Are there any information of what models will be offered yet? I know Apple website shows the "Up-to" values, with 12 cores and stuff. First of all I am assuming that is not a physical 12 core processor. It is either 2 6 core processors, or just one 6 core processor and they are trying to sell hyper threading as cores. Second, not all of us can afford that thing with 64 gigs of ram, dual gpu's and stuff. I wonder what will come base equipment and what it can be upgraded to. I think it said dual AMD GPU's is standard, which is a shame since they are automatically alienating anyone who uses MATLAB and wants to do Cuda core computing on a Mac.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
The new Mac Pro
- Thread starter Andyk5
- Start date
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
The TrashCanATX format only has room for one cpu socket. Being 2011 socket, that means only a single hypertheaded 6 core.
A real idiot move by Apple all around for no good reason.
A real idiot move by Apple all around for no good reason.
FUD much? They are most likely going to use the 12-core E5 2600 for the high end. 12 core/24 thread. I am withholding my opinion on the new MacPro until I actually see one in action and see what they can be optioned out with.
Have you seen how huge the heatsink is? No reason it couldn't handle 150W.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Sure there is...you have one aluminum (!!) heat sink sharing the cooling load for two GPUs that you seem to have no choice but to have in the system, in addition to whatever CPU you have as well as cooling the FETs.
TrashCanATX isn't a great idea to start with...and the apparent forcing of dual workstation GPUs on users is moronic and an excuse to drive up price.
cortexodus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,614
This is not "huge" by any stretch of the imagination
Also, it's not just dissipating the heat from a CPU but 2 GPUs as well. Something tells me Apple didn't magically redefine the laws of physics.
You can't even get the current 150W processors in 2U servers, that's why I think the 130W may be pushing it as well, especially with 2 FirePros using the same three sided heatsink. Otherwise that windtunnel cooling is going to sound like a wind turbine.
This is not "huge" by any stretch of the imagination
It's 10" tall and the heatsink runs nearly the entire length and fills the entire Triangular core.
It's much bigger than every heatsink in my system combined.
Compare with the miniscule heatsink Intel uses here on this 150w CPU:
http://wccftech.com/intel-sandy-bridgeep-e52687w-processor-unveiled-features-8-cores150w-tdp/
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
This is not "huge" by any stretch of the imagination
Also, it's not just dissipating the heat from a CPU but 2 GPUs as well. Something tells me Apple didn't magically redefine the laws of physics.
Looking at it in profile doesn't really do it justice. If the two video cards and the Mobo with the CPU (not sure what else to call it) is 4" in width, and lets just say that the video cards are 12" in length, that is more surface area in this one heatsink than most video cards and CPU's have combined (the interior space would be 96 cubic inches). The entire interior vertical profile is filled with the heatsink. If the video cards are longer, so is the heatsink core. If there is any deficiency it won't be from the heatsink, it will be from the inability for the single fan to move the volume of air over the heatsink. Considering that the fan is circular, and the interior components are triangular, I'd say it'd be fine. The single fan will be able to cool both sides of the components simultaneously. Most setups don't do that. Also, convection. Clearly the entire point of the cooling setup is efficiency and quietness.
However, I think that all this talk is foolishness. I'm certain that Apple will have a system produced that will work just fine out of the box. Whether you like the form factor or not is really more of the question. Attacking the design when no one has had their hands on it other than Ive and a handful of other Apple engineers makes no sense.
Edit:
Beat me to it. If it's 10" tall and my previous estimation of the cards being 4" wide is correct, then it would be 80 cubic inches. Still massive.
Last edited:
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Any normal CPU or GPU cooler is made of copper (a better heat conductor) and/or has heat pipes that are also better heat movers...this is a solid block of extruded aluminum by the looks and press. Copper's thermal conductivity is only 80% higher than aluminum. So even if the TrashCanATX HSF is "huge", it needs to be due to poor material choice.
Remember this is APPLE we're talking about...the SAME people who made those early gen CRT iMacs that melted CDs when OS re-installing in the optical drive because of inadequate cooling....not too mention there are still off-and-on reports of this still happening in iMacs to this day. Saying "Apple engineers are smarter than that..." has historically been shown to be untrue with regards to thermal management. for the last 10 years.
