Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Currently hoping I can afford 16c, 48GB ram, 1TB SSD, Pro Vega II Duo, Promise Pegasus J2i (for internal time machine drive).

The 16c has a turbo boost 3.0 of 4.6GHz, where the 12c has a turbo boost 3.0 of 4.5GHz. (see attached screenshot). I've been trying to read up about this and it sounds like turbo boost 3.0 can boost a single core to higher amounts. So good for working in single threaded Cinema4D tools, and photoshop. But it sounds like a PC has to have a driver to make this work, and so hope MacOS would also include this for this chip.

Do you think its worth getting a 16c because of Turbo Boost 3.0 is higher than 12c?

does anyone know if the 16 core upgrade will subtract the cost of the 8 core? I fear apple just will add $2000 to the price of the core unit.
[doublepost=1560575700][/doublepost]doing quick math on the imac pro it seems they charge more then the upgrade so the 8 core cpu is $1113 and the 10 core is $1440 a price difference of $327 (these are not the apple sku but same thing basically)

apple charge $800 for the upgrade.


I really hate apple sometimes. seems like the 16 core will be a $1600 upgrade. These are rough numbers. Im not doing actual math.
[doublepost=1560575880][/doublepost]actually the intro cpu is the lowest end one at $750 so that price will be more.
 
Can t2 security chip be turned off?

All the way off? No. Without a functioning T2 chip the machine won't boot at all. Period.

Is it the T2's job to do any checking of 3rd party internal parts outside the scope of core security? No.
Checking RAM DIMM IDs? No. Is it going to be in the future? Extremely likely no.

Can the T2's storage NANDs be upgraded trivially? Probably not. There are several slots and two SATA ports inside the Mac Pro ... the T2 can't particuarly do "exclusion" there with no user control.

There are security settings of the firmware ( which the T2 protects) that can stop external booting, but that isn't disallowing because the drive is a 3rd party drive. It is a security measure.
 
All the way off? No. Without a functioning T2 chip the machine won't boot at all. Period.

Is it the T2's job to do any checking of 3rd party internal parts outside the scope of core security? No.
Checking RAM DIMM IDs? No. Is it going to be in the future? Extremely likely no.

Can the T2's storage NANDs be upgraded trivially? Probably not. There are several slots and two SATA ports inside the Mac Pro ... the T2 can't particuarly do "exclusion" there with no user control.

There are security settings of the firmware ( which the T2 protects) that can stop external booting, but that isn't disallowing because the drive is a 3rd party drive. It is a security measure.
Another word, the internal boot drive is proprietary, right? For audio work with instrumentals, i may need huge apple version ssd?
 
Another word, the internal boot drive is proprietary, right? For audio work with instrumentals, i may need huge apple version ssd?
Why do you need the instruments library to be on the boot drive? Use a pci drive which will be several orders of magnitude cheaper than what apple will charge for upgrades to the boot drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: filterdecay
I don’t like having anything on the boot drive except software and os installs. We will be able to attach so much fast storage to this thing I’m fine with 256gb for internal.
 
Why do you need the instruments library to be on the boot drive? Use a pci drive which will be several orders of magnitude cheaper than what apple will charge for upgrades to the boot drive.
I’m thinking when i load vst i struments, it would create latency.
 
I’m thinking when i load vst i struments, it would create latency.

If you had it on a m2 drive on a pcie card or a pci ssd it will load quick. Just price it accordingly. If Apple wants $2000 for a 1tb system drive then you should at least see what you can get for cheaper. And you can get a lot of speed and size for $2000
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macpro2019
If you had it on a m2 drive on a pcie card or a pci ssd it will load quick. Just price it accordingly. If Apple wants $2000 for a 1tb system drive then you should at least see what you can get for cheaper. And you can get a lot of speed and size for $2000
Sounds good then.
 
I probably missed it so, could someone please point me at the documentation saying the boot drive is proprietary and that the Mac Pro 7,1 will not boot from any other device.
 
