It’s air cooled. This machine is very much likely to start thermal throttling once it reaches 80C during heavy workloads.
Ultimately all computers are air cooled. Liquid cooling gives additional heat-sink capacity and moves the heat to a radiator that releases the heat to the air.
The Mac Pro's CPU Thermal module is quite large and has a dedicated fan so should radiate quite nicely.
You are right. The advantage of the liquid coolers isn’t the liquid in itself. It’s the flexible pipe that transports heat to a radiator with better oriented fans which produce better flow rate across larger heat sinks or radiators. You can get the same result using a heat pipe, like the ones in the iMac Pro or MBP, but the liquid allows flexible piping so that it can go into generic boxes where you don’t know where everything can be mounted.
PC air coolers that go directly on top of the CPU package have to go into a more constrained volume, so the size of the heatsink or radiator and fan will be limited if they want the product to be compatible to as many boards and boxes as possible.
Apple has a custom solution with a gigantic ~7” fan, that is about 2” to 3” thick, blowing across a gigantic heatsink. I don’t think there is a generic PC motherboard that can have something like this, so they have to trade for more noise, liquid coolers to move the heatsink and fan to a different location in the box, do a custom design like Apple, etc.
wizard69 said: ... In the end a maxed out machine may not be anywhere near as quiet as a base line model. Remember some of these third party cards have their own fans so no matter what Apple does fans will be an issue.
As for margin it is pretty hard not to throttle a CPU these days with out high performance cooling. I’m certain somebody with deep pockets and time on their hands will he testing this new Mac Pro to see how well it does. There is little to be said until the testing comes in.
Oh yeah, if you stuff some commercial GPU in there with noisy fans, then you don't get quiet machine anymore. But, it will be interesting to see how more fully loaded Apple configs come out in terms of sound.
tht said: The machine isn’t limited by thermals. They choose to design it for the typical 110 V 12 A circuit that are in the vast majority of places in the world. So it is limited by the typical power circuits in buildings. Higher power will mean some places will have to add higher power circuits, like the ones for a dryer or an oven. Then if you think about it, you do not want anymore than that for a machine that is on your desktop or desk side. It’ll heat up the room and you’ll need to have some consideration for the air conditioning the room.
No doubt! I wonder how long it will be before people buy them that haven't considered any of that. Most people don't have a dedicated circuit to their desk devoted solely to plug one computer (on an appropriate UPS). And, the AC aspect needs to be considered too if you're really pushing things.
tht said: It’s the Internet where 90% of the comments are from trolls, wishful thinkers and increasingly bots (if you were on Twitter or Facebook). So, always keep that in mind.
I suppose, but I think also just a ton of ignorant people. I saw a Twitter thread a bit ago where comments were saying you could build 10 PC with better performance for the price and stuff like that. I don't think most people have any clue what it actually is.
This is probably the most interesting article AI has ever published. Fascinating.
And to state the obvious SOMEONE has to pay for all those man-years of research. The $5K price is not all profit.
It is also the culmination of decades of consistent R&D.
So the cost is spread over multiple years & dozens of projects, not just one machine.
I would postulate that the G4/G5 era led to many thermal "finds" by Apple's R&D teams - we saw the quad nostrils, bigger, better fans, designed airflow, repositioning of other internal components, etc.
...he who stacks pork was a huge influence in my getting another 66 mhz out of my PowerMacs... long live xlr8yourmac.com !
Apple may be taking credit for the fans but most likely the fan supplier had a big role in its design. It is sort of like the mix between Apples IP and TSMC IP that gives us the high performance A series. That isn’t to dismiss Apples engineering just that projects like these are collaborations between the suppliers and Apple.
You're dismissing the research and development process too much. Apple isn't buying off-the-shelf components to design and assemble their machines. They design every aspect, and *then* go find suppliers that can meet those requirements. None of the fans in Apple machines are off-the-shelf, for example. They are all designed by Apple for Apple. Open up a typical PC, though, and you'll see the opposite.
It’s air cooled. This machine is very much likely to start thermal throttling once it reaches 80C during heavy workloads.
