New Mac Pro GPU Overkill

[MH01]

It's faster and supports 4K monitors. That's all we know for sure. Everything else is guess work.

Faster then what? It no much point comparing it to the 5870 series, they are 2 generation old. If it did not beat the 5870..... every kid building a PC these days has a GPU that out performs a 5870 in a mid range cheap card

And 4K support, well so does any decent desktop card. (via driver updates)

----------

Since you can't upgrade your GPU later this is future proofing the video card - so five years from now the GPU's you buy (D300 or whatever) will still be good performers. Maybe with a 4k display as was said.

Secondly the point is for more OpenCL usage by developers and users. I think I understand the nMP now, it's targeted at professionals, including ...

• Graphics
• Music
• Developers

Since Intel is hitting a wall with performance people are relying more on computing on your graphics cards. Developers have been slow to enable this - partially because it's not always easy or possible to parallelize tasks, but more and more you should be relying on your GPU to get computing work done.

However I agree more configurability on this axis would be appreciated.

Futureproofing would be the old Mac pro desgin where you could upgrade the GPUs. In 5 years time, todays D300 and D700 are going to be extremly slow.

 

[flat five]

Futureproofing would be the old Mac pro desgin where you could upgrade the GPUs. In 5 years time, todays D300 and D700 are going to be extremly slow.

what, exactly, is preventing a user from upgrading their GPUs at a later date?

(as a means to eliminate apple corp from the equation, I'll phrase the question this way)

what prevents a person who bought d300s from buying d700s from someone selling theirs on eBay then plugging them into their computer?

why wouldn't that work?

 

[Cubemmal]

what, exactly, is preventing a user from upgrading their GPUs at a later date?

(as a means to eliminate apple corp from the equation, I'll phrase the question this way)

what prevents a person who bought d300s from buying d700s from someone selling theirs on eBay then plugging them into their computer?

why wouldn't that work?

Because the D700 will be slow and obsolete in a few years too. Plus there will be precious few people selling their nMP GPU's on eBay.

The only hope for upgrading would be the unlikely case that Apple offers upgraded cards, and the also not likely case that OWC offers a nMP video card. Given the volumes involved it would probably be expensive, but maybe not if they would put cheap GPU's on there. At any rate the CEO of OWC soft panned the idea IIRC.

 

[handsome pete]

what, exactly, is preventing a user from upgrading their GPUs at a later date?

(as a means to eliminate apple corp from the equation, I'll phrase the question this way)

what prevents a person who bought d300s from buying d700s from someone selling theirs on eBay then plugging them into their computer?

why wouldn't that work?

Well nothing, although at this point it's probably not a good idea to assume that will be possible/easy. Until we see the teardown and secondary market for parts, it's probably safer to side with those that think the upgrade won't be available.

We'll find out how feasible the procedure is soon enough, though it'll probably still be quite some time to find out what kind of availability upgrade parts there will be (especially if Apple doesn't offer it themselves). Why exactly would there be quantities of D700s on eBay when there's really no upgrade path beyond that? Unless you're talking users who just scrap the systems to sell parts, but that can't be many.

And that's not even considering the amount of people that will want to attempt such a procedure if it does end up being more involved than just opening up the chassis and slapping a new card in (like the old one).

 

[flat five]

Because the D700 will be slow and obsolete in a few years too. Plus there will be precious few people selling their nMP GPU's on eBay.

The only hope for upgrading would be the unlikely case that Apple offers upgraded cards, and the also not likely case that OWC offers a nMP video card. Given the volumes involved it would probably be expensive, but maybe not if they would put cheap GPU's on there. At any rate the CEO of OWC soft panned the idea IIRC.

yeah, idk.. I can't figure out the right way to phrase the question.. that answer doesn't coincide with what I'm getting at

----------

, it's probably safer to side with those that think the upgrade won't be available.

.

