac Pro. Sure, spec for spec (CPU, GPU, storage, RAM) yep, it's more expensive. Why do you think that is? Because those machines don't have the EIGHT PCIe slots, the insane cooling, the modularity, the engineering that makes it all work together properly, and all the other things that make this what it is and what those machines aren't. If you want the CPU, GPU, RAM, and storage, all at iMac prices, then get an iMac. If you want all the other stuff that this machine has that makes it more than those then you don't get that for free.
As for your "Threadripper" example. Spec one of those out spec for spec and tell me how this is more expensive. And no, "build-your-own" doesn't count. The other thing that this machine comes with that its target market needs is that they buy it, pull it out of the box, turn it on, and get to work. For these people their time is their most valuable commodity. They get paid multiple hundreds of dollars per hour for the professional WORK they do. Every hour they spend building their own machine - or even researching all the ways they can buy third party RAM instead of Apple's RAM and install it themselves - costs them significantly more than what they'll pay Apple to build this for them instead. If you don't understand that then you just don't understand who this machine is for. And if you're not one of those people whose time is worth something significant then this machine is not for you, nor is it for anyone else on here making similar arguments.
One more thing: Your Threadripper machine doesn't have macOS. macOS isn't free. There's a reason Apple's license agreements say you're not allowed to run macOS on anything other than Apple hardware (even virtualized). That's because Apple's hardware is what pays for macOS. How about Apple change their business model? What's macOS worth? I mean it must be worth something, otherwise why are we even here arguing about this? The ONLY reason anyone would want a Mac Pro instead of a similar specced PC, if they genuinely think the Mac Pro is expensive, is for macOS, right? The only reason we're here complaining about or even discussing Apple stuff is not for the hardware, it's for the OS. Without macOS, there are an enormous amount of alternatives to choose from and Apple becomes a very niche hardware maker with no significant differentiator. So therefore macOS is worth something, for Macs in general to create all this hoopla, right? So what's it worth? Should they just give it away for free? Hardly. You're not going to agree with this but I'm going to argue that it's worth a LOT more than Windows 10 - why? Because it's worth all this fuss. If it's worth all this fuss then it's better than Windows 10, at least for the people who are making the fuss. And it's better because it's had a lot more time, R&D, etc. put into it than Windows 10 has. And even if we look at the $200 price of Windows 10 alone, that's before you include the virus protection and other stuff you have to buy to go with Windows to make it anything close to on a par with macOS. Whatever we price it at, it's included in the price of every mac. So factor that in when you're speccing out your Threadripper machine as well.
I just want to see someone throwing around all these arguments about how this Mac Pro is overpriced show me something comparable by any other decent manufacturer, that's significantly cheaper. No one's been able to do this yet. Anyone want to step up to the plate on this one?
[automerge]1578252078[/automerge]
Yet Apple keeps selling millions and millions and millions of them... so weird.
[automerge]1578252330[/automerge]
Why? What's wrong with adding a PCIe SSD card for storage? Why is this such an issue?
You effectively do have T2 as an option (for storage) because you CAN add SSDs without Apple service. That's one of a million options the PCIe slots are for! Are you saying they got that wrong and you should be able to add storage through some means other than PCIe?
If you don't like the internal drive and its reliance on the T2 then ignore it. Add whatever cheap or expensive storage you want in the industry standard PCIe slot and boot off that. There... full control to you.
What on earth is the problem???
Wow, doesn't make a lot of sense......Lol
So, I purchase $8k+ computers that if one of the internal SSD's goes South I have to take it to Apple service for replacement/re-configured and who knows what else the T2 is keeping tabs on within the MP, but in the MBP watch out trying to yourself or getting repaired anywhere else than Apple. In addition, the answer to all this is purchase PCIe SSD cards that is another $2k.....genius!
When you exaggerate like that it really does speak to the credibility of your other comments.
A PCIe card that carries a single NVMe SSD costs around $20. A Samsung 1 TB 970 NVMe M.2 SSD is around $170. Put the two together and you're less than $200.
You can also buy PCIe NVMe carrier cards that hold two and four NVMe SSDs.
If I were to purchase a MacPro, I'd order it with the stock 256GB SSD. And then install my own SSD(s) on a PCIe card and then download Catalina on one of them, making it bootable.
Last edited:
Yeah but at the moment it runs only Catalina and who in the world wants to use this biggest OS fail ever (head to head with iOS13).
I fully understand that some people are happy cause Apple gave them at least something after years of waiting. Other people look at it, look at the price and understand that Apple gave em the finger - and those people are not pleased.
I guess happy people need a thing that runs Final Cut - story told. But remember when Apple just dropped Final Cut and the MacPro replacing it with something not ready yet telling you that the PC area is over.
And yes - the MacPro. The trashcan MacPro had the same specs and the original MacPro 5,1 had the same specs, CPU trays, hdd trays and ports. Comparing the 8 PCIe slots to something with only 4 doesn’t impress me since I need at least one for M.2 SSDs and another one for Apple ports and maybe a third one for a some more ports.
But so you are saying this is a special computer for the video artists? Then please have a look at the presentation when Tim proudly tells the crowd how great this thing is for the developers.
But maybe Tim has never met a developer. But I guess the story behind this PC is that Tim fired all the people familiar with PCs and workstations and now some iPhone people are trying to build a workstation.