Nope, not going to happen.
It's not "if" it's "when." If I put 5 of these in a small enclosed office (with typical/poor HVAC) and run them full blast, at some point throttling has to enter the picture. The question is whether under "normal conditions" in a "reasonable environment" a fully spec'ed out Mac Pro will able to run at full performance indefinitely. I'm sure this was a big part of why it took so long to get these to market, so I'm optimistic that buyers will be pleased. But we don't know yet.
What we do know is that its thermal efficiency outperforms any other similar purpose computer you can buy. Nothing but win.
I don’t know why there’s such an uproar over the price tag. I had a small consultation business and bought a pair of two Mac llcis for a bit over $6,000 each, in 1992 USD. Didn’t complain as it was powerful and made money. Dropping, say, 10k$ on a workstation one could create a new “Jurassic Park” on is nothing to complain about. In the original movie the park was controlled by a Mac Quadra 700, which cost $6000, back then!
Yes, the actual cost of computers has come way down based on their sheer performance. My parents bought a Mac SE back in 1990 with an ImageWriter (dot matrix) printer and the system cost $4,000 at the time, and that was with the "educational discount". Insane looking back at that. (And that little computer is why I'm in software development today).
I could ramble on about how today's world is very different from the 1990's. So many more "small costs" these days that eat away at a consumer's "buying power". Even $1000 is a lot of money for some people, so the idea of buying a $5000 computer is no longer attainable like it was 30 years ago.
Nah, but Elon is probably right on it. Think Cybertruck and let your imagination run wild. (What a comparison, huh... the Cybertruck has to be one of the worst designs of all time. I should probably be punished for mentioning the two in the same post.)
I don’t know why there’s such an uproar over the price tag. I had a small consultation business and bought a pair of two Mac llcis for a bit over $6,000 each, in 1992 USD. Didn’t complain as it was powerful and made money. Dropping, say, 10k$ on a workstation one could create a new “Jurassic Park” on is nothing to complain about. In the original movie the park was controlled by a Mac Quadra 700, which cost $6000, back then!
Yes, the actual cost of computers has come way down based on their sheer performance. My parents bought a Mac SE back in 1990 with an ImageWriter (dot matrix) printer and the system cost $4,000 at the time, and that was with the "educational discount". Insane looking back at that. (And that little computer is why I'm in software development today).
I could ramble on about how today's world is very different from the 1990's. So many more "small costs" these days that eat away at a consumer's "buying power". Even $1000 is a lot of money for some people, so the idea of buying a $5000 computer is no longer attainable like it was 30 years ago.
I purchased the first Mac when it was released in 1984, the MRSP if I recall correctly was $2,499.00. Fortunately, I had a friend who worked for an authorized Apple dealer who got me pricing close to their dealer cost. That $2,499.00 in 1984 is now approximately $6,200.00 in 2019. Incredible the machine you get today for only $200.00 more. The folks need to stop the bitching.
It’s the Internet where 90% of the comments are from trolls, wishful thinkers and increasingly bots (if you were on Twitter or Facebook). So, always keep that in mind.
I suppose, but I think also just a ton of ignorant people. I saw a Twitter thread a bit ago where comments were saying you could build 10 PC with better performance for the price and stuff like that. I don't think most people have any clue what it actually is.
That argument is probably worth a closer look. If you can get 10 PCs working in parallel, do you get the same, better, or worse performance than a single Mac Pro? Google famously decided that a huge number of relatively basic machines, hooked up properly, would give better results in aggregate than a smaller number of more powerful machines - and that approach seems to have been the better one, but it's that "hooked up properly" step that took a huge amount of effort.
It’s the Internet where 90% of the comments are from trolls, wishful thinkers and increasingly bots (if you were on Twitter or Facebook). So, always keep that in mind.
I suppose, but I think also just a ton of ignorant people. I saw a Twitter thread a bit ago where comments were saying you could build 10 PC with better performance for the price and stuff like that. I don't think most people have any clue what it actually is.