I don't have a problem with siding with the non-upgradable folks.. it's just that I'd be more inclined to lean that way if someone could give better reasoning than "because that's what I think"
especially in lieu of all the evidence/history which shows otherwise (that the parts are upgradable)

 

[handsome pete]

I don't have a problem with siding with the non-upgradable folks.. it's just that I'd be more inclined to lean that way if someone could give better reasoning than "because that's what I think"

The reasoning on both sides of the argument is just what someone thinks. Given only what we know now, logic would tell us that the cards will be difficult to replace and there might not even be a market for it to be feasible to do so.

especially in lieu of all the evidence/history which shows otherwise (that the parts are upgradable)

That line of thinking went out the window with the complete redesign of the system.

 

[flat five]

The reasoning on both sides of the argument is just what someone thinks. Given only what we know now, logic would tell us that the cards will be difficult to replace and there might not even be a market for it to be feasible to do so.

nah.. there will be an automatic market out of necessity.. meaning, apple repair shops will have replacement cards in stock.. just as they do now (unless people are implying when a gpu blows, the entire system is totaled?)

right this very minute, I can walk down the street and pick up 2-3 different apple certified GPUs.. or I can take my computer there and have them install the cards for me.. either way, I can go buy a replacement/upgrade for my 1,1..

so three years from now, that same repair shop will have replacement/upgrade GPUs for the nmp.. am I supposed to believe they will no longer sell me a gpu? or that the only way they will sell me one is if I also pay them to install it?

and no, given what we know so far, the cards look incredibly simple to replace. I had to read instructions the first time I replaced a gpu in mp1.. I don't think you'll even need instructions with the nmp.. it appears to be that simple to swap them.

That line of thinking went out the window with the complete redesign of the system.

look at the other parts that are already verified to be replaceable.. both the ram and drive are considerably easier or more elegant to replace than mp1.. there's nothing, so far, which has said the nmp is more difficult to work on. it's actually saying the opposite is true

 

[wallysb01]

nah.. there will be an automatic market out of necessity.. meaning, apple repair shops will have replacement cards in stock.. just as they do now (unless people are implying when a gpu blows, the entire system is totaled?)

That doesn't mean they sell them for people who simply want an upgrade, nor does it mean that non-Apple technicians could even perform the repair. Apple retail shops my not even carry these parts and instead you have to get it shipped out for repair, while the Apple shop just clones you over to a new machine.... In short, you're making some assumptions here, or in other words, its "just what you think".

right this very minute, I can walk down the street and pick up 2-3 different apple certified GPUs.. or I can take my computer there and have them install the cards for me.. either way, I can go buy a replacement/upgrade for my 1,1..

That's because until the nMP "Apple" GPUs where the same hardware as PC GPUs.

so three years from now, that same repair shop will have replacement/upgrade GPUs for the nmp.. am I supposed to believe they will no longer sell me a gpu? or that the only way they will sell me one is if I also pay them to install it?

How is this not just you "think?" There may likely be some aftermarket for the GPUs and the ability for a moderately techie-minded person to make the swap, but even if that's true, its also likely that this aftermarket will be very expensive. Go check the prices on OWC for doing a CPU & daughterboard swap on the old MP. Its very likely to be something like that. Mean so expensive, you might as well sell your old one for what you can and just buy what you want new.

and no, given what we know so far, the cards look incredibly simple to replace. I had to read instructions the first time I replaced a gpu in mp1.. I don't think you'll even need instructions with the nmp.. it appears to be that simple to swap them.

I look at that thing and see something very hard to predict how easy it will be to access anything other than the RAM and SSD. Again, this is just something "you think".

look at the other parts that are already verified to be replaceable.. both the ram and drive are considerably easier or more elegant to replace than mp1.. there's nothing, so far, which has said the nmp is more difficult to work on. it's actually saying the opposite is true

I don't think you can say that until someone's done it in the public sphere and reported how they did it. Both RAM and HDD swaps on the old mac pro are damn simple and its pretty hard to see how it can get any simpler than this for the RAM:

1. Remove outer door.
2. Slide daughter board out.
3. Unhing old RAM.
4. Pull it out.
5. Reverse steps 1-4 with new RAM.

That can litterly take ~30 seconds (though I don't recommend anyone race the clock while doing it).

