New Mac Pro GPU Overkill

[flat five]

There will always be thermal paste until you can fabricate metal surfaces with micron level smoothness on an assembly line level.

Your alternative hypothesis doesn't make sense because even if this magic thermal dissipation material exists, you would still need thermal paste at the junctions of these materials and the processors (unless of course, you had the micron level manufacturing ability, at which point, this entire academic exercise is moot).

----------



I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but your understanding of basic physics is pretty poor. The form factor may be unique and recently patented but the cooling technology itself is neither novel nor particularly interesting. These suggestions excite the imagination but aren't even in the ballpark of plausible.

As for expecting users to apply thermal paste; you're right, Apple doesn't expect that because Apple doesn't expect end users, even the professional market segment, to do major assembly or disassembly ever. No OEM expects this.

There's a misconception that just because a computer is "pro-grade" or workstation-class, the end user is expected to tinker with it or have it last longer. Enthusiasts are not the same as professionals. Truthfully from personal experience, I contend that these users are generally *less* likely to do these types of major surgery on their computers because they will 99% of the time be work computers. Have a problem? Have the IT crew work on it. Or send it in for warranty. That's why they cost so much; you're paying for the components but really, you're paying for support.

I guess you missed the memo on irony a month or so ago.
for one, I'm not saying "great, customizing for everybody. yay!" (that's what thunderbolt etc provides)
personally, I think a small percentage of people actually tinker with and/or upgrade their computers.. the people that do will generally congregate at sites like this.

this computer is designed to be tinkered with.. apple designed it this way for a small portion of buyers.. it would of probably been easier and cheaper for them to just lock it down..

the irony is that the very people who apple considered in this aspect of the design (ie- most of the people I've been arguing with the past few months) -- are sitting around complaining "oh. oh.. people that want to service this thing can't even do that.. apple is taking everything away from me ##"

it's just funny, you know? and ironic.
the tinkerers of the world, in theory, should be the ones capable of critical thinking.. but there's a severe lack of that going in here.. instead, it's mostly crap like "you're irrational, idiotic, absurd, et".. or "you have a poor understanding of basic physics" (while, of course, conveniently leaving out any sort of reasoning as to why anyone, including myself, should even consider to believe there is AnY truth in such statements)

 

[MacSociology]

(and I doubt it' called "macpronium".. more likely it's called "graphite")

Do you have a problem understanding sarcasm? It's pretty easy to understand the comment was sarcastic.

 

[flat five]

Do you have a problem understanding sarcasm? It's pretty easy to understand the comment was sarcastic.

ah.. more irony..
thanks
#


while you're at it.. you might as well point out my typo in that sentence as well.. maybe something like-

"its supposed to have an s on the end"

 

[handsome pete]

when considering apple is claiming -quote- 'ingenious' solutions have been found for heat transfer/dissipation as well as knowing damn well they can afford to hire nasa engineers and/or other true experts in the field.. well, occam starts getting a bit foggy.

You're completely misunderstanding the principle behind Occam's razor. It doesn't get "foggy." It is what it is. In a hypothesis, the one with the least assumptions should be selected. You've done nothing but add assumption after assumption throughout the entire conversation.

this computer is designed to be tinkered with..

According to you.

the irony is that the very people who apple considered in this aspect of the design (ie- most of the people I've been arguing with the past few months) -- are sitting around complaining "oh. oh.. people that want to service this thing can't even do that.. apple is taking everything away from me ##"

it's just funny, you know? and ironic.

And now you're exhibiting a lack of understanding of what irony is.


Look, I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, but we're just going in circles here. Many have tried to legitimately debate you on this topic, but when presented with any sort of reasoning you stick to the point that no one has proven you wrong.

 

[flat five]

You're completely misunderstanding the principle behind Occam's razor. It doesn't get "foggy." It is what it is. In a hypothesis, the one with the least assumptions should be selected. You've done nothing but add assumption after assumption throughout the entire conversation.

if occam operates under the base of -- "the holy grail of personal computers was realized 30years ago by ibm.. they already figured out the best way to build a computer and anything other than that way is either impossible or a failure"

then occam can go screw himself.

According to you.



