New Mac Pro Confirmed to Have Removable CPU

[keigo]

OWC still doesn't have an upgrade for the 2013 Macbook Air PCIe SSD

It will probably be the same situation for the Mac Pro.

yup that what I'm thinking also... the chance of owc selling Mac Pro SSD will be slim...

The next best hope will be Apple but we know the kind of tax Apple will put. But at least there is an option better then nothing.

So I guess, choosing the right SSD size you require when purchasing the Mac Pro else you will be stuck with 256gb all the way.

----------

I'm sure for the exact same reasons Apple never said that the CPU could be replaced in the old Mac Pro, and warned against users trying to do so with those models. Even though the CPU is socketed, the replacement will still be beyond the skills or comfort level of most (nearly all) users, and it's unreasonable to expect Apple to treat or claim that the CPUs are user-servicable parts.

I think this debate is pointless. If I'm not wrong, I don't remember ever in Apple history that there is manual that Apple point out that CPU is user replaceable.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

the GPU is replaceable does not mean you can put any GPU in. Have you look at the picture of the New Mac Pro? And do you know how the New Mac Pro GPU look like?

Those New Mac Pro GPU are proprietary card. As of now, we are not seeing any 3rd party selling it.

So basically the upgradability is highly hypothetical.

 

[keigo]

So basically the upgradability is highly hypothetical.

If you look at it this way, almost all Apple products are hypothetical.

 

[Spinland]

Apple has never soldered the Xeon CPU of any Intel Mac Pro computer.
As far as I can tell, there aren't many companies that solder Xeon class CPUs to motherboards.

I, at least, have never claimed or even thought otherwise.

This was never a worry except for people that didn't know the above.

My unscientific sampling of the comment threads at Mac Rumors seem to indicate there are a great many users who don't "know the above" in a general sense. It doesn't prevent them from holding forth about such things. I have merely expressed relief that the people posting about this particular issue can now hopefully give it a rest.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

If you look at it this way, almost all Apple products are hypothetical.

Umm... no ?

It is not known if Apple will ever sell proprietary GPU upgrades for a mac pro seperately or other companies like OWC will come up with a solution.

 

[flat five]

OWC still doesn't have an upgrade for the 2013 Macbook Air PCIe SSD

It will probably be the same situation for the Mac Pro.

they're using proprietary connectors though.. basically, no 3rd party can sell one until apple says they can.. (or risk being sued etc.)

----------

So basically the upgradability is highly hypothetical.

not really.. though it's not 100% conclusive, i (personally) think it's safe to assume you can buy a nmp with d300s in it then swap for d500s or 700 later in life.

it will be interesting to see what happens when version2 is released (assuming it has new gpus).. as in- will 7,1 gpus be compatible with 6,1

 

[Michael Scrip]

they're using proprietary connectors though.. basically, no 3rd party can sell one until apple says they can.. (or risk being sued etc.)

I know... it sucks.

 

[lilo777]

not really.. though it's not 100% conclusive, i (personally) think it's safe to assume you can buy a nmp with d300s in it then swap for d500s or 700 later in life.

But where would you buy a d500 or d700? I checked on Newegg, they don't sell them (and neither does Apple)

 

[flat five]

But where would you buy a d500 or d700? I checked on Newegg, they don't sell them (and neither does Apple)

me personally? tekserve or mikey's..

they've had all i need for the past 15 years.. (except early in the old mac pro cycle.. i blew a 7700gt fairly early on and nobody (including apple) had replacements at that time.. finally found an 8800 online-- all in all.. 6days downtime..
i'm thinking (hoping) they have their act cleared up since then (when i fried the 8800, getting a replacement at mikey's was no problem).. i'm pretty sure they have especially considering they're the ones making the gpus.