I probably missed it so, could someone please point me at the documentation saying the boot drive is proprietary and that the Mac Pro 7,1 will not boot from any other device.
The boot drive is proprietary but I highly doubt they block you from booting off a different disk. Unless that’s some new t2 thing.

That t2 chip though. It has nothing to do with us and everything about shutting down hackintosh. They could easily put a restriction in the system like that if they wanted.
 
I probably missed it so, could someone please point me at the documentation saying the boot drive is proprietary and that the Mac Pro 7,1 will not boot from any other device.


It is proprietary. It's two flash modules. The T2 that's soldered on the motherboard is the SSD controller. Someone will probably eventually come up with upgrade modules if it's possible or allowed by the controller. The iMac Pro works this way. I don't know of anyone who has attempted to swap flash modules between iMac Pro's or swap in new, larger modules. The only current source for those modules would be Apple directly or pulls from iMac Pros. They are modules, very much like a buffered RAM DIMM. There's no logic or controller or PCIe lanes. It's two flash chips and a chip presumably for re-driving the signals to and from the T2.

The Mac Pro will almost certainly boot form any device. If it functions like other Macs with T2, you'll need to boot into recovery mode and enable booting from non-encrypted(or whatever Apple calls it) drives. Out the box, it will not boot from non-secure drives. So it's sort of true, but a 5-minute process enables booting from anything.

To add to my previous post about maybe going 16-core: If Apple's upgrade prices are really, really high, I may opt for the 8-core, drop in a $1999 16-core W3245 or the vanilla $3349 24-core W-3265, not the 2TB RAM enabled $6353 W-3265M.

"M" is another $3k retail above the same non-M part.

I'd then use the 8-core W-3225 out of the Mac Pro to build a decent Win10 processing box for projects I can let run overnight.

My guess:
8-core W-3225 $ Base
12-core W-3235 $300 + Base
16-core W-3245 $1100 + Base
24-core W-3265M $5700 + Base
28-core W-3275M $6900 + Base
 
Last edited:
wow... complete deal breaker for me. That's okay though, I'm sure Apple will be fine.
 
Do we know the exact processors being used?

Purchasing no less than a 12 core and two 512gb HD's.

Waiting to see changes closer to release date and would to see "bench results"on cores.
[doublepost=1560648270][/doublepost]Using the Pegasus MPX module can one use own HD's?
 
Do we know the exact processors being used?

Purchasing no less than a 12 core and two 512gb HD's.

Waiting to see changes closer to release date and would to see "bench results"on cores.
[doublepost=1560648270][/doublepost]Using the Pegasus MPX module can one use own HD's?

8-core W-3225
12-core W-3235
16-core W-3245
24-core W-3265M
28-core W-3275M

Pegasus MPX (PCIe controller) J4i will accept four 3.5" hard drives. It will occupy two PCIe slot spaces.
Pegasus direct-attach module J2i will accept two 3.5" hard drives, and will use onboard SATA connectors. Will not occupy any PCIe slot spaces. (See photo for where the J2i mounts)

Sonnet's Tempo SSD Pro card suddenly looks kind of attractive if you want to use 2.5" SSD's. I'm currently using 4x 2TB 2.5" SSD's. Will use the J2i and my existing Sonnet Tempo SSD Pro to hold all four drives and only use one PCIe slot to do it.

Additionally, you can use PCIe carriers to hold m.2 drives if you need faster storage than what SATA can provide. What is currently unknown: for putting multiple m.2 drives in one PCIe slot, if you need the carrier cards with PCIe switches like 4,1/5,1 do ($$$) or if you can use the 'dumb' switchless ones ($$). PCIe lane bifurcation support is required for switchless multiple m.2 adapters. The CPU's definitely support it. We don't know if Apple's EFI supports it and if the requisite logic is there on the motherboard. Either way, you can add up to four m.2 drives per open PCIe slot.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-06-15 at 9.07.34 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-06-15 at 9.07.34 PM.png
    417.1 KB · Views: 221
Last edited:
Another word, the internal boot drive is proprietary, right? For audio work with instrumentals, i may need huge apple version ssd?

