Teardown of New Mac Pro Reveals Surprising Amount of Accessibility, Circular Daughterboard

[Spinland]

Very clever design but not "innovative" given that passive plane technology has been around a long long time. However, it is a very resourceful use of this type of architecture.

Very clever design but not "innovative" given that integrated circuits in general and solid state drives specifically have been around a long long time. However, they were very resourceful in being able to combine those to form a "computer."

Sigh.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[hipnetic]

A few observations:

1) No serial or parallel ports. Fail. (I kid of course - that joke was for the folks who complain about the MacBooks not having ethernet ports).

2) How many computers these days use daughterboards? My Amiga 3000 had that.

3) Am I correctly interpreting iFixit's closing comments as indicating that they docked the score slightly because you can't add additional internal storage? I hope not. You can complain about that as an end user, but to dock the "reparability" score for that would seem wrong.

 

[wiz329]

The math doesn't seem to add up, but aren't virtually all graphics cards x16? I suppose with custom cards Apple could have made them something else, but if that were possible why wouldn't we be seeing other x8 or lower cards so people could save lanes in their machines? I agree that it would be interesting for one of the tech sites to figure out how the lanes are distributed. I wonder if System Information still includes a PCI cards section on those machines.

Not in multi-GPU setups.

 

[hipnetic]

But this machine, while awesome in many ways, starts at $1500 MORE than my current Mac Pro, which was used in Hollywood production work. I don't use it for that reason, but honestly I think with just ONE graphics card + a large small HD drive in place of the other GPU, at $1999, it would be a machine I would buy as a gaming machine or as a high end home media device.

You don't need an expensive or upgradable computer for a more-than-capable home media computer. The integrated graphics that come with any fairly recent Intel CPU, for example, are more than capable of delivering 1080p Blu-ray-quality video.

As far as gaming is concerned...super-high-end gaming with a computer is probably a tiny niche market. The larger hard-core gamer market is served by the latest Playstation and Xbox options. So I don't think Apple is interested in making a fairly expensive, upgradable computer just to serve such a small niche. It's more likely that we'll see them expand the Apple TV to provide "good enough" gaming for casual home gamers, which will likely go after the same demographic that made the original Nintendo Wii a success.

 

[neuropsychguy]

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.

I'm sorry I didn't write my post clearly enough, that's what I was implying with what I wrote (hence my reference to the wind tunnel). But there's more to system efficiency in how Apple puts components together to cut down on power use and to decrease wasted energy in the form of heat. This goes beyond underclocking.

As for overall efficiency, I was referencing Apple doing more with less, generally across the board. Their products have an efficiency of design (this does not mean utilitarian & using completely off-the-shelf components) that is minimal and functional (and in the case of the Mac Pro - high performance). iPhones, iPads, iMacs, and MacBook Airs are designed the same way. This is related to Apple's continued march towards "thin and light". Why design a computer that needs 3 or 4 fans to cool when you can use one? Why use 2 GB of RAM (on the iPhone) when 1 GB works well (as much as more would be great there's a reason that goes beyond cost-savings that Apple sticks with 1 GB). This is not an unrelated example but part of Apple's overall design strategy (see also their work for Mavericks for compressing things in RAM).

 

[milo]

Not in multi-GPU setups.

Then what are they? Link to an example?

 

[wizard]

Your explanation sounds great, but doesn't make much sense to me on closer scrutiny.

Cooling efficiency has nothing to do with power efficiency.

Just because a system can dissipate heat quickly and with little noise doesn't mean it is efficient in using power in the first place.

The efficiency of the core power-sucking parts has nothing to do with Apple (beyond their selection of them). An intel Xeon CPU is an intel Xeon CPU, no matter if it is in a Dell Workstation or in this (admittedly brilliantly engineered) machine. Similarly, Apple has to take parts from AMD, just like other workstations. While they may have their pick of the binned parts, I doubt it would give them that much of an efficiency edge.

Technically everything you say above is true! However there is much that Apple can do to adjust the power profile of the different boards in the machine.

The first thing I like to suggest is the removal of fluff, that is all circuitry that doesn't directly go to the goal of a high performance machine. If you look at the motherboard you can get a sense of what I mean here as it has a minimal of parts.

As for the GPUs the first two offerings are no problem at all power wise. The top end GPU appears to be a slightly down clocked version of one of AMDs workstation GPUs. In the case of the first two GPU card options I'd be surprised if the combined GPU power hits 200 watts flat out. Even on the cards themselves Apple can do much simply by selecting low power parts for GPU RAM.