For the SSD you might be right, assuming you can get your hands on something to upgrade it with....

 

[deconstruct60]

this is what half the complaints are about already. music engineers (or whatever they are called, idk, people who cant make legit music) etc are being made to pay for $1k of graphics they will never use

The far more illuminating question is why can't their software take advantage of 2-5 TFLOPs of computation power. These processors are not there solely to do graphics.

What the issue far more is whether forward or backward facing on software. It is more so the gap between running old software faster or new software even faster.

More than likely the folks primarily oriented toward running older software will either stick with or buy older (but newer than what they have now) Mac Pros. Given a relatively narrow niche that is probably where a hefty percentage of them are going.

----------

Is there anyone in the world besides me who would be fine if the new Mac Pro came with a pair of $30 video cards as the base and offered the D500 & D700 as upgrades?

Because $30 video cards would relatively suck (and not be all that differentiated from rest of Mac line up ) at being GPGPU processors. It isn't graphics that these are primarily there for.

. Why force everyone to buy roughly $1000 of GPU horsepower? I'd rather buy an 8 or 12 core model for $900 less.

The 8 and 12 core upgrades are likely going to be 1.9-2.0K and 3K. Maybe the $1K offset would get you to 8 cores but 12 would be substantially more. But begs the question if 4 or 8 more cores is a large added value why skip 400+ more with the $1000 GPGPU horsepower buys you ? (and yes I do realize they are a different instruction set, but if the work is the issue...... What is the constraint and why is the permanent is relevant. ) If it was two GPGPU+DSP cards would you still be complaining about what to do with them.

 

[ActionableMango]

That doesn't mean they sell them for people who simply want an upgrade

Of course replacements boards will be available from Apple parts shops. All parts on the MP can be ordered right now as replacement parts. These shops make money on the parts, they aren't going to deny upgraders... they don't ask why you are buying parts. Oh, you want a GPU board to upgrade instead of to repair??? NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

I look at that thing and see something very hard to predict how easy it will be to access anything other than the RAM and SSD. Again, this is just something "you think".

The pictures clearly show GPU boards being held in by the slots at the bottom and bolts at the top. It's theoretically possible there are 1-way fasteners, soldering, or some such thing that is somehow hidden from the front side, but it seems unlikely because if you already have a fastening solution then you wouldn't need the bolts at the top.

While a teardown in the near future might reveal otherwise, the best information that we have at the moment indicates the boards are easily replaceable.

I don't have a problem with siding with the non-upgradable folks.. it's just that I'd be more inclined to lean that way if someone could give better reasoning than "because that's what I think"

I agree with all the points you've made in this thread about availability of parts and ease of slotting them in.

However, the 450W power supply seems problematic to me. The ever-increasing speed of GPUs typically comes with ever-increasing power needs.

450W seems drastically underpowered even for existing nMP1 boards, much less future cards:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1668368/

 

[deconstruct60]

.... It's $3000 because that is what Apple decided to charge. They always gravitate toward even amounts, and even if sold with no gpus, it's unlikely that the price would drop anywhere near $1000 if they stuck to the same formula.

Actually not. The odd ball inclusion of just 3 DIMMs when Apple normally would match the DIMMs to memory controllers (4 ) seems indicative that they had pricing problems. Likewise the gimping of the D300 relative to the mainstream W7000 cards of dropping the VRAM down 2GB ( D300 2GB is down to iMac BTO levels ) is highly indicative that they had to gimp to limbo just under $3,000.

Most likely AMD put a floor on just how low the margins Apple could put on these FirePro cards (i.e. there is some licensing Apple is likely having to pay to use FirePro brand). That margin isn't anywhere near Apple's normal... its likely substantively higher, but not as huge as the "normal" FirePro markup. Hence, the baseline price increase.

The new Mac Pro is going to have major problems is can't leverage the additional hardware.. completely idle GPGPUs is going to do major damage to $/performance metrics.