T2 is the default boot drive. In the new Mac Pro chassis the T2 doesn't have to be the only drive.

if looking for low latencies in loading instruments you'd want multiple drives not one big huge one. SSDs allow more consolidation than HDDs but if looking to lower as far a possible down having multiple is better in general.

For example Apple charges $600 to go from an iMac Pro 1TB drive to a 2TB Drive. So ballpark is that they'd charge about $600 to move to a 1TB (from 256GB).

For about the same $600 could get a Intel 900P 480GB optane drive with substantially higher random read performance and very low latencies.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12136/the-intel-optane-ssd-900p-480gb-review/5

The new mac Pro has 2-3 slots that could be used for a Add-in-Card version of this or the newer 905P.

IF all that is needed is "regular" SSD speed then a M.2 host card and some more mainstream M.2 SSDs would be sufficient. Some folks want everything in one humongous volume on the desktop. There is no need to pile up things into one pile ( can but there is no need).
[doublepost=1560658024][/doublepost]
I probably missed it so, could someone please point me at the documentation saying the boot drive is proprietary


About the Apple T2 Security Chip and T2 Security Overview (pdf) https://www.apple.com/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overview.pdf

and that the Mac Pro 7,1 will not boot from any other device.

In the initial "out of the box" state, yes. Permanently? No.
That initial state is improved tamper resistance.





[doublepost=1560659941][/doublepost]
It is proprietary. It's two flash modules. The T2 that's soldered on the motherboard is the SSD controller. Someone will probably eventually come up with upgrade modules if it's possible or allowed by the controller.

While not impossible, I wouldn't bet on 3rd party solutions for T2 daughter NAND cards. SSD controllers have to set to deal with the specific quirks on the NAND vendor they are coupled to. In the regular world nobody is playing "Mix and match" games with SSD controllers (with a fixed set of firmware) and NAND packages.

What may see is Apple selling them. Or after long extended period of time folks selling harvested ones in a used state ( which would be somewhat sketchy since SSD NAND do wear over time. ) and some "leaks" out of the official Apple supply ( NAND cards "falling off the back of someones truck" and private forward deployed inventory. ).

The Mac Pro will almost certainly boot form any device. If it functions like other Macs with T2, you'll need to boot into recovery mode and enable booting from non-encrypted(or whatever Apple calls it) drives.

Not just boot into recovery mode. Pragmatically, you need to create an account on the hosted macOS image. If jump fresh "out of box" and immediately into recovery mode. Neither is trying to image the system drive fresh out of the box.

[Admins with organization config settings can leverage Apple's Device Enrollment Program and do an "internet recovery" to install/update to some local confing settings, but certain tools are out ( e.g., NetBoot ). ]

This only sounds like big drama to folks to are far, far, far off the normal Mac intial set up target. Take it out of the box, plug it in, login. Done. The T2 wan't be a problem for any of that.


Out the box, it will not boot from non-secure drives. So it's sort of true, but a 5-minute process enables booting from anything.

Out of the box it won't boot from anything other than Internet recovery ( boot off an image from the Apple mothership). It isn't whether the drive is "secure status" or not.

The defaults for Secure Boot are:

1. Full Security ( for which OS can run. by default only fully validated macOS can run. No Windows. DOS , etc. )

and

2. Disallow external boot ( for which external drives can be booted).
[ we'll see if Apple will put an exception on internal drives. All T2 Macs to this point only have one, and only one, internal drive. They may be adding more options to that boot section of the dialog box. However, in the "fresh out of the box" state the T2 probably won't let those other drives mount it as a operational user drive. Again increased tamper proof. ]

The other confusion really is that these boot restriction and security settings are far more so the firmware doing this and not the T2 itself. One of the T2's primary tasks though is to protect the firmware. So mindsets of "apple's firmware sucks I'll mutation Apple's firmware into my own creation... ... that isn't going to work so well.