And now you're exhibiting a lack of understanding of what irony is.

funny.. i thought i was going to get this comment after the post right above yours.. either way, i knew it was coming.

Look, I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, but we're just going in circles here. Many have tried to legitimately debate you on this topic, but when presented with any sort of reasoning you stick to the point that no one has proven you wrong.

well yeah.. we're going in circles because you won't let me make a point..
i mean, no follow up after your "**** proprietary!!" then "absurd" comments?
because honestly, i feel my response should show you that proprietary doesn't mean what you imply.. but next week (if the nmp hasnt shown up), you'll say the same thing again.. "but dude! it's proprietary"
so there goes the circle

and i'm sorry but debating is not continually repeating "you're just flat out wrong".. you have to say why i'm wrong..


why am i wrong to think screws can be unscrewed?
(and "but it's proprietary!!" is not an answer to that.. neither is "because 20 other people already told you those screws aren't meant to be unscrewed")

 

[haravikk]

flat five, you've already gotten one thread locked due to circular arguing about stuff that we only have limited information about, but let me quickly summarise:

It is highly likely that the GPU daughterboards are removable.
It is possible (but unlikely) that Apple will offer replacement daughterboards, this means replacements will most likely involve somehow getting the appropriate Apple parts and installing it yourself.
It is likely that the GPU uses thermal paste to smooth the connection with the heatsink, because quite simply, that's what everybody else does, and it is unlikely Apple has suddenly invented some way to avoid using it, when companies with a lot more experience haven't.
It is unlikely that many (if any) manufacturers will make third party Mac Pro GPUs, as the cards would need to be fully custom designs capable of functioning with Apple's thermal core; Mac edition GPUs were rare enough before, and that's when all they needed to do was tweak the outputs and provide drivers.

Apple may be doing something interesting with the central thermal core arrangement, and there's no doubt that they've got various little design features to accommodate that. But for all we know what you're referring to might just be a convenient method of guiding the cards into place to ensure they're seated correctly when the machines are built (as final assembly appears to be by hand).

What is absolutely certain however is that this has nothing to do with this thread; the upgradeability of the new Mac Pro beyond its RAM and possibly its SSD (since OWC have offered upgrades before) is pure conjecture at this point, and there is no reason to pretend otherwise as anyone who does is more likely to end up disappointed than not.

 

[VirtualRain]

flat five, you've already gotten one thread locked due to circular arguing about stuff that we only have limited information about, but let me quickly summarise:

It is highly likely that the GPU daughterboards are removable.
It is possible (but unlikely) that Apple will offer replacement daughterboards, this means replacements will most likely involve somehow getting the appropriate Apple parts and installing it yourself.
It is likely that the GPU uses thermal paste to smooth the connection with the heatsink, because quite simply, that's what everybody else does, and it is unlikely Apple has suddenly invented some way to avoid using it, when companies with a lot more experience haven't.
It is unlikely that many (if any) manufacturers will make third party Mac Pro GPUs, as the cards would need to be fully custom designs capable of functioning with Apple's thermal core; Mac edition GPUs were rare enough before, and that's when all they needed to do was tweak the outputs and provide drivers.

Amen!

 

[handsome pete]

if occam operates under the base of -- "the holy grail of personal computers was realized 30years ago by ibm.. they already figured out the best way to build a computer and anything other than that way is either impossible or a failure"

then occam can go screw himself.

Your twisting words into just more nonsense. Someone brought up Occam to convey the most likely outcome of this "discussion." Your rebuttal showed a misunderstanding of that principle, which I pointed out.

funny.. i thought i was going to get this comment after the post right above yours.. either way, i knew it was coming.

The misuse of irony is a pet peeve of mine.

well yeah.. we're going in circles because you won't let me make a point..
i mean, no follow up after your "**** proprietary!!" then "absurd" comments?