P.S. If Apple dropped down to one GPU card ( and dropped some TB sockets) the 4th RAM DIMM would come back and the VRAM probably wouldn't be capped at 2GB. So not going to get "all" of the $400-500 back from the dropped card.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Since Intel is hitting a wall with performance people are relying more on computing on your graphics cards.

Not necessarily:
Intel’s Haswell is an unprecedented threat to Nvidia, AMD

It is probably better for the OP, if he/she uses a machine with a Haswell processor.

 

[deconstruct60]

Of course replacements boards will be available from Apple parts shops. All parts on the MP can be ordered right now as replacement parts. These shops make money on the parts, they aren't going to deny upgraders... they don't ask why you are buying parts. Oh, you want a GPU board to upgrade instead of to repair??? NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

Stocking replacement parts and retail selling parts are similar but different businesses. Apple ( and other vendors ) only stock as many replacements at around the levels at which they expect failures to occur. Otherwise can have bloated inventories. Some companies may do that but the ones running super lean inventories don't.

A slow trickle of parts slipping through the cracks may not show up on Apple's 'radar' but wholesale selling Mac parts to a large system builder crowd is going to trigger Apple to ask for the old burn' out part to be shipped back for every new part shipped out. Unsually high spikes in failures should mean that QA process ramps up.

It is not a retail business. And for longitudinal QA, Apple should be swapping to get back a significant sampling of failed parts to see if there is some root cause QA issue they can avoid in future products.

 

[phrehdd]

I think I would have preferred a SINGLE vs a dual GPU scenario and pick up the slack with a 2nd "drive." - Preferably an SSD that can be upgraded rather than this proprietary version.

 

[thekev]

Actually not. The odd ball inclusion of just 3 DIMMs when Apple normally would match the DIMMs to memory controllers (4 ) seems indicative that they had pricing problems. Likewise the gimping of the D300 relative to the mainstream W7000 cards of dropping the VRAM down 2GB ( D300 2GB is down to iMac BTO levels ) is highly indicative that they had to gimp to limbo just under $3,000.

Most likely AMD put a floor on just how low the margins Apple could put on these FirePro cards (i.e. there is some licensing Apple is likely having to pay to use FirePro brand). That margin isn't anywhere near Apple's normal... its likely substantively higher, but not as huge as the "normal" FirePro markup. Hence, the baseline price increase.

The new Mac Pro is going to have major problems is can't leverage the additional hardware.. completely idle GPGPUs is going to do major damage to $/performance metrics.


P.S. If Apple dropped down to one GPU card ( and dropped some TB sockets) the 4th RAM DIMM would come back and the VRAM probably wouldn't be capped at 2GB. So not going to get "all" of the $400-500 back from the dropped card.

I could see that if AMD didn't address any low price points in the firepro line, but they do go as low as $200-250 or so each when you look at the base models. Those are usually based on older chips, but I figured the branding thing may have been a hurdle when they debuted with non-standard naming conventions. I do find the use of 2x 2GB cards to be a bit strange if they intend for cards to aid with computation, given that they may need to load a set of data into each card independently. That's actually the case with a lot o gpu based renderers and one of many things that has held that area back somewhat.

 

[deconstruct60]

I could see that if AMD didn't address any low price points in the firepro line, but they do go as low as $200-250 or so each when you look at the base models.

The W5000 and below are relative crap compared to iMac BTO GPUs. There is no way two "significantly less than iMac" GPUs are going to work with product differentation. There many gaps where not going to be leverage both. In fact, the design isn't particularly oriented to having both on at full blast all the time. They also would have trouble running 6 display port displays. I suppose a W5000 could do a 4K but I doubt they'd manage three with reasonable results. [ And depite AMD's marketing page those W5000 really isn't a "mid range" card. It is only "mid range" in their FirePro line up due to 2-3 generations back options that are the "entry level". Which is really just OLD not entry. ]


Something equivalent to a W7000 was about the floor where Apple could come in and so some differentiation between iMac and Mac Pro.