 

[keigo]

But where would you buy a d500 or d700? I checked on Newegg, they don't sell them (and neither does Apple)

on ebay in 1~2 years later when someone take apart their Mac pro and sell the parts

or maybe later in 2014 Apple might start selling upgradable part + labour fees (since Apple manual mention it is not user upgradable)

 

[Gudi]

So I guess, choosing the right SSD size you require when purchasing the Mac Pro else you will be stuck with 256gb all the way.

And than what? You don't buy an SSD for it's size. It's the speed stupid. Apple could well have put a standardized SATA 3.0 (600MB/s) SSD in the new Mac Pro. Than all storage access would take at least 50% longer compared to their own proprietary PCIe based (900MB/s) solution.

And in a year from now, when SSDs will be cheaper and faster and there may or may not be a third party solution from OWC for Apple SSDs, you would still be stuck at 600 MB/s maximum. You could choose freely between all the makers of slow SATA SSDs. And who knows how big the performance gap will be by then?

The only alternative to Apples solution is waiting for the copycats. With SATA 3.2 (2GB/s) this standard itself will be married with PCIe. And SATA 3.2 also introduces the next generation form factor (NGFF) basically a copy of SSD blades. Lets have a look at the new SATA Express connector and how it keeps backward compatibility with SATA.

Yes, that's not so sleek.

Fortunately it isn't available yet.​

 

[Renzatic]

The only alternative to Apples solution is waiting for the copycats.

You mean those copycat PCIe SSDs that have been around for at least a couple years now, and have the same max bandwidth as the current Pro?

Not to say Apple's solution is terrible or half-assed. Far from it. Other than only having one internal bay, it's sleek, smooth, and fast, and practically half the size of what I linked to above. It's impressive stuff.

The only thing that's terrible here is your weird, constant driving need to bash things you barely know anything about in order to...what...sell Mac Pros, and make yet another tired claim that they were the VERY FIRST EVAR to do something?

 

[keigo]

And than what? You don't buy an SSD for it's size. It's the speed stupid. Apple could well have put a standardized SATA 3.0 (600MB/s) SSD in the new Mac Pro. Than all storage access would take at least 50% longer compared to their own proprietary PCIe based (900MB/s) solution.

And in a year from now, when SSDs will be cheaper and faster and there may or may not be a third party solution from OWC for Apple SSDs, you would still be stuck at 600 MB/s maximum. You could choose freely between all the makers of slow SATA SSDs. And who knows how big the performance gap will be by then?

The only alternative to Apples solution is waiting for the copycats. With SATA 3.2 (2GB/s) this standard itself will be married with PCIe. And SATA 3.2 also introduces the next generation form factor (NGFF) basically a copy of SSD blades. Lets have a look at the new SATA Express connector and how it keeps backward compatibility with SATA.

Image

Yes, that's not so sleek.

Image

Fortunately it isn't available yet.​

I don't even know what you trying to say.

You can't even get your message clear.

First you start calling people stupid, that SSD is not for size but for speed. So since you so clever then 256gb default SSD sold by Apple is more then enough. And so bad of Apple to give people option of bigger SSD size and confuse all stupid people like us.

Then next you start talking the rubbish of copycat option...

If you are so unhappy, maybe best is for you to get out of this forum and have a life. For your very word is insulting.

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah, we all know that. But I think the percentage of cards that are not video cards that need higher bandwidth than Thunderbolt 2 is extremely tiny. And for some of those rare purposes, using multiple ports might also be an option.

Yup. I can't think of much of anything besides GPUs that'll need the full 16 lane PCIe treatment. Really, until we start seeing faster harddrives that can eat up more than 2.5GB of bandwidth outside of a RAID configuration, Thunderbolt's fine for most everything.

The only thing I'm arguing with is Gudi saying that PCIe is obsolete because of TB. No, it's not. I mean hell, TB is PCIe 4x on a cord, and so long as it can't provide the full bandwidth of its bigger brother installed directly on the motherboard, it'll always be supplementary, rather than an outright replacement.

 

[Gudi]

First you start calling people stupid, that SSD is not for size but for speed.

