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.
Teardown of New Mac Pro Reveals Surprising Amount of Accessibility, Circular Daughterboard
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a few issues with the new Mac Pro.
I hate that the headphone jack and power are located in the back, and there is no front USB.
But you know, it's not perfect, and I have yet to see a perfect computer.
They all have some annoying quirks or outright frustratingly bad designs.
This is a small machine, with a realitively low power consumption which has massive data throughput capability.
Actually my only real complaint is that this isn't terribly rack friendly with the jackson the back and bottom>top airflow.
It would make a pretty great server with that amount of throughput. Though nothing too critical of course since it only has one power supply.
I hate that the headphone jack and power are located in the back, and there is no front USB.
But you know, it's not perfect, and I have yet to see a perfect computer.
They all have some annoying quirks or outright frustratingly bad designs.
This is a small machine, with a realitively low power consumption which has massive data throughput capability.
Actually my only real complaint is that this isn't terribly rack friendly with the jackson the back and bottom>top airflow.
It would make a pretty great server with that amount of throughput. Though nothing too critical of course since it only has one power supply.
Nay, Apple is setting up all the haters to make them look stupid. But the haters are used to look stupid.
That sounds like the missing "headless" iMac we've all been waiting for.
I'm fine leaving the mini as-is, in an extremely small form factor with laptop parts.
But you are right, it would be nice to have such a machine.
It really is a beautiful machine inside, and I hope the rest of the computer industry takes notice.
The size is impressive, but it's not too difficult for that to be replicated when you don't have any internal expansion at all.
Even the smallest PC enclosures have space for things like a pair of 2.5" drives or even 3.5" drives.
The thing which actually stands out to me the most is the size of their power supply. Even the smallest 450W PC power supply is significantly larger than the one the Mac Pro is using.
I would say that the system is repairable, not upgradable.
I doubt Apple will be selling anyone GPUs with their proprietary connector.
With proprietary connectors, Apple is free to change the connection on a whim next year with the updated Mac Pro.
We know that the D700 has more in common with W7000 performance than the W9000 cards, so they're very likely being underclocked.
They aren't doing anything special to make the machine particularly efficient. If anything, it could have been more efficient if they had gone with Nvidia rather than AMD GPUs.
A "comparable PC" may very well be louder (at least when idle) because each GPU and the CPU all have their own independent heatsinks and fans though - but that also means they could run cooler & quieter under load, as they are isolated from each other.
The reason that 1000W+ power supplies exist is nothing to do with efficiency, but because people build systems with multiple CPUs and four GPUs in them.
You cannot do that with the new Mac Pro.
That's not to say it couldn't be done, but the market for that is probably too small for it to be worthwhile.
The size is impressive, but it's not too difficult for that to be replicated when you don't have any internal expansion at all.
Even the smallest PC enclosures have space for things like a pair of 2.5" drives or even 3.5" drives.
The thing which actually stands out to me the most is the size of their power supply. Even the smallest 450W PC power supply is significantly larger than the one the Mac Pro is using.
...if you can get parts for it. It's using non-standard parts for the GPUs and SSD.I chuckle at the host of nay-sayers a few months back complaining about this "closed system". This is probably one of the easiest machines to upgrade.
I would say that the system is repairable, not upgradable.
I doubt Apple will be selling anyone GPUs with their proprietary connector.
With proprietary connectors, Apple is free to change the connection on a whim next year with the updated Mac Pro.
Apple are using CPUs with 115W TDP. There's obviously going to be some overhead from other components, but that probably leaves you with around 150W per GPU.I wonder how does a 450W power supply could drive 2 high end AMD cards and a beast of a processor?
We know that the D700 has more in common with W7000 performance than the W9000 cards, so they're very likely being underclocked.
Apple is using basically the same components as anyone else. Put two of the same GPUs and CPU into a regular PC and the power consumption won't be any different.
They aren't doing anything special to make the machine particularly efficient. If anything, it could have been more efficient if they had gone with Nvidia rather than AMD GPUs.
A "comparable PC" may very well be louder (at least when idle) because each GPU and the CPU all have their own independent heatsinks and fans though - but that also means they could run cooler & quieter under load, as they are isolated from each other.
The reason that 1000W+ power supplies exist is nothing to do with efficiency, but because people build systems with multiple CPUs and four GPUs in them.
So you could buy off-the-shelf parts and upgrade previous Mac Pros, with a bit of work.