Since this is a Mac, Apple restricting it initially to booting as a Mac really shouldn't be "big drama". That isn't out to 'get' the hackintoshes ... whose default initial state really isn't being a Mac.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Macpro2019
8-core W-3225
12-core W-3235
16-core W-3245
24-core W-3265M
28-core W-3275M

The 8-core is the cheaper W-3223.
[doublepost=1560683060][/doublepost]
Sounds good then.

You can even use SATA SSD-drives. Fast enough for 100's of voices and you'd want to/have to spread out your samples libraries on multiple SSD's anyway. You don't need those 3000MB/sec sustained read or whatever SSD's for sample playback. What you want is as fast random read as possible. And there the PCI/NVMe drives don't have that much of an edge over the SATA drives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macpro2019
8-core W-3225
12-core W-3235
16-core W-3245
24-core W-3265M
28-core W-3275M

Pegasus MPX (PCIe controller) J4i will accept four 3.5" hard drives. It will occupy two PCIe slot spaces.
Pegasus direct-attach module J2i will accept two 3.5" hard drives, and will use onboard SATA connectors. Will not occupy any PCIe slot spaces. (See photo for where the J2i mounts)

Sonnet's Tempo SSD Pro card suddenly looks kind of attractive if you want to use 2.5" SSD's. I'm currently using 4x 2TB 2.5" SSD's. Will use the J2i and my existing Sonnet Tempo SSD Pro to hold all four drives and only use one PCIe slot to do it.

Additionally, you can use PCIe carriers to hold m.2 drives if you need faster storage than what SATA can provide. What is currently unknown: for putting multiple m.2 drives in one PCIe slot, if you need the carrier cards with PCIe switches like 4,1/5,1 do ($$$) or if you can use the 'dumb' switchless ones ($$). PCIe lane bifurcation support is required for switchless multiple m.2 adapters. The CPU's definitely support it. We don't know if Apple's EFI supports it and if the requisite logic is there on the motherboard. Either way, you can add up to four m.2 drives per open PCIe slot.


Cache number matching???
 
You can even use SATA SSD-drives. Fast enough for 100's of voices and you'd want to/have to spread out your samples libraries on multiple SSD's anyway. You don't need those 3000MB/sec sustained read or whatever SSD's for sample playback. What you want is as fast random read as possible. And there the PCI/NVMe drives don't have that much of an edge over the SATA drives.

I don’t think that’s as true now as it was 3-4 years ago. As examples, the 970 Pro m.2 drive does 15k read operations/ second(IOPS) for queue depth 1 (QD1) random reads. The 860 EVO SATA produces 10.7k IOPS at QD1.

The disparity continues at QD4, with the m.2 drive posting 57k IOPS and the SATA topping out at 40k IOPS.

NVMe drives really shine when doing sequential transfers. The first-generation drives weren’t really better than SATA at low queue depth random reads. The current ones are 40% faster even at low queue depth.

If you’re spending that much on a machine, why not spend a little bit more for the 40% faster drive? Don’t forget, you can put a single m.2 drive on a $18 adapter and plug it in. The Pegasus SATA module will certainly be more than $18.

If you really want to get deep into it, look at the latency differences between the two drives at low queue depth reads.

Sources:
https://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-ssd-970-pro-nvme-512gb-ssd-review_204823/3
https://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-860-evo-500gb-sata-ssd-review_203759/3
 
Never mind.

If you really want max low queue depth performance, look at Optane. 905P posts 47k read IOPS at QD1 and 176k read IOPS at QD4. That’s 3-4x faster than either SATA or m.2.

Latencies are also in the 0.02 ms range for Optane compared to 0.095ms range for SATA and around 0.068 ms for m.2. So it’s 3-5x better latency as well.

A single Optane drive willl be a lot cheaper per IOPS than SATA or m.2. No matter how many m.2 or SATA drives you raid together, you never decrease latency.

