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.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Second half of the year we were supposed to get Vega 20, which would be a die shrink of Vega that would consume far less power. Dunno where it is now in AMD's schedule, but it's a possibility for the iMac Pro.
Edit: Reading second half of 2018. That isn't happening for the iMac Pro.
Edit: Reading second half of 2018. That isn't happening for the iMac Pro.
Let's just hope that the amigos don't decide that downclocking to fit a 150 watt power envelope in a compact case isn't what pros want for the mMP....
One of the accessories for the iMac Pro will have to be
Let's try to get one thing straight. Cooling won't be a problem for the new Mac Pro since it will be a modular design. It would have been a problem for the trashcan design like you said, but good thing the new Mac Pro isn't that design.
Now that out of the way, we can turn to iMac Pro. The Xeons that'll go into the iMac Pro will most likely be 140W chips if the i9 series are any indicator, like you say. Personally, I think we will most definitely see some tweaking to get that 140W number lower given they are Xeons.
If anything, you should be more concerned about the GPU. It will produce twice as much heat output compared to the CPU since it's rumoured to be 300W+. But because you support AMD, you're too blinded to criticize that and are continually going on about Intel's CPUs.
I'm going to give Apple the benefit of the doubt after they (hopefully) learned their lesson with the trashcan Mac Pro. The new iMac Pro should have some sort of crazy cooling to house those kinds of internals.
Last edited:
what connection are you making between 'modular' and 'cooling won't be a problem'?
i'm not saying there will be thermal problems with mMP.. but just wondering why modular inherently means cooled.
?
Well if Apple admitted they put themselves into a "thermal corner" with the current Mac Pro, one imagines they won't repeat the same mistake with the iMac Pro since it was supposed to be the new Mac Pro before a couple of months ago.
At least we already know the electrical size of the iMac Pro's thermal corner: 500 W.
Considering 140 W peak from the CPU and 300 W peak from GPU, this would leave 60 W for everything else. Everything else being the display, RAM, speakers, USB, Thunderbolt etc.
Compare this to the 450 W of the nMP and you can guess that the iMac Pro has to do some kind of clever management to keep everything cool.
right, got that part.. i even wrote:
"i'm not saying there will be thermal problems with mMP"
it's this that i'm questioning:
"Cooling won't be a problem for the new Mac Pro since it will be a modular design."
Which we've seen animations of, at least, and hands-on reports say the fans move a tremendous amount of air out of the machine.
[doublepost=1497938128][/doublepost]
I believe the 2009-2012 Mac Pro towers offered separate cooling zones within the case for the CPUs / memory and the expansion cards.
6900K 8C/16T has 3.2 GHz base clock. Xeon E5 1680v4 has 3.4 GHz base clock. Server CPUs very rarely have kower clocks than their HEDT brothers.
This is according to WTFTech site? TBP Numbers indicate the amount of thermal capacity is possible to dissipate by the shroud, not the actual power draw. RX Vega in iMac Pro will be declocked to 1350 MHz, and around 175 W TDP.
The power draw under load for the 7900x is around 185w, not 140. It is 10 core chip. 8 core, 7820X is consuming at best 10 W less. They are not 140W chips.
Secondly. How do you guys know the TDP of Vega GPUs? The GPU is downclocked to 1350 MHz and also has lower TDP.
Last edited:
AMD is repeating the Radeon Fury X and Nano gimmick with Vega. Fury X = 275W, Fury Nano = 175W. And in the end, the speed difference between those two was about 5-10%. AMD really likes to overclock their chips at the factory to get couple of bucks more from those who don't care about efficiency. Similarily RX 580 = 185W, Pro 580 = ~100W, speed difference around 10%. Typical AMD. Most likely exactly same with Vega. 275W FE, 175W Pro.
Last edited:
Not exactly
.RX Vega Nano is rumored to have 150W TDP, with single 6 pin connector, and 10 TFLOPs FP32 performance.
Hence 175W RX Vega 64 in iMac Pro with 1.35 GHz, and 11 TFLOPs FP32 compute power.
P.S. THIS last part is my speculation.
Last edited:
First post from my new iMac 27 i7, rx580 etc etc etc.
This is by long the fastest Mac I've ever use, period even I ran Deus Ex (a game) and it was smooth at 5K, while at 4K seems optimal, anyway its impressive, this is also the fastest machine compilig source with Xcode, really dramatic most due highest single thread and fasted storage, its takes almost the half time my old mp6,1 to compile some large apps.
I didn't test GPGPU performance yet, but it should be promising while not faster than dual D700 on FP64.
No plan to test TB3 eGPU until Mac OS HS its released and I have more info on possibilities to hook nVidia GPUs.