Because it is. It is feeding data to the CPU and GPU cores, nothing else. The data is there to be moved not to be stored. Same with RAM, you wanna have enough, but you don't wanna have more than enough, that is filled up with inactive data. And I'm calling no one stupid. I thought it is a winged word since the Clinton presidential debate. Meaning, you're looking in the wrong direction, if you think the problem with SSD is size. We have HDDs for size, SSDs are for speed. And the connector for an SSD should first and foremost allow for maximum speed and as a secondary optimization target it should be as compatible as possible.

So since you so clever then 256gb default SSD sold by Apple is more then enough. And so bad of Apple to give people option of bigger SSD size and confuse all stupid people like us.

If you have too much disposable income, you can upgrade your SSD to anything size you want. Apple needs to spread price points anyway, so that those with more money can pay more. And you as a customer are only stupid, if you spend more than you have.

But performance wise more storage space is only helpful when you are in danger to fill it up and can't store away parts of it, because you are working on all the data all the time. That is an edge case even for the majority of Mac Pro users. But the speed of storage is immediately noticeable to everyone using the computer. First you want faster storage, than you want more of it. Otherwise we would have sticked with HDDs anyway.

Apple is notably not offering a 128 GB SSD in the Mac Pro. That is not in the first place because professionals need more storage space, but because 128 GB SSDs do not reach the same top speed as 256 GB ones. So they would slowdown the whole system, which is the far bigger problem in a pro computer.

 

[Renzatic]

The data is there to be moved not to be stored. Same with RAM, you wanna have enough, but you don't wanna have more than enough, that is filled up with inactive data.

Doooo wuh? There's no such thing as inactive data in ram.

Apple is notably not offering a 128 GB SSD in the Mac Pro. That is not in the first place because professionals need more storage space, but because 128 GB SSDs do not reach the same top speed as 256 GB ones. So they would slowdown the whole system, which is the far bigger problem in a pro computer.

Assuming that both drives are built upon the same tech, why would a 128GB SSD be any slower than a 256GB one? It's just like ram. Each NAND chip access equal access to the controller, so adding more chips or taking some away wouldn't effect performance in any way. It's not like magnetic drives, where the speed at which the platter spins, and the location of the data on said platter has a direct effect on how fast the drive can access it. No matter where your data is mapped on those NAND chips, the controller can access it entirely unfettered.

You really, honest to god do not know what you're talking about. I suggest quitting while you've still got some face left to save.

 

[Nugget]

Doooo wuh? There's no such thing as inactive data in ram.

Sure there is. "The types of System Memory are: Free, Wired, Active, and Inactive memory."

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1342?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

Mavericks -- with its introduction of all the memory compression wizardry -- simplified the categories in Activity Monitor, but you can still see all the buckets from the unix side with tools like `top`

 

[Renzatic]

Sure there is. "The types of System Memory are: Free, Wired, Active, and Inactive memory."

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1342?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

Mavericks -- with its introduction of all the memory compression wizardry -- simplified the categories in Activity Monitor, but you can still see all the buckets from the unix side with tools like `top`

Ahh, he's talking about recently terminated applications that are still memory resident. That doesn't have any overall effect on performance, since dumping that memory space to allow for something else to fill it up takes literally no time at all.

The only time that'd become an issue is if the OS flat out refuses to dump it, or allow anything else to take up that space. And if that happens, you've got some big problems.

edit: and the one thing I can definitely say is that it isn't a good reason to not get more ram. Having more than what you need hurts nothing but your wallet. If having more ram means OSX allows more programs to stay resident in memory in that ghost state, that just means the computer can load them up again nearly instantaneously. And if you end up using a program that needs that space, then it gets overwritten without any performance loss.

 

[Nugget]

Ahh, he's talking about recently terminated applications that are still memory resident. That doesn't have any overall effect on performance, since dumping that memory space to allow for something else to fill it up takes literally no time at all.

