MP 7,1 Mac Pro 8.1 - WHAT IF...

[prefuse07]

Here we go folks!

6/6 Update: I've added an additional picture at the bottom to drive-home my theory that the AS and Intel boards are indeed direct-swaps, where all remaining hardware can be kept. So now I wonder if Apple will offer this option to current 7,1 owners. Also, paging @goMac 😅

LoBo Comparison: AS LoBo on the left -- Intel LoBo on the right (Thanks for the AS pic @Boil) I've marked all of the mounting points, and the exhaust cutout on both boards to illustrate that they are indeed direct-swaps. :

Internal Comparison: AS Mac Pro Left -- Intel Mac Pro Right:

Internal Reverse Side Comparison: AS Mac Pro Left -- Intel Mac Pro Right:

 

[goMac]

Here we go folks!

Reverse side: AS LoBo on the left -- Intel LoBo on the right (Thanks for the AS pic @Boil)

Yeah thats not workable as a drop in board.

The good news is that it looks like storage modules might be replaceable.

But they're in completely the wrong place compared to the 2019. And the RAM slots aren't there are all so they won't match up with the RAM compartments on the case. And it won't match with the 2019 fan configuration.

Technically it's still the same outer frame so if you replaced enough you could make it work. But you're basically stripping it down to the metal frame at the point and replacing everything else.

 

[mode11]

PSU seems the same. And outer case?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

honestly that mother board is WAY too big for what little is going on there. It smells like a hold over design and begging for a redesign. There is way too little going on on that motherboard.

 

[mode11]

honestly that mother board is WAY too big for what little is going on there. It smells like a hold over design and begging for a redesign. There is way too little going on on that motherboard.

The 2019’s was similarly sparse. Isn’t it needed for the PCIe slots?

Not sure how many double-wide cards it’ll need to fit though without GPUs. Perhaps it’ll be downsized in a couple of versions, though will still need to fit the rack mount width.

 

[arw]

PSU seems the same.

So with 1,4kW 1280W maximum power draw that means ~1152W usable (90% efficiency).
300W AUX + 7x 75W PCI (525W) = 825W
That leaves 327W for the AS SoC + other components.

Apple Silicon Mac Pro:
300W auxiliary power available:
Two 6-pin connectors delivering 75W of power each
One 8-pin connector delivering 150W of power

But how in earth can the old Mac Pro additionally list up to 500W power available for each of the two MPX Modules?

edit: official specs list Maximum continuous power: 1280W at 108–125V

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

The 2019’s was similarly sparse. Isn’t it needed for the PCIe slots?

Not sure how many double-wide cards it’ll need to fit though without GPUs. Perhaps it’ll be downsized in a couple of versions, though will still need to fit the rack mount width.

Disagree that it was equally sparse. It's a good bit more busy than the 8,1. Yes, some of it makes sense for the slot area. But it went from suburban usage , skipped rural, and went to the desert.

 

[mode11]

So with 1,4 kW that means 400 W available for the AS SoC?
8x 75W PCI (600W) + 300W aux.

edit: forgot the 8x 75W PCI, right?

Yes. Check out the spec page. They reused the PSU (not that the SoC needs the power of course).

 

[mode11]

Disagree that it was equally sparse. It's a good bit more busy than the 8,1. Yes, some of it makes sense for the slot area. But it went from suburban usage , skipped rural, and went to the desert.

Yeah, it is a lot emptier actually. Though fibreglass is cheap and it needs the space for the slots.

just noticed that the heat sink is an identical size, and the LoBo mounting points are all in the same place. They do like to reuse a chassis during a transition.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Yeah, it is a lot emptier actually. Though fibreglass is cheap and it needs the space for the slots.

just noticed that the heat sink is an identical size, and the LoBo mounting points are all in the same place. They do like to reuse a chassis during a transition.

Agreed. Seems a tradition going back to the G5/MacPro times (maybe before). But makes me think they may have a new chassis for the M3.

 

[prefuse07]

Picture above has been updated to show just how much of a direct drop-in the new board is.

 

[fuchsdh]

Agreed. Seems a tradition going back to the G5/MacPro times (maybe before). But makes me think they may have a new chassis for the M3.

I dunno if there's cost/fab considerations, but they spent all that money over-engineering the chassis the first go-around, I doubt they'll toss it after two revisions and less than five years. Certainly not a usual Cook-era move.

(I agree if they're not going to meaningfully expand its capabilities it makes sense to have a smaller chassis, but on the other hand maybe given their history it's best to have room to avoid thermal issues.)

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I dunno if there's cost/fab considerations, but they spent all that money over-engineering the chassis the first go-around, I doubt they'll toss it after two revisions and less than five years. Certainly not a usual Cook-era move.

(I agree if they're not going to meaningfully expand its capabilities it makes sense to have a smaller chassis, but on the other hand maybe given their history it's best to have room to avoid thermal issues.)

Well you have tradition and a well tailored argument on your side. G5 introduced the new case, and we went through 5 revisions of the Mac Pro before we changed the chassis. So good points.

 

[prefuse07]

Given the rumors of those compute modules -- and the fact that NONE OF THAT was previewed/talked about at WWDC, I have a feeling that they will try to bring those in with the 9,1, which I am hoping also utilizes this same chassis. I should probably move this post to the 9,1 What If thread hahaha

 

[smckenzie]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but the new MP has the same brackets (labelled 1 & 3) as my 7,1 which hide the guide slots for the MPX modules. If there wasn't going to be any modules, then why are those brackets there as they are not needed for 3rd party cards, just for the wings of the MPX modules.

