I think some, if not most, would be better served by a user-upgradable SSD, but alas.
I wonder how much of a cheaper upgrade this CPU option will turn out to be.
I had come to believe the SSD was user upgradable, in fact I could have sworn is states that on the Apple web site ... Yep I just checked. It is marked as "User Accessible" so if that doesn't mean it's upgradable by a user what on earth does that mean! You can look at it?
Meanwhile Apple just emailed me to say my Mac Pro is still in transit and may be delayed. It arrived in Jacksonville, FL at 4 pm that's, a four hour drive without a stop. Looks like tomorrow now.
For the same reason pickup trucks have only one truck bed. You can order a bigger truck bed, but it makes no sense to have more than one.
That's... the goofiest analogy I've seen in a long time. I don't think it's even correctly applied either, because the physical limitations on one have nothing to do with the physical limitations on the other.
Heck, stripe two like-sized modules and you get even greater bulk transfer speed.
I think some, if not most, would be better served by a user-upgradable SSD, but alas.
I wonder how much of a cheaper upgrade this CPU option will turn out to be.
I had come to believe the SSD was user upgradable, in fact I could have sworn is states that on the Apple web site ... Yep I just checked. It is marked as "User Accessible" so if that doesn't mean it's upgradable by a user what on earth does that mean! You can look at it?
Meanwhile Apple just emailed me to say my Mac Pro is still in transit and may be delayed. It arrived in Jacksonville, FL at 4 pm that's, a four hour drive without a stop. Looks like tomorrow now.
It certainly looks like its user upgradable, it's just that the article is misleading by stating "In addition to the socketed CPU, RAM in the new systems will also be user-upgradable, as Apple has opted to use traditional RAM slots. However, user-replaceable components appear to end there."
The installed SSD looks similar to one from a MacBook:
As for your delivery, I'd turn in early. Wouldn't want to be woken up by the delivery and having your wife complain you still haven't taken a shower at 3pm
Edit: the reason some people are getting the 1TB option is because there currently doesn't seem to be a larger one available.
I had come to believe the SSD was user upgradable, in fact I could have sworn is states that on the Apple web site ... Yep I just checked. It is marked as "User Accessible" so if that doesn't mean it's upgradable by a user what on earth does that mean! You can look at it?
User accessible means you can get to it easily without violating any covered screws or adhesive. It also means you could upgrade to a large PCIe flash-storage device with something from Apple. It doesn't have to mean you could upgrade to a third-party flash-storage device.
I can TOTALLY see an nVidia 3rd party card being created, pushing their CUDA drivers. The GPU upgrades will likely cost a left nut.. but certainly and likely possible.
The graphics boards are in fact custom Apple boards, that probably contain proprietary chips. I doubt anyone will be able to produce anything compatible.
It certainly looks like its user upgradable, it's just that the article is misleading by stating "In addition to the socketed CPU, RAM in the new systems will also be user-upgradable, as Apple has opted to use traditional RAM slots. However, user-replaceable components appear to end there."
The installed SSD looks similar to one from a MacBook:
I checked and most PCIe flash storage devices are mounted on PCI cards. I did find an Intel 525 series SSD but they only go up to 240GB. The form factor looks very similar, it's just a lot longer. This doesn't mean I looked at all of them but something like the Intel 525 SSD might be able to work.
I still don't get why they should be the same, especially when I've read that one GPU will be for OpenCL and not typical graphics. Now I do agree with others who have suggested that dual SSDs (in a RAID 0 configuration) could allow for nearly double the read/write times and possibly do so with very little cost additional cost by halving each SSD capacity, as well as allowing for the option of 2TB.
I checked and most PCIe flash storage devices are mounted on PCI cards. I did find an Intel 525 series SSD but they only go up to 240GB. The form factor looks very similar, it's just a lot longer. This doesn't mean I looked at all of them but something like the Intel 525 SSD might be able to work.
[image]
All the non-2.5" form factor SSDs I've seen use the PCIe in terms of the HW interconnect but up until Apple did it with the MBAs they all used SATA for the bus interface, and as previously mentioned many are electrically different from standard PCIe.
I still don't get why they should be the same, especially when I've read that one GPU will be for OpenCL and not typical graphics. Now I do agree with others who have suggested that dual SSDs (in a RAID 0 configuration) could allow for nearly double the read/write times and possibly do so with very little cost additional cost by halving each SSD capacity, as well as allowing for the option of 2TB.
As far as I can tell, the GPU's themselves are the same. Isn't the OpenCL a matter of software, just like the 1st GPU will be used for most graphics tasks and the 2nd GPU used if the CPU is tied-up?