Well, sure, but it doesn't sound like you were understanding his point. He never made the argument that it was a performance issue, just a utility issue. If you buy more RAM than you need, it ends up being of little practical value because it doesn't contribute to better performance in any tangible way.

 

[Renzatic]

Well, sure, but it doesn't sound like you were understanding his point. He never made the argument that it was a performance issue, just a utility issue.

The way he worded it sounded like he did...

Because it is. It is feeding data to the CPU and GPU cores, nothing else. The data is there to be moved not to be stored. Same with RAM, you wanna have enough, but you don't wanna have more than enough, that is filled up with inactive data.

...as if it's a detriment to have around. It's not. The more of it you have, the better.

I can't believe Apple calls it inactive memory, though. That makes it sound terrible. It should be called a memory cache or something, as that makes more sense in regards to what it does.

 

[Nugget]

The way he worded it sounded like he did...

I dunno, seemed pretty clear to me. Honestly, I think you're so eager to disagree with him at this point that you're just skimming through his posts looking for points to argue with. Maybe not, but that's how it looks to me.

I can't believe Apple calls it inactive memory, though. That makes it sound terrible. It should be called a memory cache or something, as that makes more sense in regards to what it does.

It's in industry term, inherited from the BSDs and Unix lineage of OS X. It's a term that has been in use for decades and Apple did not invent it. And, yeah, you've got a point. It's not a very explanatory term for end users which is why it's not a huge shock to see that Apple have apparently removed its use from the Activity Monitor app and perhaps other places in the OS and related documentation with 10.9. That wasn't a bad call, for all the reasons you mention. But, the fact remains, there's a bucket of memory underneath the covers that's called "Inactive Memory" and people have been calling it that for a long time, and there's certainly no call for your snark and attitude towards people who choose to continue to use the term. Don't you feel a little bit silly now for being so sure that it didn't exist when it turns out that you were wrong about that?

 

[Renzatic]

I dunno, seemed pretty clear to me. Honestly, I think you're so eager to disagree with him at this point that you're just skimming through his posts looking for points to argue with. Maybe not, but that's how it looks to me.

You gotta admit, it wouldn't hurt him to read a couple of articles on how computers work, instead of coming in here and making broad, sweeping statements based on what little he currently knows.

It's in industry term, inherited from the BSDs and Unix lineage of OS X. It's a term that has been in use for decades and Apple did not invent it. And, yeah, you've got a point. It's not a very explanatory term for end users which is why it's not a huge shock to see that Apple have apparently removed its use from the Activity Monitor app and perhaps other places in the OS and related documentation with 10.9. That wasn't a bad call, for all the reasons you mention. But, the fact remains, there's a bucket of memory underneath the covers that's called "Inactive Memory" and people have been calling it that for a long time, and there's certainly no call for your snark and attitude towards people who choose to continue to use the term. Don't you feel a little bit silly now for being so sure that it didn't exist when it turns out that you were wrong about that?

I was wrong about the terms, though not the end result. Admittedly, I've only recently begun playing around in 'nix world, and most of my experience is with Windows, where they do a lot of the same things, but call it something else entirely. Like I've never heard of the term inactive memory specifically up until this point, and "inactive data" sounds to me like data lying around resident in your ram, not doing anything but needlessly taking up space. And the fact that having more memory apparently makes this a bigger issue, so you only want to get only as much ram as you need, no more, no less, as per Gudi's statement, that sounds even weirder to me.

But if you said it exactly like pre-fetching or memory caching, I would've immediately understood.

So yeah, I'm ignorant in part, and I did get mixed up on the definitions, but Gudi saying you don't want more ram than what you need because of "inactive data" is all but wrong. Cached memory, inactive memory, no matter what it's called, it's a nice thing to have.

 

[Nugget]

...but Gudi saying you don't want more ram than what you need because of "inactive data" is all but wrong. Cached memory, inactive memory, no matter what it's called, it's a nice thing to have.