Last edited:
The E5-2687W doesn't come with a heatsink, you have to provide your own cooling if you're installing it on your own. The pictured heatsink is the from the 130W i7, probably just using it for pre-prod testing. It's the copper core radial fin reference design for the socket 2011 i7s.
nekrosoft13
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,618
trying to decide if mac pro looks more like a garbage can or sharper image air humidifier.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
It's rather astonishing how little that matters when the dissipative surface is this large. It's important for contact points, but dissipative capability is so dominated by surface area that thermal conductivity becomes largely irrelevant.
I could see a full copper thermal core reducing temperatures by 1-2°C, but increasing fan speed by some token amount to negate the difference is significantly more cost effective.
Where are these reports?
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
First off, what is your definition of normal? You're making an enormous pronouncement, one that is very easy to look up. 76 Aluminum heatsinks listed on Newegg. Also we could look at every Intel and AMD stock HSF. At most you could make the statement that a lot of coolers combine copper and aluminum to manufacture heatsinks. But all? And 'normally'? No, the minority of heatsinks are manufactured out of pure copper.
Second, thanks for the large amount of conjecture about the build of the internal cooler. You know for a fact that it's extruded aluminum. You know that there are no other types or material of metal inside. You know that no amount of surface area on a perfectly fine heat conductor could make this work. A block of aluminum the size of the moon is probably no sufficient under your methodology to cool a single i7 processor.
Additionally you apparently know what the contact area between the processors/gpus looks like and what materials are there as well.
Right. Intel doesn't know what they're doing. Neither does AMD. Neither does half a dozen HSF manufactures that all use aluminum. None of them seem to think it's a proper material choice. Oh, and lets not even bring up GPUs! No one, not even MSI, Sapphire, eVGA, Asus, PNY, HIS, XFX, or Gigabyte have EVER used Aluminum to cool a GPU. Never ever! That would be unthinkable. (In case your facetious filter is on, they all do. It's rare to see copper on a GPU heatsink with the notable exception of heatpipes, which still aren't the norm on GPUs).
Okay, so this isn't an issue with this machine then. It's stemming from an issue you have with Apple. Really what you're saying is that you have no interest in this machine, you're here to bash and any ammunition you can throw on the fire, whether accurate or not, is fair game. So much so, that you're trying to throw a product not even in anyone's hands yet under a bus and bring up machines that are a decade old.
Tell me of one single OEM manufacturer with a flawless record. I'm more than willing to play the game of comparing which manufacturers have bigger blunders (especially since your statute of limitations is well over a decade). Apple gets a lot of press for being high profile, but they aren't the only ones with overheating machines, exploding batteries, stability issues, manufacturing problems, or any of the rest of it.
Last edited:
So after all this , let me repeat my question again then .First of all what is the 12 physical core 24 thread chip? I would love to have one. Second, are there any other reports on how many different ways this thing can be configured? What will be the base minimum? I would not buy it cash but my work is planning on incorporating them and I might end up having the opportunity to order one.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
The short answer to ALL of your questions: we don't know. As far as the Intel chip, it isn't for sale yet. Intel has close agreements with Apple, they have received preference on more than one occasion to get chips first before other OEMs. More than likely with the Mac Pro drops, so will the the Intel 12 core processor.
We can only push out opinions and conjecture based upon what Apple has done in the past. Apple has released no new information about the new Mac Pro. The only information we do have about the machine is from the key note about it. You can read that here, or on any Apple/tech based news blog.
If you want to have my guesses, it will be as follows:
The base will probably cost $2k, in line with their current pricing structure.
The base processor will either be quad or septuple core.
Base Ram is probably going to be 8GB.
Single Video Card (which cards I'm not certain. I'm guessing they will release all new sets of video cards with the Mac Pro in addition to the FireGL cards)
128-256GB of Flash Storage
From there I'm guessing it will ramp up to a maximum of:
12 Core
Maximum 32GB of RAM (possibly 64GB)
1TB PCI-E SSD (this 1TB number is 100% conjecture, but I'm thinking they will make it an option, at the very least there will be a 512GB option)
2x FireGL cards (they haven't announced which ones yet, but some people have made educated guesses)
A maxed machine I would guess would cost between $6k-$8k.
But to reiterate, THIS IS ALL A GUESS. No one knows what the options are going to be like on this machine yet.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2001
- Messages
- 20,694
Can I throw in that based on the design that it will be a mobile gpu or gpu's this time??