Latency and low queue depths, Optane is completely in its own class. One Optane drive can outperform many SATA flash drives. You also don’t have to split or balance files across multiple drives. Dump it all on a 905p and run it.
 
16-Core
32GB (upgrade myself)
AMD Radeon Pro Vega II
1TB SSD
Thunderbolt 3 Pro Cable (2x2 metres)
USBC to Lightning Pro Cable (1 metre)


Eventually I'll buy...
Afterburner
Pro Display XDR + VESA mount
 
Last edited:
You'll never notice the difference between 4.5 and 4.6GHz. That's only a 2% increase, and it will only occur when all other cores are virtually at idle. A perfectly single-threaded and completely CPU-bound task that takes 60 seconds at 4.5GHz would take 58.7 seconds at 4.6GHz.

Yeah good point Slash-2CPU.

In the real world the answer is the same as you just said, but out of interest do you think the 12 core with a base clock of 3.3GHz (Turbo 4.4GHz), or the 16 core with a base clock of 3.2GHz (Turbo 4.4GHz) would be the same speed for single threaded tasks? I don't know if the base clock doesn't matter because they would always turbo to the same amount. Or does base clock actually matter?

I use After Effects which isn't very good at multi-core performance, but then I also use Cinema4D which is perfect for using all cores when rendering, so trying to work out what CPU would be best.
 
Yeah good point Slash-2CPU.

In the real world the answer is the same as you just said, but out of interest do you think the 12 core with a base clock of 3.3GHz (Turbo 4.4GHz), or the 16 core with a base clock of 3.2GHz (Turbo 4.4GHz) would be the same speed for single threaded tasks? I don't know if the base clock doesn't matter because they would always turbo to the same amount. Or does base clock actually matter?

I use After Effects which isn't very good at multi-core performance, but then I also use Cinema4D which is perfect for using all cores when rendering, so trying to work out what CPU would be best.


For a truly single-thread task and not running anything else, yes. They would be equal, assuming all the data fits inside the 12-cores caches and it's not some odd corner-case where the little extra cache of the 16-core makes an improbable difference.

You'd have to find out the turbo ratios of the CPUs. It would be something like 11/10/10/8/8/8/7/7/7/7/6/6 which is increments of 100MHz boost (added to base)when loaded on 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 12 cores. Good luck with that though. Intel quit posting turbo ratio lists after 10/2017. They say they're "proprietary to Intel."

Of real interest would be what the turbo ratio (MHz) is when running 4-6 cores, the 4th thru 6th number on the turbo ratio list. That's where I'd expect a CPU to settle when running an app with a singular very heavy thread, since there's always a couple-few other small tasks such as LAN chatter, disk I/O, file system stuff, and user interface(progress bars, mouse movements, etc).

For your After Effects work, I'd be very interested in all-core boost. That is what boost clock you get when all cores are loaded and the CPU is at its power envelope and below throttling temperature. This would be where your CPU would live when fully loaded. A 12-core with all-core boost at 4.0GHz would be not too far off in performance from a 16-core with 3.4GHz all-core(maybe 8-10% faster after multithreaded inefficiencies), and it wouldn't be worth the extra $700-1000. Conversely, a 16-core with all-core at 3.8GHz would be around 25% faster at deeply parallel threaded work than a 12-core with 3.9GHz all-core.

Base clock isn't very meaningful beyond a relativistic comparison. Obviously a 10% difference in base is noteworthy. A 3% difference isn't much. If you're under power and thermal limits(and the ncMP seems to guarantee you'll always be under), the CPU will always be in boost state while there's work to be done.

I suspect when you see the price difference between 12 and 16 core options it will be an easy choice.

I'll also throw an extra curveball at you. You need RAM space and storage speed to be adequate to keep those cores fed and not waiting to load data. Spending an extra $1000 on 4 more cores to find out your working/scratch disks can't keep up would be frustrating.

I have sent an email to the one guy I know at Intel, but don't hold your breath on an answer on all-core boost clocks.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.