The majority of audio interfaces now are all external via thunderbolt, even the high stuff from ProTools is external. They do offer a HDX full length card but that isn't PCIe x16 or even 8. With that in mind, why the full length/height x16 slots then with aux power?

Lastly, many didn't think we could have a AS chip with PCIe slots, but they've done it somehow plus they've used the same case. To much of a stretch to think they will re-use the MPX in some form?

 

[goMac]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but the new MP has the same brackets (labelled 1 & 3) as my 7,1 which hide the guide slots for the MPX modules. If there wasn't going to be any modules, then why are those brackets there as they are not needed for 3rd party cards, just for the wings of the MPX modules.

IIRC - those brackets also work with 3rd party standard PCIe cards that require a brace. They weren't just for MPX.

 

[smckenzie]

IIRC - those brackets also work with 3rd party standard PCIe cards that require a brace. They weren't just for MPX.

I can't think of or find of any cards that would need a brace that would attach to where Bracket #3 is.

 

[goMac]

I can't think of or find of any cards that would need a brace that would attach to where Bracket #3 is.

The GeForce 4090 Founders can supposedly attach to that bracket for support. 4090 has a rear bracket in the box and mounting holes. Although I’ve never seen one configured that way. I think it’s part of the PCIe spec - just that most PCs don’t implement it.

Edit: Also it’s clearly not MPX compatible because the entire MPX power feed is missing.

 

[deconstruct60]

The price is ridiculous when the Mac Studio with M2 Ultra still starts at $3999

Relatively not really when account for the fact that the 8 core CPU the Mac Pro 2019 entry model uses is only around 1,300 list price .

Intel® Xeon® W-3225 Processor (16.5M Cache, 3.70 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Xeon® W-3225 Processor (16.5M Cache, 3.70 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

The system minus CPU is around $4699. ( even if chopp off 699 for the GPU , you still talking $4k for a barebones box ) Apple raised the floor on RAM configuration. 64 versus 32GB. They also cranked up the SSD capacity floor.

it is basically the same ole Apple pricing mark up.

 

[deconstruct60]

I hope with the arrival of the AS Mac Pro they will lower the price of the Intel Mac Pro.

not really lowered. No ‘sneak peak ‘ window, Apple treated this like a normal Mac upgrade . New model wipes old model from the store. It is done. No side-by-side sales from Apple.

there is likely inventory in the channel . But it will likely largely dry up by the Fall. At which point prices might temporarily go up.

 

[deconstruct60]

Not MPX modules either.

Errr.

Radeon Pro MPX Module - Apple

Apple Store Search Results

www.apple.com

They should probably take that "New" label off the W6x00X modules though.

 

[deconstruct60]

So with 1,4 kW that means ~1000W ~500W available for the AS SoC?
300W AUX + 7x 75W PCI (525W) = 825W

edit: initially forgot the 8x 75W PCI, right?
edit2: actually, the top two slots are counted as one x4 slot, so 7 in total

Only 300W AUX ... ouch. That looks like they 'bet the farm' on a "bigger than Ultra solution that failed. Just one 8 pin. That isn't going to power a decent mid-high end computation accelerator. And two 6 pins isn't much either.

I think missing some stuff also that is small but adds up. Power for ports ( even at 5W/port at 10 ports that's 50W). Probably a decent power sink at the PCI-e switch. If trim that ~500W down to ~400W then a "4x Max power consumption" ( maybe not necessarily 4 Max dies but approximately that much die area in aggregate and scaled RAM packages to match) probably soaks most of that up.

Wouldn't be surprised that when on the M3 or M4 cycle they are using it all up. And it is much cheaper to just keep the power supply parts production keep rolling along for the next couple of years.

 

[goMac]

For those keeping score: Gurman was indeed “right on the money” once again.

 

[AdamSeen]

I bet the PCI block diagram will show it is fairly limited. 8x thunderbolt AND PCI ports on an Ultra.

 

[deconstruct60]

I bet the PCI block diagram will show it is fairly limited. 8x thunderbolt AND PCI ports on an Ultra.

The Thunderbolt ports don't materially matter. Each Max die has 4 TB controllers on it anyway. Each of those controllers has a x4 PCI-e v3 controller inside. That basically scales exactly the same way it does from M2 to M2 Pro/Max .

The Max chip has four x1 PCI-e v4 lanes. So the dual 10GbE, WiFI/Bluetooth, discrete SATA controller, and some USB 3 controllers aren't going to weight down much.

There is a decent sized chip on the new motherboard about in the same exact place the PLX PCI-e switch was on the MP 2019 motherboard. Decent chance it is doing the same thing . 6+ slots of MP 2019 were only fed by two x16 PCI-e v3 feeds. If Apple feeds 7 slots with two x16 PCI-e v4 then really haven't 'lost' anything. ( 4 x16 PCI-e v3 == 2 x16 PCI-e v4 in aggregate bandwidth).


If it is just one x16 PCI-e v4 backhaul feeding all of that, then yeah. It is backslide.

If is three x16 PCI-e v4 ( two 'clean' x16 and one x16 backhaul for the rest of the slots ) it would be substantially better. I suspect they would have bragged about that a lot more if they had it. ( I don't think so. )


It will look 'fairly limited' relative to $3,000 AMD/Intel SoC options. So does the MP 2019 at this point. [ The MP 2009-2012 , 2013 , 2019 all used a PCI-e switch to scale out to more 'lane consumers' . It would be nothing new for this one to do the same thing. ]