As for the SSD they must have done something to reach 1200MB/s. Since you can't get more than 64GB in a single NAND package they will need to have installed 16 chips in order to get to 1TB. My guess? They created a stripe set in order to get to the 1200MB/s.
As far as I can tell, the GPU's themselves are the same. Isn't the OpenCL a matter of software, just like the 1st GPU will be used for most graphics tasks and the 2nd GPU used if the CPU is tied-up?
As for the SSD they must have done something to reach 1200MB/s. Since you can't get more than 64GB in a single NAND package they will need to have installed 16 chips in order to get to 1TB. My guess? They created a stripe set in order to get to the 1200MB/s.
Thoughts?
1) The GPUs are the same but the boards they are mounted are definitely different in some regard.
2) It would be amazing to get over 2000 MBps but I wonder why they didn't do that if it's possible. To leave something for a future update? The technology wasn't ready for it? Cost? Other limitations that wouldn't have increased the performance to a point that would make it worthwhile?
3) I think we're at a point again, but this time with mobile devices, where performance of the system is hindered by storage. I wish they would do an "SSD on a chip" for their iDevices. Even just two stacked chips with a little controller could nearly double read/write performance, I'd think.
Like their other PCIe options I assume it's PCIe on the HW but uses a unique pin setup in the layout. Meaning, it will be easy for them to figure this out but it does take some time to get the schematics and put into production.
That's no doubt true. I'm not worried about the SSD.
However, there has been a question about the cpu. On my 2009 Mac Pro, the CPU's are headless. That is, Intel supplied them to Apple without the top cover. Supposedly this gives better heat transfer to the sinks. But it also makes them not standard.
When anandtexh went to change the cpu's to faster versions, they blew out the CPU mother board. That wa because the headless CPU's were just a bit thinner, and tightening the sinks down all the way on the replacement units caused them to crack, and blow out the main CPU board. When he got a new board, and new cpu's,he just tightened them down a bit less. That doesn't seem to be a reliable solution.
As a result of his experience, I measured the thickness of mine, and made washer shims in my shop, which I put on the screws. So I tightened them down without a problem.
The question here is whether these cpu's are standard, or whether Apple is doing something special again. It seems to have the top, but I'm not sure of that mounting bracket.
The value of socketed CPUs is blown out of proportion. Intel changes sockets after a few years and stops producing newer chips for old sockets. Example: the last tower-case Mac Pro was socketed, had expandable PCI slots and 4 drive bays, but people whined daily on the web about how "stale" the Mac Pro had gotten. Sockets mean nothing.
For the same reason pickup trucks have only one truck bed. You can order a bigger truck bed, but it makes no sense to have more than one.
Yeah, just like no sense having dual GPUs, right? Even the Mac Mini can support 2 internal hard drives. So I guess that means the Mac Mini makes no sense.
Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so! I have been saying for weeks to all the naysayers saying that the cpu was soldered to the board that, Intel does not build a solder on version of the Xeon like they do for core I chips. All current Xeons use and LGA 2011 socket. Which means the mac pros cpu is replaceable.
Update: Also note that there using a lidded cpu, with the heat spreader in place unlike the 2012 mac pros. That makes upgrading even easier.
Comments
What's the connection between GPUs and SSDs?
I've replaced CPUs in Mac Pros before and I didn't have to replace the system board to do it.
I had come to believe the SSD was user upgradable, in fact I could have sworn is states that on the Apple web site ... Yep I just checked. It is marked as "User Accessible" so if that doesn't mean it's upgradable by a user what on earth does that mean! You can look at it?
Meanwhile Apple just emailed me to say my Mac Pro is still in transit and may be delayed. It arrived in Jacksonville, FL at 4 pm that's, a four hour drive without a stop. Looks like tomorrow now.
That's... the goofiest analogy I've seen in a long time. I don't think it's even correctly applied either, because the physical limitations on one have nothing to do with the physical limitations on the other.
Heck, stripe two like-sized modules and you get even greater bulk transfer speed.
It certainly looks like its user upgradable, it's just that the article is misleading by stating "In addition to the socketed CPU, RAM in the new systems will also be user-upgradable, as Apple has opted to use traditional RAM slots. However, user-replaceable components appear to end there."
The installed SSD looks similar to one from a MacBook:
As for your delivery, I'd turn in early. Wouldn't want to be woken up by the delivery and having your wife complain you still haven't taken a shower at 3pm
Edit: the reason some people are getting the 1TB option is because there currently doesn't seem to be a larger one available.