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
With these stats:
Ars Technica said:
I find that to be unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
You miss the part where you use your eyes and find that most of those coolers have heatpipes to facilitate thermal conductivity and/or have a copper baseplate/core....those that don't are generally from the Socket 939 and prior era and are so obsolete it is funny. Further read my post again, because I said either coolers are made from copper "and/or" they have heat pipes. You're agreeing with me and proving my point. So I suppose I should thank you.
Yes I do KNOW it is extruded Al. It is not a conjecture, other things I said may be, this is NOT. Apple SAYS SO THEMSELVES:
"we built everything around a single piece of extruded aluminum designed to maximize airflow as well as thermal capacity"
-"Thermal Core" page of http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
Look again at AMD and Intel stock coolers they have copper-slug cores. They're not a single hunk of aluminum and even if they were, they're not cooling 3 very high-wattage components (and possibly their VRMs too). As someone else mentioned, the 8c16t are NOT sold with an Intel stock cooler because even those bi-material stock coolers are not enough for them.
Your maxed out machine price is not at all realistic (even for a guess) for consumers given current component pricing.
An e5-2690 right now, "only" an 8c16t Xeon part retails for $2000+taxes. Considering 1 32GB DIMM of ECC RAM costs $1300 right now, there is no way in hell we will get 4 DIMMs of it in a machine for $8,000 with 12c24t CPU. And certainly not a 1TB SSD, as the highest capacity 800GB Intel PCIe SSD currently sells for $4000
I'm not sure why you think you're repeating this question, because you never asked it.
All you did was incorrectly assume that there weren't 12 core processors, when there are, the E5-2695 v2 and E5-2697 v2 are the 12 core Ivy Bridge EP processors.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
No you said they're: made of copper and/or have heatpipes. So the only options you gave are as follows: 100% copper. Copper with heatpipes. Aluminum with Heatpipes. You never once gave a possibility of copper with aluminum.
Second, I did agree with you, but only to a degree. I disagreed with you on the point that it was 'normal'. I never denied that such things 'existed'. However like wonderfield I did state that it's not necessary. I'll admit that I'm not a thermodynamics engineer. Or an engineer of any type. Are you willing to state the same? Because I'm certain of this one thing, Apple is using people that are engineers, and not only that they have prototyped this machine like crazy. They have to place it in the hands of the professional market. A market that has little patience for things that don't work.
This is one thing that I know we both agree on (even if you do so begrudgingly), it doesn't matter how pretty it is, if the machine has a high failure rate no pro will touch it. This machine is clearly geared towards taking over the cinema market. It has high external expandability and fast interfaces (for uncompressed 4k film with various takes and of course things ending up on the cutting room floor, 10 hours of footage is still probably low, and that's terabytes of space). It's designed to take 3x 4K monitors (one of the few industries that would readily benefit from forking over the money for that technology sooner than later). And it's small (which means transport isn't a problem... of course for a big film the older style larger Mac Pros weren't a problem anyway...). Apple wants to own this space. Other Pros may not care for the new Mac Pro (in the last new Mac Pro thread, a music production guy complained endlessly about the lack of Firewire as an example), but Apple wants everyone in the movie biz editing on their hardware. My bet is on Apple and not on you that they will ensure that this machine works out the door.
Fair enough. One thing I will note is that we don't have any concept of how each video card and the CPU will be attached to said core. On the same page flip back and forth between the 'Thermal Core' and 'Fan' tabs. You'll note that on the Thermal core itself is something that allows the video cards to be mounted to the core, you can even see plates with screws on them attached to the core directly. On those mounting sections appears to be a copper colored material. Even knowing that there is a singular thermal core, we still have no idea about what is going to transfer heat from the CPU/GPUs to the core.
NO ONE has seen this thing fully disassembled. The animation gives what I think is a slight hint.
Additionally, you still haven't addressed the concept of size. 80 cubic inches is massive. If a video card is 4.376" in width and 10.5" long and has a cooler on the entire top of it, that is a 22.974 cubic inches. That isn't including what you would have to subtract in order to place in the fan. A behomoth of a CPU cooler would be 4x4x2, and that would be 32 cubic inches. Only then are you making it to an 80 cubic inch size. But like I said earlier, that isn't including removing volume in order to fit in a fan in the case of a video card (assuming that the diameter is 3" that would remove 4.71" of area from each GPU HSF for a total of close to 10" or 9.42" to be precise) and no CPU cooler is that size.