Your reply to my proprietary point was the absurd comparison to the lightning cable. Someone else pointed out why that was absurd. But you're not listening.

why am i wrong to think screws can be unscrewed?
(and "but it's proprietary!!" is not an answer to that.. neither is "because 20 other people already told you those screws aren't meant to be unscrewed")

Because that's not what anyone is saying. Either you're twisting people's words intentionally or you're incapable of understanding. Of course screws can be unscrewed. It's just when the vast majority of us see a screw, we don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the person who put it there wants me to unscrew it. I didn't need a screwdriver to replace the GPU in an old Mac
Pro. So by that logic, at the very minimum, Apple actually made it harder to replace in the new one.

 

[flat five]

Because that's not what anyone is saying. Either you're twisting people's words intentionally or you're incapable of understanding. Of course screws can be unscrewed. It's just when the vast majority of us see a screw, we don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the person who put it there wants me to unscrew it.

right.. but when the intention is to figure out whether or not it's serviceable, using only the info available so far -- ANd, under the impression that none of this actually matters because the design is finished already.. it either is or isn't serviceable and we will all know factual answers soon enough..

then why so hesitant about taking the thing apart in your brain? there is no penalty whatsoever.. you can break it- it's ok..

if you're looking at this thing from a mindset of "hmm.. i wonder if i'll be able to work on it".. to me- the obvious first step is to unscrew the screws.. take off whatever was there.. look behind it.. look at all the different available pictures.. reach conclusions.. find dead end.. etcetc.. explore the thing-- big freaking deal.

the people who i would like to discuss the design with are the people that have already done that as well.. but nobody is doing that.. they're operating under the mindset of "well, it's safer to just leave those screws in place until we see the final product" .. that's great- that's a perfectly acceptable stance and the one most people will default to.. it's the stance i would go with in many situations... but why would you then turn around and enter a conversation based about reverse engineering a design and start calling people stupid?
if you wanna wait and see then yeah.. do that.

do you understand what i'm getting at?

 

[ybz90]

I guess you missed the memo on irony a month or so ago.
for one, I'm not saying "great, customizing for everybody. yay!" (that's what thunderbolt etc provides)
personally, I think a small percentage of people actually tinker with and/or upgrade their computers.. the people that do will generally congregate at sites like this.

this computer is designed to be tinkered with.. apple designed it this way for a small portion of buyers.. it would of probably been easier and cheaper for them to just lock it down..

(1) I don't think you know the definition of the word irony.
(2) Sure, a small percentage do. But they're more likely to congregate at a site like overclock.net, not MacRumors. And those types usually do not buy Mac Pros. And even if they did, it's a tiny, tiny percentage -- Apple doesn't design anything with people like us in mind.
(3) No. This computer is absolutely NOT designed to be tinkered with. I don't know what's so hard for you to understand. This is NOT an enthusiast computer. Apple doesn't make those. It is a workstation. It is meant to never be tinkered with at least by the end user.
It's servicing is designed for IT to deal with easily to facilitate easy repairs by their own staff. That's it. Does it mean you can't tinker? Of course you can, but you're kidding yourself if you think Apple wants you to do it. In practice, end users of professional-grade computers are even less likely to tinker with their systems than consumer class devices because these are supposed to be for work.

----------

... or "you have a poor understanding of basic physics" (while, of course, conveniently leaving out any sort of reasoning as to why anyone, including myself, should even consider to believe there is AnY truth in such statements)

It is precisely your poor understanding of physics and basic engineering concepts that prevent you from understanding the obvious truth in my statements. Even cursory knowledge of thermodynamics and heat transfer, let alone concepts like laminar flow in cooling currents, would show you why your suggestions that Apple developed a new hyperconductive material or can do away with thermal paste altogether is frankly bollocks. I explained it quite clearly; until you can manufacture surfaces smooth to the micron level, you can't stop using thermal paste because of the insulating air pockets.

----------

and i'm sorry but debating is not continually repeating "you're just flat out wrong".. you have to say why i'm wrong..

I have. You're just ignoring the explanations.