I suspect this is a short term blimp. Apple probably made the case that they can sell gobs of these things so that a lower margin is offset by higher sales. AMD probably doesn't believe that ( their approaches at lower than Nvidia prices typically doesn't work as well as they'd like) and so stuck them with a higher mark-up on lower expected volume. There is really not a good way for Apple to come back and haggle with them until they have proof. If Mac Pros go on a 50-80K run rate I think Apple might be able to let some more air out of the prices and ease the Mac Pro back closer to the older 2,499 entry point. ( at two GPUs per system that is like 100-160k more GPUs sold per year for AMD in workstation space. That will be a big deal.) If the volume is on the low side then AMD was right and the price will probably stick.

do find the use of 2x 2GB cards to be a bit strange if they intend for cards to aid with computation, given that they may need to load a set of data into each card independently. That's actually the case with a lot o gpu based renderers and one of many things that has held that area back somewhat.

I think the D300 don't have ECC so the serious about data integrity OpenCL folks are going to punt on those anyway. Most likely the folks dual 300s are likely going to be the group where the second GPU isn't "lit up" most of the time and with workload mostly Apple frameworks kick out when context permits. I can see cutting back on the VRAM is folks aren't particularly going to use it much. Especially if the price point is blown out a bit.

At the edges this is a new "normal" configuration so software folks will software developers will stop treating as some kind of a fluke configuration. There is a GPGPU around that is load it down won't impact a single screen set up much ( because the graphics are on another GPU). There is a common resource available in every Mac Pro sold that you can leverage.

If the resource may or may not be present then it is far more an "optional" development task. Optional often leads to not implemented in the short-medium term product rollouts .

 

[thekev]

The W5000 and below are relative crap compared to iMac BTO GPUs. There is no way two "significantly less than iMac" GPUs are going to work with product differentation. There many gaps where not going to be leverage both. In fact, the design isn't particularly oriented to having both on at full blast all the time. They also would have trouble running 6 display port displays. I suppose a W5000 could do a 4K but I doubt they'd manage three with reasonable results. [ And depite AMD's marketing page those W5000 really isn't a "mid range" card. It is only "mid range" in their FirePro line up due to 2-3 generations back options that are the "entry level". Which is really just OLD not entry. ]

That's a very good point. The older ones may not be appropriate for thunderbolt 2 / displayport 1.2. It's just that if they were using a straight W7000 configuration, they would probably label it that way as they have in the past. It looks like the W7000 in its standard configuration is up at $4000.

Something equivalent to a W7000 was about the floor where Apple could come in and so some differentiation between iMac and Mac Pro.

I suspect this is a short term blimp. Apple probably made the case that they can sell gobs of these things so that a lower margin is offset by higher sales. AMD probably doesn't believe that ( their approaches at lower than Nvidia prices typically doesn't work as well as they'd like) and so stuck them with a higher mark-up on lower expected volume. There is really not a good way for Apple to come back and haggle with them until they have proof. If Mac Pros go on a 50-80K run rate I think Apple might be able to let some more air out of the prices and ease the Mac Pro back closer to the older 2,499 entry point. ( at two GPUs per system that is like 100-160k more GPUs sold per year for AMD in workstation space. That will be a big deal.) If the volume is on the low side then AMD was right and the price will probably stick.

I'm not entirely sure why they didn't go with the standard radeon configuration that they used in the past. It could have been an issue of power. Typically workstation cards are clocked a bit lower. I don't know how they compare to an underclocked Radeon though.

I think the D300 don't have ECC so the serious about data integrity OpenCL folks are going to punt on those anyway. Most likely the folks dual 300s are likely going to be the group where the second GPU isn't "lit up" most of the time and with workload mostly Apple frameworks kick out when context permits. I can see cutting back on the VRAM is folks aren't particularly going to use it much. Especially if the price point is blown out a bit.

I could see that.

 

[VirtualRain]

I think the D300 don't have ECC so the serious about data integrity OpenCL folks are going to punt on those anyway. Most likely the folks dual 300s are likely going to be the group where the second GPU isn't "lit up" most of the time and with workload mostly Apple frameworks kick out when context permits. I can see cutting back on the VRAM is folks aren't particularly going to use it much. Especially if the price point is blown out a bit.