Additionally there is the concept of mass. The aluminum fins and sides of the thermal core are much larger than any standard heatsink. If I were a betting man, I would say that if you weighed two GPU coolers stripped of fans and a stock CPU cooler it would have no where near the weight (hence mass) of the thermal core.
Finally you still haven't made a statement really about why aluminum won't work in the first place. It has the size, and the mass, and lest you forget my earlier statement most GPUs are still 'only' using aluminum (including Titans). So lets say for a moment that I'm wrong and there is no copper to be found in the mounting hardware. Do you really still think that you can reasonably say, sight unseen that there is no way this machine can cool itself?
[EDIT]
Here is some additional reading:
Extrusion (since this seems to be a sticking point) - A normally used process for the manufacture of heatsinks in general. Listed in the applications section of the article.
Heatsink - You'll note that it states the size of the heatsink being important specifically with surface area (it does list material as well, just for you.) as well as shape. I believe the Mac Pro considers all three.
Thermal Management of Electronic Systems - You can read about the advantages of both Aluminum and Copper inside. Additionally you'll note that it does state that Aluminum is in fact a good thermal conductor. A good quote from the article is as follows:
You'll note I've never disagreed that copper was a good material for making a heatsink out of. However to reiterate you've all but completely ignored all the other properties of what makes heatsinks efficient.Wikipedia article on Thermal Management of Electronic Devices and Systems said:
Another small side note, I'm fairly certain that Apple is using the numerical methods/CFD in their design for heat maximum heat transfer and cooling as talked about in the heatsink article.
Right, they're not cooling 3 high wattage components, but like we've been saying size matters. You haven't thought about or even considered the size. How large would the heatsink have to be for you to consider it to be large enough? I joked in the last post about a heatsink being the size of the moon. Would it take something that large to dissipate the heat for you to consider it doable? Seriously, think about that and consider it for a bit. Look at my math above. I grant you that my math is just bar napkin math. But you're not considering cubic inches and in addition to cubic inches the actual density of the cooler itself. Not to mention the amount of surface area that it has. Or the highly specialized and efficient fan.
Okay, this is a different can of worms. One that our discussions weren't around in the first place. (I'll note you've failed to take me up on my OEM failure rate challenge, or the fact that you clearly are just here to bash Apple and their hardware as was stated in my last post).
For the record, I updated my previous post before I saw this one (In fact you can check the timestamps, the timestamp stating my last edit is BEFORE your reply post). But I did switch what I felt would be the maximum RAM based upon only 4 slots worth of density. I concede on the RAM, but as we know, RAM prices only go one way. It's all just a matter of time.
On the SSD front, I'd say it's pretty reasonable. Obviously Apple's implementation will be 100% custom, based upon its form factor. Right now on a Macbook Pro, a 768GB SSD is a $700 upgrade on their highest end model. I'm sure they can scrape up another few hundred dollars for the extra 256GB of NAND and pass that on to the customer and ship a 1TB option. Sure we have to talk controllers and all that malarky, but controller prices are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the NAND. Also, this is Apple we're talking about, this is something they love to do. They like to disrupt the market. In case you want recent examples: there is the iPad... and then the Retina iPad, and well Retina displays in general on many of their devices. They also popularized SSDs in OEMs on the MBA using custom fab'ed HDs. Like I said in the post you're quoting, a 1TB HD is conjecture yes, but in order for Apple to do it, and make it cost effective, it wouldn't be hard. At all. Like the RAM, prices on NAND are falling as well. I can see the 1TB option being easily under $1k. [EDIT] Also you were a bit disengenuous. You can get a 960GB PCIE SSD for $1500 from OCZ. And additionally there are several SSD manufactures selling SATA 1TB HD's for under $1500 and a couple under $1k. I think my "upgrade price" of $1K for an SSD in the new Mac Pro is still sounding reasonable. Maybe it'll be slightly higher at $1.5k, if Apple decides to have it be overpriced.
In terms of processor pricing, we aren't really going to know that until everything drops. I may have be slightly "underestimating" the total price at a total of $8k, but I'll still stand-by and say that my margin of error isn't going to be $6k. Let's say the base is $2500, you say a 12-Core processor costs $2k, but of course the upgrade price is less than that as you substitute one processor for the other, let's call the upgrade price $1500, lets say each GPU upgrade is $700 (which is conservatively high, even you have to admit), and you pay $1k for 1TB HD. That right there would be a total of $5400 dollars. Oops missed the RAM. Lets say Apple gouges us for 32GB at $1k. $6400. Even if my 1 TB SSD estimation is off or there is a more pricey 64GB of RAM option, I would still have $1600 worth of play before hitting $8000. Is it possible that it will be over $8k? Absolutely. But I think the prices I listed are decently likely.
