Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Cooling
- Thread starter dpaanlka
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Both fans and/or water could be possible, but remember that the G5's (especially the Quad model) produce a LOT of heat.
The Xeons produce less heat than the G5's they replace. How much less I don't know though.
The Xeons produce less heat than the G5's they replace. How much less I don't know though.
Based on the way they've been able to pack so much more processing power into the Xserves than they could with the G5s, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac Pros are only air-cooled.
Well, each Xeon has an identical TDP to the comparable Conroe Core 2 Duo chip- there will be 2 of them naturally but heat is no biggie.dpaanlka said:
The first reports coming in say its quiet...vewwwy vewwy quiet... this is with the 2.66, stock video card and RAM.
Pardon the misunderstanding - I meant "less heat" than the G5's it replaced.dpaanlka said:
(Original post edited)
I'll bet it is fan cooled, becuase it should the air flow diagram, and it only makes sense. And they said that it didn't produce as much heat and all that.
I only see 4 fans in the Mac Pro; the power supply fan, 2 front fans, and the fan on the memory cage.
Remember that not all G5s were water cooled, just the high end ones. Based on the pics and the fact that it's not noted anywhere, I'd say no. You could just ask someone who already has one in one of the already open threads. 
Macmadant said:
Please, let's keep a sense of proportion.
Not in the 3 we have at work and despite the occasional poster only one if my memory serves me well here saying (no pics were posted) that they'd had a problem, there have been no mass reports, recalls or class suit actions.
Regardless, the new macpro is not water cooled. I am right under 100% sure. I would be willing to put some mad weight behind this. air cooled all the way.Blue Velvet said:Please, let's keep a sense of proportion.
Not in the 3 we have at work and despite the occasional poster only one if my memory serves me well here saying (no pics were posted) that they'd had a problem, there have been no mass reports, recalls or class suit actions.
-dsm
You could downgrade, too...
So the 3 GHz Xeon has a TDP of 80W (Thermal Design Power, the theoretical maximum amount of heat it will generate,) the rest of the 'normal' line 65W, and there's one 2.33 GHz 'low-power' model that is only 40W. (This is in addition to the 'normal' 65W 2.33 GHz chip; so the low-power one will almost certainly cost more, a quick search shows the 'normal' one for $515 with the low power one $585 at the same retailer, the same store lists the 2.0 GHz chip for $365.)
Since the processors are socketed (see the link from PowerMax on the main page story with links,) you should be able to replace the processors. If you select the lowest-end 2.0 GHz Mac Pro, and swap in these cooler-running 2.33 GHz chips, you should have a faster, much cooler/quieter system. If you take Apple's downgrade credit of $300, and manage to sell your two chips for, say, $200 each, the 'upgrade' would 'only' cost you $470. (Although you'd still be 14% slower than the 'stock' 2.66 GHz system you're 'upgrading' from.)
Man, that's a lot of 'quoted' statements...
So the 3 GHz Xeon has a TDP of 80W (Thermal Design Power, the theoretical maximum amount of heat it will generate,) the rest of the 'normal' line 65W, and there's one 2.33 GHz 'low-power' model that is only 40W. (This is in addition to the 'normal' 65W 2.33 GHz chip; so the low-power one will almost certainly cost more, a quick search shows the 'normal' one for $515 with the low power one $585 at the same retailer, the same store lists the 2.0 GHz chip for $365.)
Since the processors are socketed (see the link from PowerMax on the main page story with links,) you should be able to replace the processors. If you select the lowest-end 2.0 GHz Mac Pro, and swap in these cooler-running 2.33 GHz chips, you should have a faster, much cooler/quieter system. If you take Apple's downgrade credit of $300, and manage to sell your two chips for, say, $200 each, the 'upgrade' would 'only' cost you $470. (Although you'd still be 14% slower than the 'stock' 2.66 GHz system you're 'upgrading' from.)
Man, that's a lot of 'quoted' statements...
dpaanlka said:
xeons produce the same amount of heat, but Intel have better technology in its manufactoring.
0.65 micron and great heatspreaders on the processors.
IBM did not have any heatpreaders on their processors.
That means less area to take away the heat = more noise from fans.
Jobs and Apple are trying to brainwash all how bad the G5 was suddenly.
The PPC highend systems are at least in the same class as Woodcreast. That is not the reason on the switch to Intel.
Apple does not care about making the fastest computer.
They want to make money.
People dont want the fastest computers.
Why would X86 survived all those years they where slower?
I mean.
Ultra Sparc had many years where they where faster.
Same thing with Power4, and later G5.
Intel has great marketing.
People look at strange numbers.
One example:
The G4 had a 133mhz bus.
Intel had 800mhz.
According to people, so did G4 suck beacuse off this.
Why do we have these fast bussess now?
Well. The true reason is that they dont want to have large L3 cache memory.
A G4 at 133mhz bus with 2mb L3 cache could compete per clock with a PentiumM. But L3 cache is extremly expensive.
By having fast busses, the can eliminate the L3 cache.
It is all about making money for Intel/Apple.
Nothing more.
People are stupid. That explains Windows. (and so much more, like that we had the same party for 90 years here in Sweden)
shompa said:
There is the same die area under the heatspreader as the G5 had with a normal cooler (although the G5 die is smaller than the woodcrest die). A heatspreader actually compromises cooling which is why enthusiasts take it off. It's only there to protect the bare die. Get your facts straight!
Back to the cooling of the Mac Pro, i just wonder what the air flow is like from the CPU's. There seems to be only 2 small slots for the air to flow through the memory cage.
The ultra sparc was also a lot more expensive and less compatible than X86. X86 survived because it was cheaper and had the most industry support.shompa said:
shompa said:
The woodcrest has 4MB of L2 cache. What's your point?
shompa said:
This what I'm TRYING to tell people on two of my threads that I started:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/222398/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/222585/
But so many people are in self denial, as they are so bought into a very well orchestrated propaganda.
But I must admit that MacPro does looks practically functional on design wise ^_^
triotary said:
Propaganda? How about hard facts and truth? Complain all you want but new intel processors are some of the best you can buy these days performance wise. Plus if the Mac Pro is too expensive then get an iMac, if that's too slow then get a dell and stop moaning about Mac's.
triotary said:There we go again
Go where? Proving you wrong is it? It's oh so simple
Oh and reading your other post it's clear you have not done any research. The processor the Mac Pro uses has nothing in common, other than it being made by intel, with the older P4 that the G5 used be benchmarked against. The woodcrest (core 2 duo) is a lot faster than the P4. Plus the P4 was only single core (HT doesn't really count) , whereas the G5 was dual processor and the woodcrest effectively has 4 processors. I don't know what planet you are from but generally 2 cores is better than 1 and 4 is better than 2 (assuming all cores individually are around the same speed and you use a multi-processor aware benchmark).