That argument is probably worth a closer look. If you can get 10 PCs working in parallel, do you get the same, better, or worse performance than a single Mac Pro? Google famously decided that a huge number of relatively basic machines, hooked up properly, would give better results in aggregate than a smaller number of more powerful machines - and that approach seems to have been the better one, but it's that "hooked up properly" step that took a huge amount of effort.
This is an interesting read in favour of a single Mac Pro doing real-time image processing.
Well, for one, imagine the visibility the driver will have. Or, imagine trying to actually haul anything in a bed designed like that. Or, imagine how dangerous it would be to pedestrians. It's utter cr*p. I'd put it in a list of top 10 worst automotive designs, maybe top 5.
FileMakerFeller said: That argument is probably worth a closer look. If you can get 10 PCs working in parallel, do you get the same, better, or worse performance than a single Mac Pro? Google famously decided that a huge number of relatively basic machines, hooked up properly, would give better results in aggregate than a smaller number of more powerful machines - and that approach seems to have been the better one, but it's that "hooked up properly" step that took a huge amount of effort.
No, they weren't meaning 10 PCs that together would equal the MP, but they could build 10x MP performing machines for the money.
Otherwise, I agree for some things (for example, render farms). For example, I know people who use Google or Amazon computing platform stuff to spin up a render-farm on demand, so they don't necessarily need a 28-core machine anymore so they can render in the background, and it might be more cost effective not to try.
But, there are also times when you need that power local and all to yourself. The high-res video editing is a great example.
This is probably the most interesting article AI has ever published. Fascinating.
And to state the obvious SOMEONE has to pay for all those man-years of research. The $5K price is not all profit.
It is also the culmination of decades of consistent R&D.
So the cost is spread over multiple years & dozens of projects, not just one machine.
I would postulate that the G4/G5 era led to many thermal "finds" by Apple's R&D teams - we saw the quad nostrils, bigger, better fans, designed airflow, repositioning of other internal components, etc.
...he who stacks pork was a huge influence in my getting another 66 mhz out of my PowerMacs... long live xlr8yourmac.com !
Apple may be taking credit for the fans but most likely the fan supplier had a big role in its design. It is sort of like the mix between Apples IP and TSMC IP that gives us the high performance A series. That isn’t to dismiss Apples engineering just that projects like these are collaborations between the suppliers and Apple.
Source? Apple’s guy says right here:
"Years ago, we started redistributing the blades," says Ligtenberg. "They're still dynamically balanced, but they're actually randomized in terms of their BPF [blade pass frequency]. So you don't get huge harmonics that tend to be super annoying."
I very much doubt they were given that by their fan supplier and begun saying “we started redistributing the fans”. Ive has detailed it via animations on prior MBP launches.
Just like how they designed a better OLED screen & driver for the X and had supplier Samsung build it for them. They aren’t OTS.
This is probably the most interesting article AI has ever published. Fascinating.
And to state the obvious SOMEONE has to pay for all those man-years of research. The $5K price is not all profit.
It is also the culmination of decades of consistent R&D.
So the cost is spread over multiple years & dozens of projects, not just one machine.
I would postulate that the G4/G5 era led to many thermal "finds" by Apple's R&D teams - we saw the quad nostrils, bigger, better fans, designed airflow, repositioning of other internal components, etc.
...he who stacks pork was a huge influence in my getting another 66 mhz out of my PowerMacs... long live xlr8yourmac.com !
Apple may be taking credit for the fans but most likely the fan supplier had a big role in its design. It is sort of like the mix between Apples IP and TSMC IP that gives us the high performance A series. That isn’t to dismiss Apples engineering just that projects like these are collaborations between the suppliers and Apple.
You're dismissing the research and development process too much. Apple isn't buying off-the-shelf components to design and assemble their machines. They design every aspect, and *then* go find suppliers that can meet those requirements. None of the fans in Apple machines are off-the-shelf, for example. They are all designed by Apple for Apple. Open up a typical PC, though, and you'll see the opposite.
It’s the Internet where 90% of the comments are from trolls, wishful thinkers and increasingly bots (if you were on Twitter or Facebook). So, always keep that in mind.