So in the end yes there is lots that Apple can do to drive efficiency relative to a regular desktop workstation board. It is nice that we get these tear downs, but I can't wait for somebody really technically minded to give the machine a once over.

 

[wiz329]

Then what are they? Link to an example?

On 1155 (or 1150) systems you're limited to 20 total lanes of PCIe I believe (I'd have to check ark.intel.com to be sure). So if you want to add multiple GPUs (depending on how many you add), the connections get bumped down to x8 and sometimes even down to x4, even if they're plugged into a physical x16 slot and could function on a x16 link in a single GPU setup.

 

[Piggie]

When did you get your hands on one?

Don't need to.

Reviews already in are showing it barely much faster than the current iMac unless software is specifically written for it.

which is great it you happen to wish to run that particular program

I want a fast all found general machine

 

[wiz329]

Technically everything you say above is true! However there is much that Apple can do to adjust the power profile of the different boards in the machine.

The first thing I like to suggest is the removal of fluff, that is all circuitry that doesn't directly go to the goal of a high performance machine. If you look at the motherboard you can get a sense of what I mean here as it has a minimal of parts.

As for the GPUs the first two offerings are no problem at all power wise. The top end GPU appears to be a slightly down clocked version of one of AMDs workstation GPUs. In the case of the first two GPU card options I'd be surprised if the combined GPU power hits 200 watts flat out. Even on the cards themselves Apple can do much simply by selecting low power parts for GPU RAM.

So in the end yes there is lots that Apple can do to drive efficiency relative to a regular desktop workstation board. It is nice that we get these tear downs, but I can't wait for somebody really technically minded to give the machine a once over.

Right -- they can select lower power parts, just like everyone else.

As to the other board components, they're not going to contribute greatly, in relative terms, compared with the 3 main power-suckers.

As to the technical minded tear-down, Anand just posted his review. I'm in the middle of reading it. He usually has some interesting findings.

 

[Spinland]

Don't need to.

Reviews already in are showing it barely much faster than the current iMac unless software is specifically written for it.

which is great it you happen to wish to run that particular program

I want a fast all found general machine

Maybe some people don't understand the concept of "future proof." That surprises me, given the amount of bandwidth taken up by people who have just bought a machine and already want to be up on stuff they can replace inside, but there it is.

The current status quo is fine, but I wanted to buy a machine that is already set up to handle what's coming. Apple has stepped up to the plate with their prediction of what "that" is, and this machine is ready to handle that. If you agree with Apple's predictions, then this is the rig for you. If you don't, then you are cordially invited to go somewhere else.

 

[wizard]

Doubtful. With only a single socket, PCIe lanes are going to be at a premium (x40). My guess is that every single one is in use.

I've been wondering about this myself.

If you think x16 for each GPU card that leaves only eight lanes for the rest of the system. We could possible do six lanes for the TB I/O and two for the SSD but that seems to be extremely tight when it comes to the TB ports and it makes you wonder what the Ethernet I/O sits on.

If you think x8 for each GPU card that leaves 24 lanes for distribution to the rest of the system. So let's add them up, 4 for the Ethernet I/O, 12 for the TB I/O, 4 for miscellaneous I/O and four for the SSD. Both the SSD and Ethernet probably can get buy on two lanes so maybe that leaves enough lanes for another SSD.

Obviously this is a guessing game until somebody maps out the system. In any event one has to consider the possibility that there isn't enough PCI Express lanes to go around.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Serious question. If the new Mac Pro had these same components and offered identical performance in a conventional form factor, would it still have the wow factor?

 

[wizard]

Why would you do this anyways? It just sounds like a terrible kludge.

The only other thing besides CPU that would be worth upgrading are the proprietary GPUs. And then if a 3rd party manufacturer designs new GPUs, they will have to be mass produced for a decent price and fit within the power limits of the original GPU. At least with the older style Mac Pro, I was able to add another power supply to power more powerful GPUs. I don't see any place to add another power supply unless someone comes out with a more powerful and expensive power supply.

 

[SeattleMoose]

THIS….is not your Whiner's iMac.

Well done Apple.

 

[Spinland]

Serious question. If the new Mac Pro had these same components and offered identical performance in a conventional form factor, would it still have the wow factor?

