Teardown of Apple's new Mac Pro reveals socketed, removable Intel CPU

1235715

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 283
    cpsro wrote: »
    It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast and supports less memory than last year's model.
    I am impressed.:rolleyes:

    How do you mean 'less memory'? OSX supports upto 96GB. Perhaps a rolleyes smiley equals /s? I actually don't know...
  • Reply 82 of 283

    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

    It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast and supports less memory than last year's model.

    I am impressed.:rolleyes:


     

    Good for you. You don’t get it. Run along now.

  • Reply 83 of 283
    For a list of which CPUs should be theoretically compatible, please see:

    http://ark.intel.com/products/family/78582/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-v2-Family/server

    The stock chips are (matching specs):

    E5-1620 v2 (4-Core @ 3.7 GHz)
    E5-1650 v2 (6-Core @ 3.5 GHz)
    _______________________________
    E5-2697 v2 (12-Core @ 2.7GHz)

    I don't know which one could be the 8-core, since none of the chips on Intel's current line-up match those specs that Apple listed. My best guess is it is a clocked down version of the E5-2667v2, which normally runs at 3.3GHz. My guess is they did that to differentiate the 8-core chip a little more from the 6- and 12-core models.

    Though Intel doesn't explicitly say so on ARK, all of the E5 v2 chips are compatible with the C600-series chipset, which is what the Mac Pro is running. So, unless Apple has written code into OS X, or the Mac Pro EFI to purposely block out "non-stock" chips (which anybody who has installed OS X on a non-Apple machine can tell you is not the case currently), then all of the chips listed in that link will work, except perhaps the E5-2687W v2, which has a 150W TDP ceiling. All the other chips are 130W or less, as others have noted.
  • Reply 84 of 283
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    philboogie wrote: »
    I read 'user-replaceable components appear to end there' and thought that was incorrect

    It is sort of the wrong way to word it as people will sell PCIe SSDs separately on eBay like they do for the Macbooks:

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Samsung-512GB-SSD-for-Late-2013-MacBook-AIR-and-2013-MacBook-pro-retina-/111245442336

    Those might even fit the Mac Pro. But the meaning makes sense in context:

    "user-replaceable components appear to end there, as the new Mac pro uses a proprietary interface for its flash-based hard drives. It's possible that third-party accessory makers could develop compatible hardware in the future, but there's still a question as to whether those parts would be compatible with Apple's OS X operating system."

    It's not saying the SSDs aren't replaceable, just that it appears that way in the context of 3rd party replacements and the fact Apple doesn't sell them separately. They could have said that explicitly but it's perhaps the better route to avoid suggesting buyers can freely opt for a lower spec at the time of purchase in the hopes of upgrading later when that might not be feasible.
    cpsro wrote:
    It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast

    They use the same components as everyone else. If Intel hasn't pushed their CPUs forward fast enough, how is that Apple's fault?

    HP sells the exact same E5-1650v2 as Apple's $3999 model for $4030. HP has 32GB RAM vs 12GB, 512GB SATA SSD vs 256GB PCIe SSD, single 3GB Quadro K4000 vs dual 3GB D300. HP hasn't done any better than Apple in 6 years either.
    cpsro wrote:
    supports less memory than last year's model.

    People with between 64-96GB of RAM will just have to wait until next year for DDR4 as the 4 slots will take 128GB just like before.
  • Reply 85 of 283
    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/36660/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

    Doesn't include Monitor and Mouse. But unlike the cheap-assed Apple Mac Pro, Tandy includes the keyboard.

    How does the Mac Pro compare to Tandy's "Lightning-fast 20 MHz" CPU?

    The Tandy has a 32-bit wide data path for VIRTUALLY SIMULTANEOUS data transfer... Eat your heart out Apple lovers!

    This professional model doesn't come with a hard disk, but it does sport a floppy drive. That bad boy can hold ONE MEG of data!
  • Reply 86 of 283
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,044member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Ain’t it the truth! Also, journalism died with the introduction of blogging.

