JustSomeGuy1
About
- Banned
- Username
- JustSomeGuy1
- Joined
- Visits
- 60
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,172
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 330
Reactions
-
Apple's new Mac Pro internal components - answers and lingering questions [u]
melgross said:The one thing I’m disappointed about is that it’s PCI-E 3. Not 4. As PCI-E 4 motherboards are coming out, and both AMD and Intel announced support for some of their latest high end chips, I would have thought that this would be that. I really want to buy this, this year. I don’t want to buy another one next year, or the one after that. This will have to last me four years. So even if it’s possible to upgrade the CPU, and the GPU(s), I’d hate to be thinking that a double speed bus will be out a year after I bought this, with all the major performance, security and feature enhancements that 4 will bring. Then, PCI-E 5 is expected for 2021. So round we go again.This was never going to happen. Next-gen AMD CPUs (Zen 2/Ryzen 3xxx) and their chipset (570) have announced support for PCIe4, but they are not shipping until 7/7. Intel has not announced *any* PCIe4 platforms/chips for this year. The earliest CPU with PCIe4 support will be "Ice Lake" Xeons sometime next year... assuming they can ship it on time. It's on the "10nm+" process, and I have to say, the first 2019 10nm chips are disappointing. We don't really know if they have finally beaten their yield problems either - though if they haven't, their top executives will wind up in court (and possibly jail), given the things they've been saying to investors.The only chance we had was if Apple announced that they'd be shipping Ryzens (or next-gen TRs/EPYCs). I would have loved to see that - they're dramatically superior to the current Intels in pretty much every way - but I understand that they're especially risk-adverse at the moment. Maybe next year (would love that, but doubt it).melgross said:Later this year, both AMD and Intel will have some CPUs ready for 4, but not right now. From what I remember, Intel will have some Xeons. But it’s possible that it’s too late.4 is just becoming available in some mobocracy. But even there it’s not all 4, but a hybrid of 3 and 4. 5 isn’t expected until 2021. The problem we’re seeing is that 3 has been around too long.Intel will not have any this year. AMD's are shipping 7/7. I'm not sure what you mean by "mobocracy" but all the 570 chipset mobos for AMD that I've seen (a couple dozen at least) are pure PCIe4.
-
Apple's new Mac Pro internal components - answers and lingering questions [u]
I won't swear to it, but I'm almost certain your statement about dual-die is incorrect. You are thinking of the 92xx series, which have 48 and 56 cores, with two dies in one socket. They're fairly crazy chips with very specific and limited use cases. The Mac's Xeon W chips are not like that. They are standard Intel HCC-type Xeons.tht said:The Xeons are likely Xeon W-3xxx series CPUs, the Cascades Lake version. Think Pentium D. They are essentially dual-dies. I’m not sure if it is two dies on the wafer right next to each other, or most likely, 2 separate dies put together in the same package. Has got to be the latter for cost and yield reasons alone. With this, Intel has an upgrade path to 32, 48, 56 cores by just using higher core count parts.These Xeons have 64 lanes of PCIe. It has 8 PCIe slots, plus 2 custom slots with PCIe for the MPX modules. So, it’ll have to be something like 16-16-8-8-4-4-4-4 for the 8 slots (something like this), and, they have to use some PCI lanes off the PCH for 2 TB3 controllers, and hopefully it has native support for 2 10G Ethernet ports. And I’m never clear on how the display signaling is split to the TB3 controllers and if those or independent lanes of PCI
e or not.Yes, they have 64 lanes of PCI, but everything else you said is almost certainly wrong (again, no way to know for sure until somebody gets a closer look at the MB). Doing what you describe would be extremely unwieldy and produce terrible bottlenecking. As with all the other server MBs with tons of IO, they likely have one or more PCIe switch chips (often called "PLX"). Running all their TB3 out of the PCH would be ridiculous. In fact, it would be impossible - there is not enough bandwidth in the PCH to begin to support what 12 TB3 links could demand, by an order of magnitude.With the PCIe switches, all bets are off on slot configuration. I thought they said what they support when they introed it - maybe 4x16, 3x8, 1x4? Mike, do you remember?
-
First look: Mac Pro and Apple Pro Display XDR [u]
Ah. Now I understand. It is in fact the newer generation chip, which support addressing 2TB physical RAM. However, there are only 12 DIMM slots. So, until 256GB DIMMs become real (at a price apiece lower than the cost of the entire Mac Pro - they're currently around $6k each, if you can find them at all), you're limited to already-expensive 128GB DIMMs. 128GBx12 = 1.5TB.Mike Wuerthele said:
[Graphic showing 2TB max RAM]JustSomeGuy1 said:[...]- Max RAM is 1.5TB, not 2TB. (Tells us something interesting about the Xeons being used, they're the first M series)[...]The above graphic is from Apple's specs on the Mac Pro at Apple.com
-
Apple debuts new $5999 Mac Pro with up to 28-core Xeon processors
The people whining about how the price is too high are ridiculous. Apple's breaking new ground here, and unlike 2013, I think they're breaking the right ground. Time will tell.But it is also true that they're leaving a significant market untapped. I don't need the $6k Mac, and really I don't *need* a $2-3k modular Mac either. But I'd much rather buy one than an iMac 5k, because I'd like to be able to upgrade over time, and not necessarily ditch my screen the same time I ditch my chassis. I'm still happily using 27" monitors from 11 years ago, though the new 5ks have their place too.So I'd like to see much more modest slotted machine in the $2-3k entry price range. And I think it's true that there would be a significant market for that model. All those low-rent wedding photographers, part-time devs, etc. Essentially, many of the complainers - they're wrong to complain about this Mac Pro, but they really are a market and their needs really aren't being met.So why isn't Apple serving them? Maybe they want to protect the market share for the new Pro. Or maybe they think the iMac and Mini really do cover the market sufficiently.If it's a market share issue, there is a solution: Apple's building custom hardware like the 8k ProRes card, and they could choose to only support it on the high-end Pro. So perhaps next year we'll see the cheaper slotted Pro. In the meantime, things are *so* much better than they were just a year ago:- Reasonable Mac Mini- *Two* major upgrades to the MBP 15- Better iMacThe iMac Pro could use an update though! Probably soon. I'd guess, by fall.
-
Tested: Thermal throttling and performance in the eight-core 2019 MacBook Pro
@AI, thank you, that was very useful, and quicker than I expected.@Lkrupp, maybe some trolls are doing that, but it's still true that the current design is a poor choice if you're optimizing for performance. (It's a different story if you're optimizing for weight, battery life, etc.) It's also true that in the last couple of years, for the first time ever, other companies have been putting up legitimate contenders against Apple for the combined weight-batterylife-performance-style crown. In my opinion, Apple hasn't done too well on that front recently, though the latest macbook helps a lot. If I could get MacOS on another brand's hardware, I would seriously consider it, and I never felt that way previously. Of course I still won't, because Windows.