This iMac also is much more cooler than my 1st gen iMac 5K, it should be due the GPU waste less power on GUI related tasks.
Its the iMac 27 RX580 a Workstation? NO, unless you are a programmer or a 4K VideoBlogger, and plans not to run heavy compute workloads, but the concept is promising, maybe we dont need a Mac Pro but an external heterogeneous compute module slaved thru TB3 or a custom fabric to an iMac Pro.
P.D. I Ordered mine with everything maxed out except Memory and Storage (~2750$), I opted for 8GB/512, but I purchased a 64GB Kit and apple's TB2<=>TB3 adapter to plug my old stuff.
Only thing I still dont like its the iMac's webcam, even my iPad's front cam its much better, sound its good (much better than my older iMac) but far away to be stellar.
This is by long the fastest Mac I've ever use, period even I ran Deus Ex (a game) and it was smooth at 5K, while at 4K seems optimal, anyway its impressive, this is also the fastest machine compilig source with Xcode, really dramatic most due highest single thread and fasted storage, its takes almost the half time my old mp6,1 to compile some large apps.
I didn't test GPGPU performance yet, but it should be promising while not faster than dual D700 on FP64.
No plan to test TB3 eGPU until Mac OS HS its released and I have more info on possibilities to hook nVidia GPUs.
This iMac also is much more cooler than my 1st gen iMac 5K, it should be due the GPU waste less power on GUI related tasks.
Its the iMac 27 RX580 a Workstation? NO, unless you are a programmer or a 4K VideoBlogger, and plans not to run heavy compute workloads, but the concept is promising, maybe we dont need a Mac Pro but an external heterogeneous compute module slaved thru TB3 or a custom fabric to an iMac Pro.
P.D. I Ordered mine with everything maxed out except Memory and Storage (~2750$), I opted for 8GB/512, but I purchased a 64GB Kit and apple's TB2<=>TB3 adapter to plug my old stuff.
Only thing I still dont like its the iMac's webcam, even my iPad's front cam its much better, sound its good (much better than my older iMac) but far away to be stellar.
Wait wait wait, now you're talking under load. I'm not talking under load, I'm talking about official wattage of the chips provided by Intel/AMD. The 7900x is a 140 chip. Getting under load figures is difficult and frankly, it'll cancel out if you take the GPU under load as well. Not to mention, these are NOT the chips that'll go into the iMac Pro, it'll be their Xeon versions and will most likely be lower in TDP than 140W.
Again like I said, if anything, the bigger concern is the Vega GPU. You even 'speculated' that it will be 175W. I'm assuming this is not under load and so 175W>140W, the bigger concern is the GPU.
Frankly, if I was to offer my own speculation, it will be over 200W.
Last edited:
If the GPUs will have EFI power gate, they will never exceed the power target, just like GPUs from MacBook Pro. Just like GPUs from Mac Pro 6.1. Just like GPUs from any other Mac computer.
Maybe you guys do not know it, but the GPUs Apple uses, have power target(power limit) set in BIOS, and will never exceed it, no matter what. Hence the 175W@ 1.35 GHz core clock and 11 TFLOPs of compute power. Frontier edition has 1.6 GHz core clock, hence 13 TFLOPs of compute power. The TBP is NOT power draw of those GPUs, it is maximum thermal capacity the board can handle in air and liquid cooled versions. Going by process advantage alone 14 nm vs 28 nm, 1.6 GHz Vega, with 4096 GCN cores should consume the same amount of power as Fury X, under load, which is 246W. Declocking the GPU - you save tons of power draw.
Power consumed is always dissipated in heat. Do the maths. If the CPU consumes under load 185W, if the GPU consumes under load 175W it means that you get 360W of power, in closed system. There has to be some magic in the cooling system if it want to be cooled properly.
175W for the GPU underload? Hahaha, definitely not.
Let's stop with speculations and talk with actual manufacturer posted wattage. What we have is a simple matter of the Xeon CPU going into iMac Pro having <=140W of rated TDP and currently the 13tflop FE Vega chip has figures of 300W - 375W. Source: vega-board-power.jpg
There is NO WAY that the Vega chip (regardless of being downclocked) will be less than 140W of the Xeon, under or not under load. For you to even try to argue otherwise makes me reaffirm my suspicions that you have utterly no idea what you talk about in your posts.
Last edited:
If the GPU will have power gate inits BIOS, yes, it will never exceed that power draw. Just like MacBook Pro Radeon Pro 460/560. Those GPUs have 35W Power target/Power gate.