The only other note that I should say is that the base model will be $2500 to fall in line with current pricing. I'll admit I made that mistake in the previous post. Apple isn't known to drop prices on their newest hardware, unless they're trying to be disruptive (which they do from time to time... the original MBA was $2k to start... now you can get one for half that).
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Firstly) I strongly doubt they ran this product design by any professionals who use their workstations professionally. I work in theater and professional audio....none of the audio techies I know would ever think of taking a system like this on the road as they always do with a current MacPro tower. The old tower style is a standby for most roadie bands, cram it into a roadie case and it handle it well pulling DAW....this machine would not, the fan and cooling design alone make it a terrible idea for anything other than a clean desktop....nevermind the abysmally stupid lack of internal expansion. And it isn't like these glaring design failures really got us anything positive coming from what we have before.
Secondly, You compare to Titan...well Titan does not use an extruded aluminum cooler-it uses a vapor chamber cooler at stock last I knew. Also, while mass of material is important (for higher thermal absorption) just as if not more important is surface area and heat conductivity (for actual sinkage) as eventually you'll thermally saturate your metal block. Most GPU and most decent CPU coolers have tons of surface area relative to their volume thanks to much much higher FPI....because the official graphics (if they're at all accurate) only show 20 fins/plates inside that trianglular "thermal core" and none of them are that big....And for the amount of detail they render (including fasteners, PCB traces, etc.), I don't find that assertion over reaching.
The machine may be able to cool itself, it probably will to a degree...but it will run loud trying to do so sinking 500W or so of heat at load through that shitty HSF, and to make up for surface area the fan will need to spin and will be loud...all because of the moronic trendy fashion-over-function design choices. I work in audio, and if this thing is half as loud as I suspect it is it will not get bought by DAW users for very long before word gets out about how loud it runs. Because let us face it-apart from physical size there was absolutely nothing wrong with the old MacPro tower design...and TrashCanATX does nada to improve upon the old, AAMOF it isn't at all hard to claim that TrashCanATX is a step down all around from the old.
As you point out, we're pissing in the wind hypothesizing....but the point is, we shouldn't have to. The TrashCanATX form factor is a moronic design choice for a workstation that spends any of it's time not at computational idle. The old MacPro systems when pimped out officially could break $20,000 IIRC, so An $8k system ceiling price is awful low. Ofc, when pricing is official it'll tell us more about who they were designing this system towards....because it is badly designed for workstations and will probably be too expensive for normal desktop consumers.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
This entire post you have now made proves my point that you are in here for bashing and nothing else.
You have literally addressed ZERO of my points. And are now switching to OTHER topics in order to have something to say. Here, I'll breeze through these for you.
First you didn't even read what I said. Yeah, pro audio people will complain. I even said that. Although I think foolishly as Firewire is available through an adapter. Also, none of the original topics were about internal storage. Way to change the subject.
Then you gloss over the cooling again. You clearly didn't read my post, or consider anything. That shows me you aren't even willing to have a rational discussion. This is just a tear for you. Good job in showing that you aren't capable of having a rational or reasoned discussion.
Also I should note the entire exterior case is made out of solid aluminum. Same as the Mac Pro it will replace. As a note on physics, circles and spheres are stronger than boxes. Another additional note which you ignored the last time, this is a perfect box for working in the video world, a point you completely ignored. Good job.
There is no reason why this machine can't be a Digital Audio Workstation either. The trend will only continue onto external PCI-e (aka Thunderbolt) overtime anyway. Apple just wants to push this trend. If you don't want to buy new hardware, fine, just get a Firewire adapter. Don't like that option? Fine, save yourself even more money and don't upgrade to this machine. No one is forcing you or anyone else to buy it.
Good job not clicking my links showing all three Titans available on Newegg. Or listening to my statement how most GPUs in general are cooled by aluminum. Or looking at my Wikipedia articles talking about Aluminum being used all the time as a common heatsink material.
Also ignore in the Wikipedia articles about how to make HSF's more efficient, which yes did include material, but guess what, also included size, surface area, and shape! Imagine that.