    Journalism died when the news agencies decided that selling commercial slots was the only thing that mattered. CNN some time ago disbanded their entire investigative journalism department. News anchors of the old era have long been telling us that it's now all about selling commercial slots.
  • Reply 87 of 283
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,044member
    700

    Ah yes, the Tandy PC. That's where I got my start. Tandy 1000 TL, then 2500 TL. 1000 TL had built-in 3-voice DAC and beeper for sound when other PCs were still stuck with simple mono beepers. Had 16-color graphics just before EGA came out. Was a clone of the IBM PCjr, which was a massive failure, so Tandy quickly avoided marketing it as a PCjr clone. Sierra games looked and sounded best on the Tandy (well, Apple IIgs had awesome music capabilities and lots of color for the time too, but not a lot of software).
  • Reply 88 of 283
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post





    Ah yes, the Tandy PC. That's where I got my start. Tandy 1000 TL, then 2500 TL. 1000 TL had built-in 3-voice DAC and beeper for sound when other PCs were still stuck with simple mono beepers. Had 16-color graphics just before EGA came out. Was a clone of the IBM PCjr, which was a massive failure, so Tandy quickly avoided marketing it as a PCjr clone. Sierra games looked and sounded best on the Tandy (well, Apple IIgs had awesome music capabilities and lots of color for the time too, but not a lot of software).

     

    Here is where I got my start, It only had 2K!

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000

     

    And I had to put it together and it didn't work because I was a horrible solderer!

     

    So I had to also buy the preassembled one!  

     

    So when I get the new Mac Pro it will be worth every penny!

  • Reply 89 of 283
    dysamoria wrote: »
    Ah yes, the Tandy PC. That's where I got my start. Tandy 1000 TL, then 2500 TL. 1000 TL had built-in 3-voice DAC and beeper for sound when other PCs were still stuck with simple mono beepers. Had 16-color graphics just before EGA came out. Was a clone of the IBM PCjr, which was a massive failure, so Tandy quickly avoided marketing it as a PCjr clone. Sierra games looked and sounded best on the Tandy (well, Apple IIgs had awesome music capabilities and lots of color for the time too, but not a lot of software).

    My first computer was an IBM PCjr. It didn't do much... but it kept the 9 year old me busy.

    My first "real" computer was a 486SX-33 with Windows 3.0 when I was a freshman in high school.
  • Reply 90 of 283
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    How do you mean 'less memory'? OSX supports upto 96GB. Perhaps a rolleyes smiley equals /s? I actually don't know...

    4 DIMM slots in a $10K computer is ridiculous. Tell me how to fit more than 64 GB in this Dysan today without emptying one's retirement account.

    Limiting a dual-processor-capable CPU to just one CPU is ridiculous.

    This thing should have an option to ditch a graphics card for a second CPU and 4 more DIMM slots.

  • Reply 91 of 283
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cpsro wrote: »
    4 DIMM slots in a $10K computer is ridiculous.

    Why? I don't understand how the cost of all the components should be based on the number of RAM slots. How many Mac Pro buyers have used more than 32GB? So why does it need 8(?) sticks for a maximum of 128GB? This isn't a rack mounted server that needs hundreds of GB of RAM, but since I've mentioned it I've seen specialized machines that have only 1 or 2 RAM slots and cost a lot more than $10k.
  • Reply 92 of 283
    cpsro wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    How do you mean 'less memory'? OSX supports upto 96GB. Perhaps a rolleyes smiley equals /s? I actually don't know...
    4 DIMM slots in a $10K computer is ridiculous. Tell me how to fit more than 64 GB in this Dysan today without emptying one's retirement account.
    Limiting a dual-processor-capable CPU to just one CPU is ridiculous.

    Good grief man! Get a grip. If Apple isn't going to do some serious forward-thinking, then who is? Otherwise we'd be stuck with floppies, user-removable batteries, physical keyboards and DVD's, to name just a few.

    Besides, 64GB costs less than $895 if you sent the original sticks back to OWC:

    Memory from 1866MHz DDR3 DIMM Mac Pro 2013 systems:

    Apple Original 12GB Set (4GB x 3) - $75.00
    Apple Original 16GB Set (4GB x 4) - $100.00
    Apple Original 32GB Set (8GB x 4) - $225.00
  • Reply 93 of 283
    smalmsmalm Posts: 656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    They use the same components as everyone else. If Intel hasn't pushed their CPUs forward fast enough, how is that Apple's fault?