I suppose, but I think also just a ton of ignorant people. I saw a Twitter thread a bit ago where comments were saying you could build 10 PC with better performance for the price and stuff like that. I don't think most people have any clue what it actually is.
That argument is probably worth a closer look. If you can get 10 PCs working in parallel, do you get the same, better, or worse performance than a single Mac Pro? Google famously decided that a huge number of relatively basic machines, hooked up properly, would give better results in aggregate than a smaller number of more powerful machines - and that approach seems to have been the better one, but it's that "hooked up properly" step that took a huge amount of effort.
Awesome. Hook up 10 machines under your desk or in your editing bay and let us know how it goes.
It’s the Internet where 90% of the comments are from trolls, wishful thinkers and increasingly bots (if you were on Twitter or Facebook). So, always keep that in mind.
I suppose, but I think also just a ton of ignorant people. I saw a Twitter thread a bit ago where comments were saying you could build 10 PC with better performance for the price and stuff like that. I don't think most people have any clue what it actually is.
That argument is probably worth a closer look. If you can get 10 PCs working in parallel, do you get the same, better, or worse performance than a single Mac Pro? Google famously decided that a huge number of relatively basic machines, hooked up properly, would give better results in aggregate than a smaller number of more powerful machines - and that approach seems to have been the better one, but it's that "hooked up properly" step that took a huge amount of effort.
This is an interesting read in favour of a single Mac Pro doing real-time image processing.
It demonstrates how 99% Internet commentators just don’t know how much things costs, or anything outside of what their experience is. Laforet drops this nugget:
And the 3 YouTubers all said they were recorded RED RAW video, with some doing multiple streams.
Just a casual mention, no big deal, that these people have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment in their office. Some of them have employees! The wetware gets even more expensive than the hardware. And never mentioned is the cost of software. They can cost 10x the cost of the computer they run on through the lifetime of the computer. A mid tier license of Creo CAD software is $10k per year. That’s the middle tier. You’ll have to pay extra to be able to run one instance of that software, only one instance of the app at a time (they check), for a floating license to be able to install it to run on another computer in the lab.
Ie, if you have a job to do, DIY sounds dangerous just from the liability alone.
This is probably the most interesting article AI has ever published. Fascinating.
And to state the obvious SOMEONE has to pay for all those man-years of research. The $5K price is not all profit.
It is also the culmination of decades of consistent R&D.
So the cost is spread over multiple years & dozens of projects, not just one machine.
I would postulate that the G4/G5 era led to many thermal "finds" by Apple's R&D teams - we saw the quad nostrils, bigger, better fans, designed airflow, repositioning of other internal components, etc.
...he who stacks pork was a huge influence in my getting another 66 mhz out of my PowerMacs... long live xlr8yourmac.com !
Apple may be taking credit for the fans but most likely the fan supplier had a big role in its design. It is sort of like the mix between Apples IP and TSMC IP that gives us the high performance A series. That isn’t to dismiss Apples engineering just that projects like these are collaborations between the suppliers and Apple.
You're dismissing the research and development process too much. Apple isn't buying off-the-shelf components to design and assemble their machines. They design every aspect, and *then* go find suppliers that can meet those requirements. None of the fans in Apple machines are off-the-shelf, for example. They are all designed by Apple for Apple. Open up a typical PC, though, and you'll see the opposite.
Exactly. This stuff is bespoke.
Check out the link in the article to the Popular Mechanics article.
"Since most off-the-shelf fans would be too loud, Apple designs them internally."
And the article gives the reason why there are no filters on the fans or enclosure, and why hemispherical holes were used.
I don’t know why there’s such an uproar over the price tag. I had a small consultation business and bought a pair of two Mac llcis for a bit over $6,000 each, in 1992 USD. Didn’t complain as it was powerful and made money. Dropping, say, 10k$ on a workstation one could create a new “Jurassic Park” on is nothing to complain about. In the original movie the park was controlled by a Mac Quadra 700, which cost $6000, back then!
You know they weren’t actually controlling a dinosaur park with a Quadra, right?