I agree... I think the D300 is intended for users that want to run one or more 4K displays but otherwise don't need a lot of GPU power. I think they'll be well suited for my still image workflow and probably for others doing audio work or even video editing without a lot of fancy effects.

 

[flat five]

That doesn't mean they sell them for people who simply want an upgrade, nor does it mean that non-Apple technicians could even perform the repair. Apple retail shops my not even carry these parts and instead you have to get it shipped out for repair, while the Apple shop just clones you over to a new machine.... In short, you're making some assumptions here, or in other words, its "just what you think".

well yeah.. it is what i think.. but it's more than that because i'm just describing the way it is now.. a lot of the stuff i'm saying is straight up facts and history of apple's pro desktop line.. as in- i'm not saying anything radical or out-there or reckless etc..
suggesting something will change is the stance which requires the stronger argument/reasoning/proof and to be honest, i've yet to see a strong argument which shows clear reasoning as to why things will change (especially when more&more, it's looking to me that yes, there's a change in the user serviceability realm.. and it's actually looking like they've made it easier to tinker with)

an exaggerated metaphor of the point i'm trying to make is:
'when i wake up tomorrow, i expect the sky to be blue'
and you're telling me 'no, things have changed'

in that scenario, which stance requires the (much) stronger argument?

That's because until the nMP "Apple" GPUs where the same hardware as PC GPUs.

they're different enough to make them apple specific.. call me stupid or whatever but i've always used apple certified/supported/branded parts in my macs (other than hard drives)..

How is this not just you "think?" There may likely be some aftermarket for the GPUs and the ability for a moderately techie-minded person to make the swap, but even if that's true, its also likely that this aftermarket will be very expensive. Go check the prices on OWC for doing a CPU & daughterboard swap on the old MP. Its very likely to be something like that. Mean so expensive, you might as well sell your old one for what you can and just buy what you want new.

likely? there already is an aftermarket. why would apple try to kill it? seems like it makes more business sense to eliminate the competition (or mainly hacks) then exploit that market instead of killing it..

I look at that thing and see something very hard to predict how easy it will be to access anything other than the RAM and SSD. Again, this is just something "you think".

i really can't understand how you could say this.. can you describe what's so 'very hard to predict' about removing/accessing a gpu? which part of it ,exactly, is so hard to figure out?
because it seriously looks easy to me.. what are you seeing there that i'm missing?

I don't think you can say that until someone's done it in the public sphere and reported how they did it. Both RAM and HDD swaps on the old mac pro are damn simple and its pretty hard to see how it can get any simpler than this for the RAM:

it's just a more elegant solution is all.. no crawling on the floor under your desk, no secondary board to remove/install.. it has a slickness to it as well in how the ram presents itself to the user-- like opening a door except there are two doors(ram) opening in unison.. like two slats on venetian blinds or smthng

 

[flat five]

However, the 450W power supply seems problematic to me. The ever-increasing speed of GPUs typically comes with ever-increasing power needs.

450W seems drastically underpowered even for existing nMP1 boards, much less future cards:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1668368/

yeah, i wonder too if they would make separate psus for different combinations of cpu/gpu..
i'm leaning towards thinking it's simplest and more profitable if they only have 1 and that one is powerful enough to drive the most demanding configuration.

mainly just a guess but i wouldn't be surprised if the 450w psu is the only one and we won't be seeing ,say, a 600w on release day..



i posted this in another thread but here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_supply_unit_(computer)