    To not introduce a new Mac Pro when SandyBridge-E(P) came out was completely Apples fault!

    Intel introduced the CPU line in Q4 2011.

     

    And the current modell will not accept DDR4 DIMMs but it may accept registered DDR3 DIMMs.

  • Reply 94 of 283
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

     

     

    CPU and RAM upgradable.. SSD and Video upgradable if/when 3rd parties release products for the custom form-factor and release solid drivers / support.

     

    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.

     

    This system seems a lot more upgradable than everyone was making it. No large storage bays,.. so what.. most professionals goto external storage anyway. As long as we're going to see CPU, RAM, and eventually SSD and GPU upgrades... those are the 4 most important areas IMO..


    Given how much Tesla cards cost, hooking them up via TB seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.

  • Reply 95 of 283
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Why? I don't understand how the cost of all the components should be based on the number of RAM slots. How many Mac Pro buyers have used more than 32GB? So why does it need 8(?) sticks for a maximum of 128GB? This isn't a rack mounted server that needs hundreds of GB of RAM, but since I've mentioned it I've seen specialized machines that have only 1 or 2 RAM slots and cost a lot more than $10k.

    Because 64GB is at the bottom end of workstation memory configurations these days, and the MP is not a bottom end workstation.

  • Reply 96 of 283
    smalm wrote: »
    To not introduce a new Mac Pro when SandyBridge-E(P) came out was completely Apples fault!
    Intel introduced the CPU line in Q4 2011.

    And the current modell will not accept DDR4 DIMMs but it may accept registered DDR3 DIMMs.

    It will accept 16GB registered DDR3 DIMMSs but you can't mix registered and unregistered DIMMs. Check the Crucial website.
  • Reply 97 of 283
    marubeni wrote: »
    Because 64GB is at the bottom end of workstation memory configurations these days, and the MP is not a bottom end workstation.

    I've seen no evidence that 64GB is the bottom end for the typical workstation, but can't Mac OS X only address a maximum of 96GB? How is 64GB the bottom end if only 50% more is the current max.
  • Reply 98 of 283
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I've seen no evidence that 64GB is the bottom end for the typical workstation, but can't Mac OS X only address a maximum of 96GB? How is 64GB the bottom end if only 50% more is the current max.

     

    Well, you are right if one goes by the Dell web site, but in my line of work (scientific/mathematical computing) people have been running 256GB machines for a couple of years now. Your point re OS X is well-taken, but what is the chicken and what is the egg (in other words, is the lack of hardware using more than 64GB stopping Apple from upgrading the OS addressing limit, or the other way around?)

  • Reply 99 of 283
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    marubeni wrote: »
    Because 64GB is at the bottom end of workstation memory configurations these days

    Eh. I do think it's a bit of a disappointment the MP doesn't have more slots, but that's not near the "bottom end" for work stations.

    Not all workstation needs require such amounts. I can do solid model CAD in 2GB if I was so inclined, though it likes 4GB much better. I'm wishing for 32GB in my iMac because I run several different 3D & 2D CAD, drawing and other programs at the same time.

    At a glance Dell's Precisions start out at 2, 4 or 8GB, depending on model. One of the models I checked tops out at 64GB. That said, HP Z820 tops out at whopping 512GB RAM. That's the size of the SSD in my main computer. $520 for 16GB registered ECC sticks though.

    And woah, HP sells an all-in-one that supports Xeon processors & Quadro graphics: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/z1.html It tops out at 32GB though.
  • Reply 100 of 283
    marubeni wrote: »
    Well, you are right if one goes by the Dell web site, but in my line of work (scientific/mathematical computing) people have been running 256GB machines for a couple of years now. Your point re OS X is well-taken, but what is the chicken and what is the egg (in other words, is the lack of hardware using more than 64GB stopping Apple from upgrading the OS addressing limit, or the other way around?)

    Clearly Apple hasn't designed the Mac Pro for a utility that requires 4x as much RAM than is possible so their focus for their workstation must be targeting a different market. I don't see why this is a problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.