Inactive isn't quite the same thing as cache, which is why different terms are used. Cached and Inactive are two different things.

I don't want to put words in his mouth but all he said was that you don't need more ram than you need. It's hardly a controversial position. It's practically a tautology.

Edit to add: I'm inclined to overbuy, myself, partly because it's cheap insurance but also because it's exceedingly difficult to predict how much ram you'll need next month, even if you've got a handle on how much ram you need today. Software updates, unexpected data, and all variety of things can arise which change your needs and I think it's sound practice to overbuy in anticipation of that future growth. But that doesn't really contradict his posts on the matter.

 

[Renzatic]

Inactive isn't quite the same thing as cache, which is why different terms are used. Cached and Inactive are two different things.

I don't want to put words in his mouth but all he said was that you don't need more ram than you need. It's hardly a controversial position. It's practically a tautology.

Oh, most definitely. For some people, there's no such thing as too much ram. But if I were helping some random grandma out on buying her first computer, I wouldn't tell her to get 16 gig of the stuff. That's way overkill. She can likely get by on 4 easily, and still have room to spare.

But if she's really adamant about wanting to future proof her new computer in every possible way, and money's no object, then...eh, why not? She'll never use it, but it doesn't hurt anything having it in there. And who knows. She could get into movie editing later...

But that doesn't really contradict his posts on the matter.

Keep in mind I'm responding to him based both on the way it sounded to me, and all the completely wrong things I've heard him say previously. To you, there was just enough there to say he might be right. But to me, it sounded like yet another foul ball statement he was running with.

...like why would a 256GB SSD be faster than 128GB, assuming both use the same underlying tech?

 

[Gudi]

You mean those copycat PCIe SSDs that have been around for at least a couple years now, and have the same max bandwidth as the current Pro?

Are those compatible (except for form factor) with those Apple uses?
Why even develop SATA Express when this solution does the job?
Do you suggest that this is the standard everyone and Apple should adopt?

The only thing that's terrible here is your weird, constant driving need to bash things you barely know anything about in order to... what...

I didn't find your truck versus car analogy helpful either. For what was that... in order to...

First of all, Apple is using the PCIe bus where ever it is needed. All the heavy load goes over PCIe and even the external TB ports are some PCIe plus useful features. There is no faster and more versatile port than Thunderbolt anywhere. So if anyone has the trucks to move a mountain, it is the Mac Pro. And it is also the sleeker computer. So you can have a nice car that doubles as a powerful truck.

The only part of PCIe apple is not using are those dimensional standardized expansion card slots. What is so good about them, that they can't be phased out as obsolete technology? Backwards compatibility can't be an issue, if upgradeability is your goal. Surely you don't wanna replace your dual GPUs with older ones? And going into the future, why stick with what has become obsolete a long time ago?

Graphic card makers have already worked around the standard in using two slots for one card. And adding more fans because the positioning of the card is stopping the air flow, instead of leading it around the hot chip. Also these cards have become too heavy for holding in with one screw at the top, so the PCIe x16 slot needed a little plastic latch to avert the card from falling out by itself. And because of all these little fans the whole box needs to be noise-damped.

And if you do want to change your configuration, you have to shut down your computer, unplug it and screw it open. And don't forget to double check if all the pins fit correctly before you close it, put it back in its place and hope it's still booting. I don't get, how this experience can be better than plugging in a plug-and-play Thunderbolt peripheral? What are those use cases, when 20 Gbit/s are not enough and you need raw PCIe? You are making this up, just to disagree.

Not being IBM-compatible is the least of Apples problems. In the contrary, it's a huge benefit. Someone needs to not follow the compatibility madness. The new Mac Pro form factor was only possible because it does not support PCIe expansion cards. And you wanna give it all up, just because of third party pricing greed? No! If they are not yet copying Apple, they should start with it right now. I can't wait to see, when Intel claims to be the inventor of the UltraTrashcan.