They did not notice the difference in startup times, web browsing, etc from going from a SATA to an NVMe SSD. You know that and I know that. What they may have noticed was going from a full SSD to a less full SSD. As you know, smaller SSD's of all types are generally slower and when SSDs fill up their speed declines a bit too.
Here's an in-depth test comparing NVMe vs SATA:
SATA vs. NVMe: Should You Upgrade Your SSD System Drive? - ExtremeTech
Is your once roomy boot SSD getting full? Now that there are lots of options for NVMe models, it's worth considering whether you should snag one for your upgrade.
www.extremetech.com
You are talking fractions of a second in tasks. You won't notice.
Plenty of companies sell them and I'm sure they are significantly cheaper than this. You can spare the drivel about professionals. I know all too well the target audience and how that time is money. The point is that for edge cases this machine is perfect. For most it's way overpriced. Just like the trashcan was.
Spec a comparable Xeon on Puget Systems' website and tell me this isn't overpriced. Unfortunately they don't do AMD now but they have a reputation as an excellent HEDT OEM.
Having run both OS's - OS X since 2001 and Win 10 since 2017 both are fine OSs. In default configuations both are stable. Your ignorance about Win 10 is immense. The provided MS AV and firewall solutions are quite good and so much so that you don't need 3rd party AV any more. I've not needed any. As for other stuff, what are you referring to? half baked photo management? lacking "office suite"? broken video editor? buggy OS releases? Cause that's all present on the Mac side of things just like Windows. Hell, Windows 10 will let you run Ubuntu and have a near full POSIX command line so that plus for OS X is going out the wayside.
I still like OS X a little more but it's pretty much a draw. There are some things that OS X could learn from Windows and some things Windows can learn from OS X. Both will run for months at a time (not advised) without rebooting and are reliable.
People are feeling the pinch with Tim's de-contenting and price increases. Recent quarter has Apple losing market share https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/10/mac-shipments-q3-2019-gartner/
Used to be easy to recommend a Mac. A top of the line machine with decent specs for a little more than a comprable Windows machine. Like $200 more. Now you have Macs that are $1k more than premium Windows laptops with less features, and in the case of those with Butterfly keyboards, poor designs. It's a hard sell. Last laptop I wanted to go Mac. But instead of a touchscreen (insanely useful), we got the ****** touchbar, port removals, and a $2k price. I picked up a top of the line HP Spectre for $1500 and it's been rock solid for 3 years now. So tell me again why OS X is so great?
I'm an Apple shareholder so I hope they do well. But under Tim, while they have grown we've seen them gouging the user base, removing features, fragmenting the markets, and releasing flawed designs. Seems they went through this stuff about 3 decades ago and they almost lost the company. This time Steve is not around to fix it.
[automerge]1578266374[/automerge]
Tom says otherwise. Well they Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Core Combat: Intel Xeon W-3175X vs. AMD Threadripper 2990WX
AMD's Threadripper 2990WX challenges Intel's pricey Xeon W-3175X in this battle of the behemoths of the processor market.
Look a threadripper is fantastic but it's not all about the core counts. There are other things to take in to account like the Memory channels - 4 on the AMD vs 6 on the Xeon. It wouldn't be able to have 8 PCIE slots for example.
The AMD EYPC chips are actually workstation chips but they are as expensive as the Xeon.
The new 64 Core Threadripper and EYPCs will be even better - but well they don't exist yet!
That article is a year old. New Threadrippers were released a few months ago that dominate the Xeon chips.
Brillant....Im referring to four cards and purchased with just 256gb.
I want full control over the computer I've purchased and don't want to send my MP to Apple service at anytime. Simple.
Brillant....Im referring to four cards and purchased with just 256gb.
I want full control over the computer I've purchased and don't want to send my MP to Apple service at anytime. Simple.
This.
You paid $6000+ to OWN this computer. You should have FULL control over what what drives you install and where. Real simple.
With the T2, apple is trying to be our babysitter, I guess because none of us are responsible enough to manage our own property? It's asinine.
Brillant....Im referring to four cards and purchased with just 256gb.
I want full control over the computer I've purchased and don't want to send my MP to Apple service at anytime. Simple.
You're not making any sense.
The MacPro comes stock with 256GB storage. How much would you like? Let's say 1 TB.
Option 1: Get it from Apple and it's an extra $400. And under T2 control. And you'll need to send your computer to Apple if you ever want to upgrade it.
Or...
Option 2: You can get your own superior Samsung 1 TB 970 NVMe M.2 SSD and a PCIe SSD carrier card for less than $200. And then put Catalina on it. And not be under T2 control, have better performance to boot. And not have to send your MP to Apple. Just pretend the Apple 256 GB SSD doesn't exist.
Which way would you rather go? Spend $400 and be under T2 control. Or spend $200, not be under T2 control, have better performance, and not have to send your computer to Apple.
It's up to you. Of course if you want even more storage, say 2 TB or 4 TB, you can roll your own as well for less money, have better performance and not be under T2 control. And not have to send your MP to Apple.
[automerge]1578272115[/automerge]
No, relax. See above.
Last edited:
Geez, could you guys at “Macrumors” actually try and replace that 256GB drive or do I need to buy a Mac Pro myself and do this? Pull the damn 256GB drive and put in a new one and install MacOS. Put the pulled out 256GB drive in an external enclosure and reinitialize it. This is BS about the T2 chip and only relates to “adding” or upgrading to the existing SSD with regards to needing Apple to do the upgrade. Nobody here has actually tried To do this.