 

[flat five]

It wouldn't require much for the assembly line machine to just apply a quick blob of thermal paste and smooth it out, ready for someone to just screw the card into place. If Apple does plan to provide replacement cards then they could just as easily leave that up to end users, e.g - with a protective film. Just clean away any existing thermal compound from the previous card(s), remove the protective film and screw into place.

yeah.. some sort of film makes more sense to me.. it's proven possible for the heat sink to have a nano layer of material applied (sort of like non-stick pan's coatings only thinner) which is ~4x more effective than moving heat through and alloy (or 150x more conductive than thermal paste).. it also reacts to heat and will swell (at micro levels) to fill voids.. if the nmp doesn't have this technology now then we will be seeing similar in years to come once it's been perfected or made feasible enough to put into mainstream production..

one thing i think we can all agree on is that apple likes to make things smaller.. it's the heat which provides one of the biggest challenges (for instance- imagine how small the nmp would be if apple didnt' have to worry about heat.. it would be tiny).. i think it's fair to assume they're heavily invested in finding solutions other than thermal paste (not to mention-- computers aren't the only industry concerned with moving heat between parts.. not even close to being the biggest players in that game.. other people are working on this stuff too)

anyway.. back to the film.. one of the major reasons i think there's no paste involved is because the heat sink/chips are oriented vertically.. it's more practical/safe (in my mind) to apply thermal paste to a horizontal surface.. the chances are slim to none that apple wants people putting gooey stuff in an area which will potentially drop down onto the plug/bottom circuit board.

another thing about thermal paste that i'm not quite sure if people around here are aware of is how crappy it is as moving heat.. toothpaste is more effective than thermal paste.. so is spit (until after it evaporates)... it's approximately 40x less conductive than the metals themselves (copper/nickel/aluminum)..
it's sole redeeming quality it's ability to not dry out and/or crack after usage.. it's the actual grease which is valuable not the stuff mixed into the grease.

it's junk. but yeah, it's worked well up to now so why bother changing it? i don't think the idea is to simply change it.. it's to come up with a much better solution is all.. and corporations dealing mainly with electronics and have billions of dollars in the piggy are the products we'll most likely be seeing the innovations in..

unless, of course, people are actually trying to imply that in say 100 years from now- electric connections are still going to be relying on thermal paste because it's the best solution ever..
there are good (some very good) reasons for manufacturers to find alternatives to paste..

will we see these alternatives in the nmp? how the heck would i know.. just sayin it's not an open & shut case is all.

----------

(1) I don't think you know the definition of the word irony.

really? you guys really want to argue about what irony means?

• a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result

that's how i used the word in this context.. exactly how i used it.

----------

(2) Sure, a small percentage do. But they're more likely to congregate at a site like overclock.net, not MacRumors.

huh? zoom out
they're the same thing

----------

(3) No. This computer is absolutely NOT designed to be tinkered with. I don't know what's so hard for you to understand. This is NOT an enthusiast computer. Apple doesn't make those. It is a workstation. It is meant to never be tinkered with at least by the end user.
It's servicing is designed for IT to deal with easily to facilitate easy repairs by their own staff. That's it. Does it mean you can't tinker? Of course you can, but you're kidding yourself if you think Apple wants you to do it. In practice, end users of professional-grade computers are even less likely to tinker with their systems than consumer class devices because these are supposed to be for work.

huh? (again)

2 of the main 4 components have already been verified to be serviceable by the user.. your 'absolutely NOT' comment looks kind of ridiculous.

 

[Cisco_Kid]

I think the GPU selections Apple made for the new MacPro will work out perfectly in my lab, as we use proprietary in house software that taxes OpenCL heavily, so not overkill at all for my line of work.

Wasn't this thread about GPU Overkill, it has spun out of control.

 

[flat five]

I explained it quite clearly; until you can manufacture surfaces smooth to the micron level, you can't stop using thermal paste because of the insulating air pockets.

why? because paste is the only known material which is capable of filling micro voids?

if i were really feeling up to it.. i'd play the google game and post a bunch of links for you to see other things besides paste which do the same thing in thermal environments.. i'd rather you go look for yourself- you're not really coming off as the coolest person in the world, you know

 

[ybz90]

this computer is designed to be tinkered with.. apple designed it this way for a small portion of buyers.. it would of probably been easier and cheaper for them to just lock it down..

2 of the main 4 components have already been verified to be serviceable by the user.. your 'absolutely not' comment looks kind of ridiculous.

Let me hand-hold you through this explanation since you're clearly not getting it.