You cannot do that with the new Mac Pro.
It will be worth the wait if it means you get Crossfire support.I'm going to wait until the Mac Pro S comes out next year.
It's relatively easy to build a custom SSD like that. It's a lot more difficult and expensive to build a custom GPU.
That's not to say it couldn't be done, but the market for that is probably too small for it to be worthwhile.
The Final Cut Pro X audience perhaps.
This unit is looking better and better. I'm not a buyer yet (still rocking my 2008 just fine), but everything I'm learning makes this look like a worthy successor when I am ready to upgrade.
Yep. Good point.
I suppose youre right in theory, but what would be the motivation?
I believe theyre using 130W parts, no? Regardless, youre point stands.
Isnt it something more of a hybrid between the two? I was under the impression it was more like the 9000, just underclocked slightly.
Cooler, yes. Quieter not necessarily. 17dB is pretty damn quiet.
YES. Exactly what Ive been trying to say.
Upgrades, upgrades, upgrades.
People who use workstations, use them for WORK, and they buy them to perform a their tasks with the necessary quality in an acceptable time.
There's no meaning on upgrading just the graphics card, for example, and mantain the same CPU and RAM, this would make sense in a gaming machine, ok, but not on a workstation, for example, to move from 2K (1080p) to 4K, you'll need 4x the CPU, 4x the RAM, 4x the GPU (if using OpenCL filters), and a new hardware encoder if you work on the clock.
People who use workstations, use them for WORK, and they buy them to perform a their tasks with the necessary quality in an acceptable time.
There's no meaning on upgrading just the graphics card, for example, and mantain the same CPU and RAM, this would make sense in a gaming machine, ok, but not on a workstation, for example, to move from 2K (1080p) to 4K, you'll need 4x the CPU, 4x the RAM, 4x the GPU (if using OpenCL filters), and a new hardware encoder if you work on the clock.
They must enjoy the attention so because there is no shortage of mindless ranty comments on this forum
As others have already pointed out more eloquently, this is entirely wrong, and I wonder what your motivation is in posting it in the first place. It's complete nonsense. Apple is achieving the lower power design through underclocking the graphics chips and binning. There is nothing more fancy going on than that. The real challenge in any system build is effectively venting the energy that will be released as heat. What Apple *is* very good at is creating creative (note I say "creative," which is different than "effective," although they can and do often overlap) heat dissipation systems, and the Mac Pro is no exception.
Also nonsense. No such complete system upgrade should be required. You're also making the false assumption that everyone's needs are bound by system-wide limitations, distributed evenly. The bulk of the Mac Pro's computational power is tied up in its graphics cards through OpenCL—it is not a particularly relevant computer if your needs are CPU intensive. The ability to upgrade the GPUs, then, is paramount to the useful lifespan of the machine, since GPU revisions and developments occur at a rapid pace.
The more I think about it, the more having GPU on daughter cards instead of PCI style cares make more and more sense.
Not only does it establish Thunderbolt as the defacto display technology going forward, it reduces redundancy/cost in having video out related ports on the cards themselves.
Not only does it establish Thunderbolt as the defacto display technology going forward, it reduces redundancy/cost in having video out related ports on the cards themselves.
i'd imagine the idea of convex boards came up (image) at some point as well but i can see how at present, that's pushing it a little too far in the manufacturing realm.. once 3D printing matures, we're going to be seeing much much more odd (through today's eyes) shapes..
mmm, no. DisplayPort is the "defacto" display connector technology moving forward, and why Thunderbolt was designed to be interoperable with it. There will be no broad uptake of Thunderbolt as a display interconnect because there's no need for it in that context.
Besides: Thunderbolt isn't a "display" technology. It is a way to externalize the PCI bus. That the GPU cards are on proprietary daughter-card connectors is for Apple's convenience, not something specific to Thunderbolt as a connector.
It's nice and small (and small
) but it's a proprietary psu for a proprietary case.Standard ATX psus tend to be less efficient at low load and I guess the certified efficiency models can use some of that space to build in more circuitry to offset that - The nMP doesn't have to worry about this is it's 'living on the edge'.
If you look at the size of a cheap 160w picopsu for example (ignoring AC>DC : about the size of 2xAA batteries), it's no surprise that it's possible to achieve.
OT, but how did that process work? I'm thinking about upgrading my dad's '07 iMac.