It’s air cooled. This machine is very much likely to start thermal throttling once it reaches 80C during heavy workloads.
Nope, not going to happen.
The best cooling system that money can buy will only ever be able to cool silicon to ambient temperature, and fans aren’t able to achieve that, especially those designed to be quiet. High-end PCs become saturated with heat fairly quickly all thanks to the limitations provided by physics.
Comments
PC air coolers that go directly on top of the CPU package have to go into a more constrained volume, so the size of the heatsink or radiator and fan will be limited if they want the product to be compatible to as many boards and boxes as possible.
Apple has a custom solution with a gigantic ~7” fan, that is about 2” to 3” thick, blowing across a gigantic heatsink. I don’t think there is a generic PC motherboard that can have something like this, so they have to trade for more noise, liquid coolers to move the heatsink and fan to a different location in the box, do a custom design like Apple, etc.
No doubt! I wonder how long it will be before people buy them that haven't considered any of that. Most people don't have a dedicated circuit to their desk devoted solely to plug one computer (on an appropriate UPS). And, the AC aspect needs to be considered too if you're really pushing things.
I suppose, but I think also just a ton of ignorant people. I saw a Twitter thread a bit ago where comments were saying you could build 10 PC with better performance for the price and stuff like that. I don't think most people have any clue what it actually is.
You're dismissing the research and development process too much. Apple isn't buying off-the-shelf components to design and assemble their machines. They design every aspect, and *then* go find suppliers that can meet those requirements. None of the fans in Apple machines are off-the-shelf, for example. They are all designed by Apple for Apple. Open up a typical PC, though, and you'll see the opposite.
Yes, the actual cost of computers has come way down based on their sheer performance. My parents bought a Mac SE back in 1990 with an ImageWriter (dot matrix) printer and the system cost $4,000 at the time, and that was with the "educational discount". Insane looking back at that. (And that little computer is why I'm in software development today).
I could ramble on about how today's world is very different from the 1990's. So many more "small costs" these days that eat away at a consumer's "buying power". Even $1000 is a lot of money for some people, so the idea of buying a $5000 computer is no longer attainable like it was 30 years ago.
The folks need to stop the bitching.
No, they weren't meaning 10 PCs that together would equal the MP, but they could build 10x MP performing machines for the money.
Otherwise, I agree for some things (for example, render farms). For example, I know people who use Google or Amazon computing platform stuff to spin up a render-farm on demand, so they don't necessarily need a 28-core machine anymore so they can render in the background, and it might be more cost effective not to try.
But, there are also times when you need that power local and all to yourself. The high-res video editing is a great example.
"Years ago, we started redistributing the blades," says Ligtenberg. "They're still dynamically balanced, but they're actually randomized in terms of their BPF [blade pass frequency]. So you don't get huge harmonics that tend to be super annoying."
I very much doubt they were given that by their fan supplier and begun saying “we started redistributing the fans”. Ive has detailed it via animations on prior MBP launches.
Just like how they designed a better OLED screen & driver for the X and had supplier Samsung build it for them. They aren’t OTS.
Exactly. This stuff is bespoke.
Awesome. Hook up 10 machines under your desk or in your editing bay and let us know how it goes.
Today I shoot with the PhaseOne IQ4 150 Megapixel camera and the RED Monstro 8K Vista Vision cinema camera – 600 Megabytes per second is a standard data rate these days. I have 312 Terabytes of G-Tech Shuttle XL spinning and SSD Raided drives online in my office to store my online data and hundreds of terabytes of LTO tape sitting offline as well.
And the 3 YouTubers all said they were recorded RED RAW video, with some doing multiple streams.
Just a casual mention, no big deal, that these people have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment in their office. Some of them have employees! The wetware gets even more expensive than the hardware. And never mentioned is the cost of software. They can cost 10x the cost of the computer they run on through the lifetime of the computer. A mid tier license of Creo CAD software is $10k per year. That’s the middle tier. You’ll have to pay extra to be able to run one instance of that software, only one instance of the app at a time (they check), for a floating license to be able to install it to run on another computer in the lab.