I had come to believe the SSD was user upgradable, in fact I could have sworn is states that on the Apple web site ... Yep I just checked. It is marked as "User Accessible" so if that doesn't mean it's upgradable by a user what on earth does that mean! You can look at it?
User accessible means you can get to it easily without violating any covered screws or adhesive. It also means you could upgrade to a large PCIe flash-storage device with something from Apple. It doesn't have to mean you could upgrade to a third-party flash-storage device.
Its location. There are 3 boards, one for the CPU, two for the GPU. On one of the GPU is the SSD, the other board seems 'empty'.
http://blog.macsales.com/22108-new-mac-pro-2013-teardown
I can TOTALLY see an nVidia 3rd party card being created, pushing their CUDA drivers. The GPU upgrades will likely cost a left nut.. but certainly and likely possible.
The graphics boards are in fact custom Apple boards, that probably contain proprietary chips. I doubt anyone will be able to produce anything compatible.
It certainly looks like its user upgradable, it's just that the article is misleading by stating "In addition to the socketed CPU, RAM in the new systems will also be user-upgradable, as Apple has opted to use traditional RAM slots. However, user-replaceable components appear to end there."
The installed SSD looks similar to one from a MacBook:
I checked and most PCIe flash storage devices are mounted on PCI cards. I did find an Intel 525 series SSD but they only go up to 240GB. The form factor looks very similar, it's just a lot longer. This doesn't mean I looked at all of them but something like the Intel 525 SSD might be able to work.
I still don't get why they should be the same, especially when I've read that one GPU will be for OpenCL and not typical graphics. Now I do agree with others who have suggested that dual SSDs (in a RAID 0 configuration) could allow for nearly double the read/write times and possibly do so with very little cost additional cost by halving each SSD capacity, as well as allowing for the option of 2TB.
All the non-2.5" form factor SSDs I've seen use the PCIe in terms of the HW interconnect but up until Apple did it with the MBAs they all used SATA for the bus interface, and as previously mentioned many are electrically different from standard PCIe.
As far as I can tell, the GPU's themselves are the same. Isn't the OpenCL a matter of software, just like the 1st GPU will be used for most graphics tasks and the 2nd GPU used if the CPU is tied-up?
As for the SSD they must have done something to reach 1200MB/s. Since you can't get more than 64GB in a single NAND package they will need to have installed 16 chips in order to get to 1TB. My guess? They created a stripe set in order to get to the 1200MB/s.
Thoughts?
1) The GPUs are the same but the boards they are mounted are definitely different in some regard.
2) It would be amazing to get over 2000 MBps but I wonder why they didn't do that if it's possible. To leave something for a future update? The technology wasn't ready for it? Cost? Other limitations that wouldn't have increased the performance to a point that would make it worthwhile?
3) I think we're at a point again, but this time with mobile devices, where performance of the system is hindered by storage. I wish they would do an "SSD on a chip" for their iDevices. Even just two stacked chips with a little controller could nearly double read/write performance, I'd think.
However, there has been a question about the cpu. On my 2009 Mac Pro, the CPU's are headless. That is, Intel supplied them to Apple without the top cover. Supposedly this gives better heat transfer to the sinks. But it also makes them not standard.
When anandtexh went to change the cpu's to faster versions, they blew out the CPU mother board. That wa because the headless CPU's were just a bit thinner, and tightening the sinks down all the way on the replacement units caused them to crack, and blow out the main CPU board. When he got a new board, and new cpu's,he just tightened them down a bit less. That doesn't seem to be a reliable solution.
As a result of his experience, I measured the thickness of mine, and made washer shims in my shop, which I put on the screws. So I tightened them down without a problem.
The question here is whether these cpu's are standard, or whether Apple is doing something special again. It seems to have the top, but I'm not sure of that mounting bracket.
I don't think they are.
For the same reason pickup trucks have only one truck bed. You can order a bigger truck bed, but it makes no sense to have more than one.
Yeah, just like no sense having dual GPUs, right? Even the Mac Mini can support 2 internal hard drives. So I guess that means the Mac Mini makes no sense.
OWC still doesn't offer upgrades to the 2013 Macbook Air PCIe SSD
Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so! I have been saying for weeks to all the naysayers saying that the cpu was soldered to the board that, Intel does not build a solder on version of the Xeon like they do for core I chips. All current Xeons use and LGA 2011 socket. Which means the mac pros cpu is replaceable.
Update: Also note that there using a lidded cpu, with the heat spreader in place unlike the 2012 mac pros. That makes upgrading even easier.