Just because components are user-serviceable does not mean that Apple *intends* for its end users to upgrade those nor does it imply that Apple "designed it to be tinkered with." Many of the main components are user-serviceable in other Macs are well. Did Apple design those to be tinkered with? The nMP is comparably serviceable to other existing Mac lines.

The fact of the matter is that the Mac Pro is a workstation. People who buy these are not enthusiasts in general. And if they are, they aren't messing with it because it's probably their work computer. The vast, vast majority of sales go to businesses. This computer was not designed to be worked on the end user. It can be, but Apple definitely did not design it for this purpose.

You're suggesting Apple designed it with the needs of a few enthusiasts in mind. I contend Apple designed it for serviceability for their own techs and to be used, with minimal modifications, as a workstation; the needs of the majority of its users in mind. Which do you think makes more sense? In other words, and imagine this coming from the mouth of our dear Jay Cutler*, Apple "DON'T CARE" about those who want to tinker.

* I love my Bears, even though they're atrocious.

----------

i'd play the google game and post a bunch of links for you to see other things besides paste which do the same thing in thermal environments..

Link me and I'll refute each one scientifically or on a cost/economics basis.

 

[flat five]

Link me and I'll refute each one scientifically or on a cost/economics basis.

<sigh>
you know, this statement is incredibly revealing as to your intentions here.

 

[ybz90]

<sigh>
you know, this statement is incredibly revealing as to your intentions here.

More vague comments to hide behind. High five. It's like I'm talking to a brick. Tell me, what are my intentions?

Look, kid, unless you're secretly Jony Ive, you have no idea what Apple's *intentions* are, yet you keep claiming they've designed the nMP with tinkerers and enthusiasts in mind. This, despite all anecdotal and historical evidence on the workstation market and this thing called logic.

@mods, just close this thread. This is getting nowhere.

 

[flat five]

More vague comments to hide behind. High five. It's like I'm talking to a brick. Tell me, what are my intentions?

to argue and 'refute' with zero concern about what exactly you're arguing or refuting..
you just said to post links which in your head ,you already know are wrong -prior to even seeing anything- then saying you're going to fight me about it..

seriously, i'll pass.

----------

@mods, just close this thread. This is getting nowhere.

heh.. this is the exact same thing that happened in one of these other threads..

dude comes in-- starts trash talking me right off the bat.. then pleads to the mods..

 

[ybz90]

That is false, my intentions are to argue and refute with a specific concern to counter your false information. As for knowing you're wrong, again, I come from an engineering background. While I'm in bioE now, I studied materials science as an undergrad. That's how I know you're either wrong or what you're about to post doesn't make sense as a mass-produced solution on an economic level.

That said, I've got better things to do than talk to myself here, since nothing I say can penetrate your skull. Please feel free to re-read my posts, which I am leaving for the record so anyone else can read them as well; I think we can all agree they're not "trash talk". I am trying to illustrate to you on why your logic is unsound and full of wishful thinking rather than facts and science. If you refuse to be educated, that's your prerogative. The fact is, a lot of what you post is merely what you want to be, not an accurate portrayal of what actually is.

That is all.

 

[beaker7]

Hopefully this thing comes out soon so you all can move on to arguing about version 2.

 

[wallysb01]

Hopefully this thing comes out soon so you all can move on to arguing about version 2.

Hear, hear.

 

[flat five]

Hopefully this thing comes out soon so you all can move on to arguing about version 2.

Hear, hear.

nah.. the arguments after release will be "it doesn't count as an upgrade part if i have to buy it from apple"




edit - (for clarity- that comment isn't meant to be directly at either of you guys)

 

[HishamAkhtar]

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?

I use my Mac Pro for music and pretty much any video controller would suit me fine. Why force everyone to buy roughly $1000 of GPU horsepower? I'd rather buy an 8 or 12 core model for $900 less.

What am I missing? Final Cut and Maya folks are not the only people buying Mac Pros.

Ever heard of the Mac Mini/iMac?

 

[theSeb]

Ever heard of the Mac Mini/iMac?

I am not aware of BTO options on either of those that allow an 8 or 12 core CPU.