Then you bring up this concept:
This is let alone any of the other things I mentioned.
More conjecture, no evidence, not addressing any previous points.
And what other than Firewire does any of your so-called DAW users need? Internal storage? That argument is getting old. Anyone that has to do any amount of track work will need external storage sooner or later. Even if you filled every space in the old Mac Pro with 4TB HD's you'd still only have 16TB of storage (which would be slow as there would be no SSD in the system even for your boot drive). 16TB of storage is no space at all when considering Raw 4k footage. 1080P raw footage at 24fps is 667GB per hour. 4K is literally four times that.
All of it needs to be placed on external RAID sooner or later. Apple actually understands this. Do you think a professional recording studio like say Abbey Road doesn't use or need external storage? They probably go through 16TB of space in less than a month. Let alone any real amount of time. Anyone working in the commercial space in either audio or video eats through harddrives. That's why this thing has 6 Thunderbolt connectors. This was an active design decision. You can call it fashion, or any other 'passing it off' label that you want to. But Apple new external storage was the future and way more important than internal storage. I am not the only one with this opinion about storage or who it's designed for. You can read this article on Ars.
Tell me of any high profile launch that people aren't spouting some form of hypothesizing on? PS4, XBox1, new games, new processors, new cars, new programs, new phones, new anything. This isn't new. Neither is someone trying to throw as much FUD out as possible.
The 'old' Mac Pro was only capable of breaking a bit over $15000 and that was only if you included things like the fiber channel card, raid-card, massive SSD's for every bay, dual hex core CPUs and 4 GPUS. There isn't multiple bays, there isn't a fiber channel card, internal raid, or a place for 4 GPUs or multi CPU. Yes, I'm putting out 'best guesses' but mine are fairly reasonable. Something you haven't shown you can do yet. I also listed who this product is for. You haven't come up with any solid argument to the contrary.
I'm still waiting for anything remotely rational from you. Or the ability to stay on topic, or the ability to create even a single, real, counter-argument.
You have literally addressed ZERO of my points. And are now switching to OTHER topics in order to have something to say. Here, I'll breeze through these for you.
First you didn't even read what I said. Yeah, pro audio people will complain. I even said that. Although I think foolishly as Firewire is available through an adapter. Also, none of the original topics were about internal storage. Way to change the subject.
Then you gloss over the cooling again. You clearly didn't read my post, or consider anything. That shows me you aren't even willing to have a rational discussion. This is just a tear for you. Good job in showing that you aren't capable of having a rational or reasoned discussion.
Also I should note the entire exterior case is made out of solid aluminum. Same as the Mac Pro it will replace. As a note on physics, circles and spheres are stronger than boxes. Another additional note which you ignored the last time, this is a perfect box for working in the video world, a point you completely ignored. Good job.
There is no reason why this machine can't be a Digital Audio Workstation either. The trend will only continue onto external PCI-e (aka Thunderbolt) overtime anyway. Apple just wants to push this trend. If you don't want to buy new hardware, fine, just get a Firewire adapter. Don't like that option? Fine, save yourself even more money and don't upgrade to this machine. No one is forcing you or anyone else to buy it.
Good job not clicking my links showing all three Titans available on Newegg. Or listening to my statement how most GPUs in general are cooled by aluminum. Or looking at my Wikipedia articles talking about Aluminum being used all the time as a common heatsink material.
Also ignore in the Wikipedia articles about how to make HSF's more efficient, which yes did include material, but guess what, also included size, surface area, and shape! Imagine that.
Then you bring up this concept:
And then try and call it a day.Wikipedia article on Thermal management of electronic devices and systems said:
This is let alone any of the other things I mentioned.
More conjecture, no evidence, not addressing any previous points.
And what other than Firewire does any of your so-called DAW users need? Internal storage? That argument is getting old. Anyone that has to do any amount of track work will need external storage sooner or later. Even if you filled every space in the old Mac Pro with 4TB HD's you'd still only have 16TB of storage (which would be slow as there would be no SSD in the system even for your boot drive). 16TB of storage is no space at all when considering Raw 4k footage. 1080P raw footage at 24fps is 667GB per hour. 4K is literally four times that.