As usual: I speak for absolutely no one other than myself. No, it would not. I am very much taken with this new direction and the design philosophy ties in beautifully with my existing workflow. I might be the 0.000000001% but they might as well have designed this rig for me and my studio.

 

[AppleScruff1]

As usual: I speak for absolutely no one other than myself. No, it would not. I am very much taken with this new direction and the design philosophy ties in beautifully with my existing workflow. I might be the 0.000000001% but they might as well have designed this rig for me and my studio.

Why not? If it did the exact same thing in a tower case, what is the importance of the wow factor for professional use?

 

[Rogifan]

Serious question. If the new Mac Pro had these same components and offered identical performance in a conventional form factor, would it still have the wow factor?

No, hence why it's not in a "conventional" form factor.

 

[wiz329]

Why not? If it did the exact same thing in a tower case, what is the importance of the wow factor for professional use?

Its easier to access/work with if it can fit on your desk.

Also, on-site work becomes much more doable.

 

[milo]

Reviews already in are showing it barely much faster than the current iMac

That would be for the quad.

Guess what, they make it in 6, 8, and 12 core too. Those are your all around fast machines.

 

[Spinland]

Why not? If it did the exact same thing in a tower case, what is the importance of the wow factor for professional use?

On one hand, my desktop real estate makes the size and form factor of this nMP perfect. On the other, I already have all of my work and data external so having a big-ass case full of internal storage bays would be a terrible waste, not counting my aversion to spending any time tinkering inside a computer case.

I don't give a rat's about upgradeability or any of that computer enthusiast stuff. I want a machine that comes out of the box ready to work hard for me, and when its life is done I'll retire and replace it. Just my personal philosophy and again I do not presume to speak for anyone else.

 

[Rogifan]

Why not? If it did the exact same thing in a tower case, what is the importance of the wow factor for professional use?

From AnandTech's review:

Ultimately it’s the thermal core that the new Mac Pro is designed around. It’s the most area efficient dual-GPU setup I’ve ever seen. There’s little functional benefit to having a desktop chassis that small, but you could say the same about Apple’s recent iMac redesign that focused on making a thinner all-in-one. If the desktop market is to not just stick around but grow as well, it needs to evolve - and that also includes design.

The new Mac Pro is a dramatic departure from its predecessors. The chassis is still all aluminum (with the exception of a plastic cover over the fan) but it features a dark anodized finish vs. the bright silver finish of its predecessors. It’s a glossy finish but the good news is that unlike a mobile device it’s pretty easy to ensure that the system remains looking clean. The surface of the new Mac Pro is also incredibly smooth. There's a heft and quality to the design that is at odds with how small and portable it is. I'm hardly an art critic but I do feel like there's a lot to appreciate about the design and construction of the new Mac Pro. I needed to move the system closer to my power testing rig so it ended up immediately to the left of me. I have to admit that I've been petting it regularly ever since. It's really awesomely smooth. It's actually the first desktop in a very long time that I want very close to me. It feels more like a desk accessory than a computer, which is funny to say given just how much power is contained within this tiny package.

 

[wiz329]

Don't need to.

Reviews already in are showing it barely much faster than the current iMac unless software is specifically written for it.

which is great it you happen to wish to run that particular program

I want a fast all found general machine

Nope.

----------

I've been wondering about this myself.

If you think x16 for each GPU card that leaves only eight lanes for the rest of the system. We could possible do six lanes for the TB I/O and two for the SSD but that seems to be extremely tight when it comes to the TB ports and it makes you wonder what the Ethernet I/O sits on.

If you think x8 for each GPU card that leaves 24 lanes for distribution to the rest of the system. So let's add them up, 4 for the Ethernet I/O, 12 for the TB I/O, 4 for miscellaneous I/O and four for the SSD. Both the SSD and Ethernet probably can get buy on two lanes so maybe that leaves enough lanes for another SSD.

Obviously this is a guessing game until somebody maps out the system. In any event one has to consider the possibility that there isn't enough PCI Express lanes to go around.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/8

 

[milo]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/8

Which says

Of the 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, 32 are already occupied by the two AMD FirePro GPUs. Having a full x16 interface to the GPUs isn’t really necessary for gaming performance, but if you want to treat each GPU as a first class citizen then this is the way to go. That leaves us with 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes left.

 

[wiz329]

Which says

Yeah, I saw that. Interesting ... I stand corrected. There are 8 lanes left, which are shared via a PLX switch. Very interesting.