I am not arguing that GPU will have less than 140W power target. IMO, if Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has 1.6 GHz, and Radeon Vega 64 in iMac has 1.35 GHz, we are looking at 175W TDP GPU.
How come? Rumor has it that Vega Nano has 1.2 GHz core clock, 360 GB/s bandiwdth on HBM2, and 10 TFLOPs in 150W TDP, with single 6 pin connector. If the GPU in iMac Pro has 175W power target - it will use ALL of it, under load, but will not exceed it. Just like FirePro D700 from MP 6.1, and Radeon Pro 460 from MacBook Pro.
Secondly. It appears you are not familiar with power draw of AMD GPUs.
RX 480 with 1.266 MHz - 163W of power drawn.
The same chip, in Radeon Pro WX 7100 with 1243 MHz, just 21 MHz less than RX 480 - 135W of power drawn.
Radeon Pro 580 appears to have 100W TDP, with 1.2 GHz. 5% clock difference - 40% lower power consumption.
If you are so attached to the Radeon Vega power draw so much explain to me. How come both: Air cooled, and Liquid Cooled GPUs have the same level of performance, yet, the liquid cooled GPU has higher power consumption according to that graph?
Because this is not power consumption, but amount of heat the GPU cooler is able to dissipate.
So yes. The Vega GPU may actually have lower power consumption than 10 and 18 core CPU. Because 8 core 7820X, at least, appears to consume 175W of power under load, according to tests.
K I just took this statement but now need source. Now you open up more speculations; what the under load wattage of the card will be (supposedly 175W according to you) and what Apple will use as the power gate. Who is to say these numbers will be perfectly aligned? Just you.
Source?
I'm going by these sources:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3201...ons-specs-and-pricing-mean-for-pc-gamers.html
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-vega-gpu-specifications
http://www.droidreport.com/articles...080-ti-rival-radeon-rx-vega-arriving-soon.htm
Regardless of this is power consumption or heat dissipated, it invalidates your speculations of a downclocked 11tflop Vega chip having 175W, especially under load. The discrepancy between the figures is much too great to ignore.
No way in hell.
Do you know how BIOS power gate works? It does not allow the GPU to exceed certain power target. You can do this with Intel Core i7 CPUs in BIOS. Buy 7700K, and lock it to 35W TDP. It will never exceed this power target, but will obviously deckloc itself under load, to maintain within that power target. Usually at 35W it is 3.8 GHz under load on all cores.
Then you have effect of lowered voltage on GPU.
For example. FirePro D700 used AMD Tahiti Chip. Normal voltage for the GPU was 1.25V, if I remember correctly, and the power consumption of this GPU was around 210W, at 1000 MHz(R9 280X).
Apple BIOS: compare to what our fellow Macrumor user have discovered in BIOSes of the GPUs:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/nmp-firepro-dxxx-clocks-and-tdp.1688128/
TDP is for stock clocks. Boost clock TDP target is 129W. It will never exceed this power target. It will declock the GPU to not exceed this.
And yes, this is only me who is saying this. What If I am right?
Retail supply line.
The numbers are about TBP. Again.
How come two GPUs with the same level of performance, but different shrouds have different Board powers? Because the TBP number does not relate to power draw of the GPU, but to power dissipated by the cooler of the GPU.
If the GPU has power target it will stay within the consumed power and not exceed this. 250 MHz, results in massively lower voltage. And that results in massively lower power consumption.
You are equating power draw of the GPU, with the power level the shroud is capable of dissipating. Here comes the logical problem, which may not turn out in reality.
That is only your opinion.
That's not a source, I want to see from a tech site that says Apple places 'power gates' and only runs them at a certain wattage. Across all their lineups.
So talking without sources yet again, typical.
No, they are two different cards.
"Frontier Edition is reportedly priced at USD $1,199; while the liquid-cooled variant is priced at $1,799."
The air cooled one is throttled lower. Since you like posting sources from forums so much, here is a whole discussion on the matter: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...tier-edition-tdp-and-pricing-revealed.234403/
My opinion takes reality into consideration. For you to think a CPU consumes more power under load than a GPU under load, again, confirms to me that you have absolutely and utterly no idea about whatever it is you are talking about.
edit:
Last edited:
Rumors point to the iMac Pro being on the LGA-3647 socket (Skylake-EX Xeons).
Assuming they will be using Xeon E5 Bronze/Silver CPUs, TDP will range between 45-160W with the 160W likely being for the top-end 26-core model. So an 18-core should be cooler and the 8-core exceptionally so.
Assuming they will be using Xeon E5 Bronze/Silver CPUs, TDP will range between 45-160W with the 160W likely being for the top-end 26-core model. So an 18-core should be cooler and the 8-core exceptionally so.