 

[jondunford]

My album... me on vocals, bass, keyboards and guitars... Paul McCartney's drummer and Alicia Keys' drummer on drums... Bryan Ferry's guitarist on electric guitars. Echo & The Bunnymen keyboardist and cellist on cello and string arrangements. Jesus Christ on tambourine... executive produced by the current president of music at Warner Brothers Pictures.

modest

 

[haravikk]

yeah.. some sort of film makes more sense to me..

I didn't mean instead of thermal paste, I meant to protect pre-applied thermal paste, so installation for factory line workers is as simple as; remove protective layer, screw into place. Likewise for repair shops and tinkerers, except that they'd have to remove any existing paste from the heatsink first.

i think it's fair to assume they're heavily invested in finding solutions other than thermal paste

And so is everyone else that makes CPU and GPU coolers, liquid cooling systems etc. These all use thermal paste to ensure the best possible contact; assuming that Apple has developed a way to avoid this is just a leap too far at this point as there's no evidence to support it yet, and the overwhelming trend suggests they'll use thermal paste just like everybody else. There really is no reason to keep going in circles on that issue:

• Does everyone else use thermal paste? Yes.
• Is there any evidence supporting the claim that Apple doesn't need to do the same? No.

the chances are slim to none that apple wants people putting gooey stuff in an area which will potentially drop down onto the plug/bottom circuit board.

There are two flaws with this line of thinking:

• Apple doesn't want end users doing anything like this at all; the Mac Pro has a high degree of potential repairability for parts other than RAM and maybe the SSD, while this may mean that end user replacements are possible, it's not something Apple has ever really been keen to encourage. Accessibility of RAM has been the only main concession Apple ever usually makes, and to be honest they'd probably have glued all the boards into place except that it would only make the machines unnecessarily hard to repair; Apple will make concessions to repairability if they can avoid limiting their form factor goals, as otherwise it increases the time it takes for someone to repair the machine (as they'd need to melt and clear away any glue).
• Thermal paste isn't simply squirted onto components. While some enthusiasts may unwittingly do this (and again, these aren't people Apple is catering to), people that know what they are doing will apply a only a small blob and spread it out into a thin layer, which is how it's meant to be used; when applied properly the chances are slim to none that any will drop down onto the plug/bottom circuit board.

another thing about thermal paste that i'm not quite sure if people around here are aware of is how crappy it is as moving heat..

That's not really the point of it though; the point of thermal paste isn't to remove heat, it's to ensure the other components involved can do-so by making the contact between parts as complete as possible. As I said above; the layer of thermal paste shouldn't be thick, it's only there to smooth out any irregularities in the contact between the metal surfaces that do the real work.

it's junk. but yeah, it's worked well up to now so why bother changing it?

I don't think anyone is saying that they don't want thermal paste replaced if it can be; if something better becomes available I'd expect the humble paste's days to be numbered. But so far there is zero evidence to suggest that Apple has developed such a technique. Not saying it's not possible either, but right now it's highly unlikely; if we start assuming such things then we might as well not be discussing the new Mac Pro at all, as it could just as easily be using a solid gold PSU, or custom Xeon chips that deliver more PCIe lines than stock Intel ones.

heh.. this is the exact same thing that happened in one of these other threads..

That happened because the thread had devolved into nothing but a circular back and forth of you saying "I assume X" and other people pointing out the assumption is too flimsy to bother discussing, and instead of it just being dropped to move on, it just went round and round, like what is happening now.

In the case of this thread this arguing is drawing us too far off topic; the discussion is supposed to be about whether Apple has gone too far by adding two professional GPUs as standard when many users would be fine with more modest consumer options. Serviceability has nothing to do with that discussion, as it'd be foolish to by a new Mac Pro with workstation GPUs with a view to swapping them for something cheap but incrementally better, as it just wouldn't make economic sense for a third party to offer the parts, and Apple is very unlikely to do it. It may be possible to buy D300's or D500's now with a view to upgrading to one of the better GPU pairs in future via parts sites, but that is also something of a stretch at the moment as we don't know if other parts may require changing as well, such as the PSU since 460W seems a bit too low for a pair of W9000's plus a 130W CPU.