Since 2011, Fujitsu and other Tier 1 manufacturers[9] have been manufacturing systems containing motherboard variants which require only a 12V supply from a custom made PSU (typically rated at 250–300W). DC-DC conversion, providing 5V and 3.3V, is done on the motherboard; the proposal is that 5V and 12V supply for other devices, such as HDDs, will be picked up at the motherboard rather than from the PSU itself (though this does not appear to be fully implemented as of January 2012). The reasons given for this approach to power supply are that it eliminates cross-load problems, simplifies and reduces internal wiring which can affect airflow and cooling, reduces costs, increases power supply efficiency and reduces noise by bringing the power supply fan speed under the control of the motherboard. Other advantages it offers is the potential ability to power a PC off a sealed lead-acid 12 volt battery, or from automotive power without using a power inverter.

it really does appear apple has gone with a 12v only power supply (mainly saying this because the ssd plugs into the gpu so i'm assuming the voltage conversion is happening on the gpu board itself as opposed to at the psu level... plus, i've only seen one wire so far in all of the pictures)

it's sort of interesting to read through that psu wiki then some of the accompanying links.. i'd rather not go too far down that rabbit hole but i will enjoy reading something by an expert electrician (or whatever) on their analysis of the nmp electrics..

all that type of thinking aside, i just find it pretty hard to accept that apple has made a computer capable of 7teraflops(or whatever their pitch is) except they've underpowered the thing.. why on earth would they go through so much trouble in the redesign and not provide enough power to run it?
point being.. i definitely trust the engineers have done it the right way here..

 

[flat five]

Stocking replacement parts and retail selling parts are similar but different businesses. Apple ( and other vendors ) only stock as many replacements at around the levels at which they expect failures to occur. Otherwise can have bloated inventories. Some companies may do that but the ones running super lean inventories don't.

A slow trickle of parts slipping through the cracks may not show up on Apple's 'radar' but wholesale selling Mac parts to a large system builder crowd is going to trigger Apple to ask for the old burn' out part to be shipped back for every new part shipped out. Unsually high spikes in failures should mean that QA process ramps up.

It is not a retail business. And for longitudinal QA, Apple should be swapping to get back a significant sampling of failed parts to see if there is some root cause QA issue they can avoid in future products.

hmm. the original intent of bringing up the repair shop was an attempt to show that apple is already going to be designing a box and part number and supply line etcetc for individual (or possibly paired) replacement gpus.. regardless of what their stance is on selling upgrades.

i'm not trying to suggest if you want a gpu upgrade, you'll have to meet some guy in the alley at 2am.. cash only..



personally, i think any apple reseller will be able to sell apple gpus if they desire.. just like it is now.

 

[MattDSLR]

there is never an overkill for GPU
I just wish we had some great options for macs

 

[Dranix]

Likewise the gimping of the D300 relative to the mainstream W7000 cards of dropping the VRAM down 2GB ( D300 2GB is down to iMac BTO levels )

I don't get why people still think the D300 will be a gimped W7000 when all data cries out loud throttled R9-270 at around 800MHz.

 

[flat five]

i really can't understand how you could say this.. can you describe what's so 'very hard to predict' about removing/accessing a gpu? which part of it ,exactly, is so hard to figure out?
because it seriously looks easy to me.. what are you seeing there that i'm missing?

well, there is one part that's a bit iffy to me.. i think i see a solution in place but it is something new which would be on the user side of things as compared to mp1 gpu swaps..

that being-- when the gpu comes off, the processor is being removed from the heat sink.. which also mean when a new gpu goes back on, the servicer(?) will be making the heat sink connection..

 

[deconstruct60]

I don't get why people still think the D300 will be a gimped W7000 when all data cries out loud throttled R9-270 at around 800MHz.

There is very little evidence I seen presented that Curacao and Pitcairn are significantly different. If have some point it out. Otherwise, there is little to no need to tag Curacao ( a clocked higher Pitcairn and the latent FirePro ability to scale up to 4GB turned on. ) and then turn around and underclock it lower than both (and disable the 4GB capacity). If Apple design objectives are FirePro working in bootcamp it is far less overhead just to go with a mod of what has already been certified.

The only data fit with R9-270 is being capped at 2048 .. .so the VRAM isn't a gimp. That's just config. The really throttled to the "Pro" , as opposed to XT, variant of that subrange it would be throttled Texture througphput that would be indicative of a "Pro" variant.