All of it needs to be placed on external RAID sooner or later. Apple actually understands this. Do you think a professional recording studio like say Abbey Road doesn't use or need external storage? They probably go through 16TB of space in less than a month. Let alone any real amount of time. Anyone working in the commercial space in either audio or video eats through harddrives. That's why this thing has 6 Thunderbolt connectors. This was an active design decision. You can call it fashion, or any other 'passing it off' label that you want to. But Apple new external storage was the future and way more important than internal storage. I am not the only one with this opinion about storage or who it's designed for. You can read this article on Ars.
Tell me of any high profile launch that people aren't spouting some form of hypothesizing on? PS4, XBox1, new games, new processors, new cars, new programs, new phones, new anything. This isn't new. Neither is someone trying to throw as much FUD out as possible.
The 'old' Mac Pro was only capable of breaking a bit over $15000 and that was only if you included things like the fiber channel card, raid-card, massive SSD's for every bay, dual hex core CPUs and 4 GPUS. There isn't multiple bays, there isn't a fiber channel card, internal raid, or a place for 4 GPUs or multi CPU. Yes, I'm putting out 'best guesses' but mine are fairly reasonable. Something you haven't shown you can do yet. I also listed who this product is for. You haven't come up with any solid argument to the contrary.
I'm still waiting for anything remotely rational from you. Or the ability to stay on topic, or the ability to create even a single, real, counter-argument.
Last edited:
Metrocall
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 952
You mean calling it TrashCanATX doesn't convince you??
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Have a nice day. Since you're clearly here to listen to yourself talk. I'm done.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
Soo this 12 physical and 12 virtual core CPU that you guys speak of. What would be the benefits of having a cpu like that instead of lets say the 3770k. I am guessing since 3770k has less cores, it can support a higher single core clock, making single core maximizing games and applications run better, and the 12 core cpu would have a much slower clock but due to additional physical cores, it can handle multi tasking better? Running 2-3 maybe 4 cpu intensive applications wont slow it down, although its top speed would be less than a consumer grade cpu? Waht are some programs out there that can make use of all 12 cores? I use Pspice and Matlab. Pspice is single core most of the time, Matlab manages to spread itself over 2 here and there.
Can you make the analogy of Physical cores being Torque, and clock speed being horsepower?
A 500 horsepower car can do 200mph with one passenger, but may not even move an inch with a 15000 pound load on the back, however a semi would not even feel a 15000 pound trailer but wont do more than 70mph.
Can you make the analogy of Physical cores being Torque, and clock speed being horsepower?
A 500 horsepower car can do 200mph with one passenger, but may not even move an inch with a 15000 pound load on the back, however a semi would not even feel a 15000 pound trailer but wont do more than 70mph.
When you look at this desktop i7-4770K vs E5-2687W:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75123,64582
You will notice that even though the E5 is a few hundred MHZ slower it has over double the cache, double the memory bandwidth and can address a TON more ram (and use ECC).
not sure how valid cpumark is for this but:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-2687W+@+3.10GHz
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
Thanks for your contribution to the thread. Noted.
Thanks for your contribution to the thread. Noted.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
Agreed.
I'm just glad we're getting more e5 xeon systems into "pro/consumer" hands.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 11,747
I can't wait till these drop. I mean, I'm clearly not the intended audience for this thing (even if I was, I don't have the money) but I'd love to play with one.
My plan is to buy one. But I don't know if I'll keep it. It all depends...
By use, I mean put a trash bag in it. See how much garbage it holds. See if it can play Crysis while I toss some banana peels in. You know...the usual. See how well it can trace reflections off of some metal garbage bins. Play some racing games and crash the cars into trash cans. Play Sim City 5 and set up as many recycling centers as I can and see if it can render everything with buttery smooth fps. Edit some videos of some citizens tossing out the trash. Use some Logic Pro to play some trash can drums. You know...the usual battery of tests with trash cans.
I'm just curious as to how well it keeps cool. Time to take out the good old thermal imaging camera!
By use, I mean put a trash bag in it. See how much garbage it holds. See if it can play Crysis while I toss some banana peels in. You know...the usual. See how well it can trace reflections off of some metal garbage bins. Play some racing games and crash the cars into trash cans. Play Sim City 5 and set up as many recycling centers as I can and see if it can render everything with buttery smooth fps. Edit some videos of some citizens tossing out the trash. Use some Logic Pro to play some trash can drums. You know...the usual battery of tests with trash cans.
I'm just curious as to how well it keeps cool. Time to take out the good old thermal imaging camera!
Last edited: