Does the new Mac Pro has an air filter?

I think that if you pay this huge price from a computer, you should get an air filter too, but do you?

The Mac Pro late 2103 does not appear to have an air filter.
It is a departure from the forced air cooling used in previous Mac Pros to cooling largely based on the "Chimney Effect", slightly boosted by the top fan.
It also does not have a lot of nooks and crannies to accumulate dust. But time will tell whether it needs to be blown out from time-to-time.
I expect it will work just fine in the upright position without an air filter. If you choose to run it mounted sideways (which Apple says is allowable), that may change everything toward a more "forced-air" cooling model. In that case a lot more air may be needed, and a filter might be helpful.
Generally speaking, users are bad about cleaning filters, and instead of being helpful, filters cause an overheating disaster.

Similar Messages

  • Does the new mac pro support the Apple cinema display

    Does the new mac pro support the Apple cinema display

    There is no 2007 23" Cinema Display
    There is a 2002 23" display that has the Apple ADC connector
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/AppleDisplayConnector.jpg
    There is also the 2004 23" display with a DVI connector.
    For the latter you just need a mini display port to DVI connector that plugs into the Thunderbolt port
    For the former you need that connector plu an DVI to ADC connector
    http://www.amazon.com/Apple-DVI-ADC-Display-Adapter/dp/B00011KHT2/ref=sr_sp-atf_ title_1_1/179-1314294-8358010?ie=UTF8&qid=1402766343&sr=8-1&keywords=dvi+to+adc+ display+adapter
    http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Bott-DVIator-US-110V/dp/B000NSGIQO/ref=sr_sp-btf_title_ 1_6/179-1314294-8358010?ie=UTF8&qid=1402766343&sr=8-6&keywords=dvi+to+adc+displa y+adapter
    http://www.amazon.com/Dvi-Adc-Conversion-Box-instock/dp/B0002CZJ7A/ref=sr_sp-atf _title_1_4/179-1314294-8358010?ie=UTF8&qid=1402766343&sr=8-4&keywords=dvi+to+adc +display+adapter

  • Does the new Mac Pro(Later 2014) had an Audio-In port?

    I want to convert a cassette tapes in digital files using my new Mac Pro(Later 2014). Does it have an Audio-in port and where it is located?

    The new Mac pro has:
    Combined optical digital audio output/analog line out minijack
    Headphone minijack with headset support
    HDMI port supports multichannel audio output
    Built-in speaker
    If you want digital audio in:
    MacPro (late 2013): Digital audio in - how?

  • Does the new mac pro read or burn DVDs?

    does the new mac pro read or burn DVDs?

    Found the company, including a picture:
    http://numac.co/

  • Does the new Mac Pro Server have lights out management?

    I would like to know if the Mac Pro Server has the LOM. Such as the ability to turn off, on, and reboot by simply using the server admin tools. I use this feture very often with my current xserve and would rather buy a new server then try and find a used 2009 xserve.

    No.

  • I have interface M Audio firewire 400 new Mac Pro has firewire 800 Do you think an adaptor will provide the same quality? Will the M audio 400 work with lion and new system? Thanks so much

    I have interface M Audio  400 with 400 firewire new Mac Pro has firewire 800 Do you think an adaptor will provide the same quality? Will the M audio 400 work with lion and new system or do I need new software? Thanks so much

    If you have a little Firewire adaptor, everything should work fine. It does on my system.

  • IMac vs the new Mac Pro for video editing in FCPX?

    Hi.
    I am currently using a macbook air for all my editing and rendering of videos in FCPX. The editing process is reasonably smooth when dealing with shorter clips, but when I tried to edit multicam clips, things started to slow down. Also,  the rendering and compression processes are tedious. I am planning to edit and process a much larger number of videos in the next years to come, so I have decided to do a serious upgrade of my system.
    For the moment, I am torn between a maxed out iMac 27", which would be the cheapest alternative, and the 6 core Mac Pro or 4 core Mac Pro.
    When I look at benchmarks of the new Mac Pro's in Geekbench, the iMac is never very far away in terms of performance.  Does tests like this tell anything about how well the Mac Pro will perform in FCP?   Does the hardware in the Mac Pro have features which makes it superior to the iMac, in other ways than for example the "pure power" of the CPU and GPU?
    Christopher.

    FCP X 10.1, Motion 5.1 Updates w/Dual GPU Support (new Mac Pros) (from Thursday)
    Apple released Final Cut Pro X 10.1 Thursday with support for Dual GPUs in the new Mac Pro and more.
    Long list in the Final Cut Pro X 10.1 Release Notes that also links to info on How to back up important FCP X 10.0.x files before updating. (Today's Apple docs listing also has more related to Final Cut Pro X 10.1.)
    Also out today are Compressor 4.1 and Motion 5.1. Full release notes below but here's a clip from the App store Motion 5.1 changes:
    Optimized playback and rendering using dual GPUs in the new Mac Pro
    FxPlug 3 with custom plug-in interfaces and dual-GPU support
    Faster project loading, especially for complex projects
    Share directly to YouTube at 4K resolution
    Spanish language localization
    Dual FirePro Dxxx Rendering FCP-X
    http://www.barefeats.com/tube05.html
    Intel Xeon processors are designed to run 24/7 and stay cool and under load.
    Mac Pro so far hold up strongly for years, easy to add and upgrade RAM and processor, and maybe, hopefully, even the twin GPUs. Thunderbolt2 for all your projects and storage as well.
    6 or 8-cores is going to walk away from iMac which is breathing hard and not designed for constant heat. Haswell was designed to conserve and reduce.

  • How can I move my three SATA HDDs to the new Mac Pro without backing up?

    Hello,
    I am doing initial shopping for the new Mac Pro but have come to the frustrating realization that I cannot move my HDDs to the new computer for free. Sure, I can migrate my OS drive to the new one, but my other three disks inside my 2007 Mac Pro are in a pickle. I want an economically viable method of getting those three drives to the new Mac without backing them up, formatting or something like that. Also, I would prefer a transfer method that will rival the speed of it being internal. I don't think USB 3.0 can do this, but Thunderbolt 2 can? Everything I've seen online has been outrageiously expensive or requires me to reformat (RAID).
    What I'm looking for:
    Connect three or more HDDs of various capacities to new Mac Pro
    Have the transfer speeds rival or exceed that of my current grandpa computer (Mac Pro 1,1)
    Have it not be incredibly expensive (anything over $300 is ridiculous)
    Have it be no more than two devices, one prefered unless they are individual enclosures that can either daisy chain and/or are inexpensive.
    Safe for my drives.

    >  a 3 TB, a 1.5 TB and a 500 GB.
    Most 3TB drives are going to be "green"
    The 1.5TB may or may not
    The 500GB is likely old, due for retirement if not worse.
    A pair of two drives of 2TB likely would be enough for now and plenty of dual drive USB3 cases.
    For a single drive and Thunderbolt docking adapter for using one drive at a time:
    http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Backup-Portable-Thunderbolt-Adapter/dp/B009HQCARY/
    Under $300 case
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/METB7DK0GB/
    Or this one is fine and USB3
    http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-External-Enclosure-3-5-Inch-SAT3520U3SR/dp/B0 09C5VSFU/
    NO backup? You DO have some backups I hope, or you are on thin ice or walking tight rope.
    Some helpful guides on USB3 vs TB
    http://www.macperformanceguide.com/topics/topic-USB3.html
    http://www.macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html#MacPro2013Transition
    http://www.macperformanceguide.com/topics/topic-Thunderbolt.html
    1TB WD Blue go for $60?

  • Suggestion for Apple: MacBooks as terminals for the new Mac Pro

    Suggesting Apple to enable using MacBooks as terminals for the new Mac Pro if connecting through the thunderbolt.
    I am planning to get a new Mac Pro this month and use it as a 'portable' workstation since it weighs only 5kg.
    I am working on scienctific research which requires travels quite often.
    I want to have a workstation with me when I'm off-site so that I can work without worrying about the network connection.
    It would be great if I can use Macbook Air as a display, keyboard and touchpad for the Mac Pro.
    I will be fully geared by taking a Mac Pro and a MacBook Air with me where ever I travel.

    I don't know much about Thunderbold connections.
    Especially how does it combine PICe and DisplayPort signal together.
    I would like the MacBook serve as an external screen and an external PCIe video card to the Mac Pro, together with its touchpad and keyboard connected to the Mac Pro as an external USB keyboard and touchpad.
    In this case, one may not even boot into the OS on the MacBook side, just need proper drivers in the Mac Pro side for the 'external PCIe video card', keyboard and touchpad.

  • What are your opinion on the new mac pro

    I feel while radical its too limiting thereby loosing fuctionality. But I also knw how the iSheeps would follow their iSheperd blindly. There making this kind of thunderbolt for everything the norm. I also know that the PC companies brought this on themselves they failed to innovate followed intel and nvidia to blindly with there xeons and quadro. The 3 major pc makers market professional workstations that you would probaly sell ur kidney to get one we have the z820 while very powerful its just 2 xpensive. Let's take for example the imac is the best bang for d buck most beautiful all in one if hp had used say a normal 3770k and a gtx 680m 4gb dat would have brought the price of the z1 down drastically. Let's say d average joe wants to be an editor, compositor, colorist. if u goole pc workstations hp z820 and dell T7600 would pop up but they are dam so xpensive hp consumer PCs are garbage. If there is onething apple knows the average pro does not want to be bothered with specs. I think the pc industry brought this on themselves. Wat of the smaller custom builder they focused so much on gaming big megatron design like cases with all the talk of FPS is every thing. My only prayer is that asus, msi gigabyte should stand up aganist apple and start releasing sexier designs, unless I fear even adobe is not safe cos most editors would gradually drfit back to FCPX sad wen inferior products triumphs a superior one. Pls drop ur thoughts also ur opnions as editors in your location the general trend. I hate to be locked in a garden where I am told this is what I need. I love choices.

    The 2 biggest problems with the new Mac Pro are the complete reliance on Thunderbolt for expansion and the Proprietary GPU modules. What happens when those Fire Pro cards are EOL and new GPU's are available. Will Apple go to any of the GPU manufacturers and get newer modules manufactured. Considering the applications that are moving to GPU processing, that was really a very bad idea simply because of the Minimum order quantity Apple will have to make to run another module. Apple will not be able to pull from the general video card supply which means they will be solely responsible for any production numbers required to manufacture to begin with. I personally expect this to be a major limitation as time goes on.
    The complete reliance on Thunderbolt for expansion really was bad idea and not ready for prime time. TB2 has the total bandwidth of a PCI-E Gen 2 5x. That is the entire pipe available to pump any video output data, high performance storage, I/O devices, and any number of devices available as time goes on especially video cards. Those trying to GPU process through that pipe are going to find that latency is way to much a problem to get that done. If Lightpeak was out and had the bandwidth of PCi-E Gen 2 or Gen 3 16X then I would say great. There is just to small a pipe and to much device moderation at the TB controller to do this now. The major problem that will develop from this later is when Lightpeak is out for the PC and devices start moving there. Where will Apple be with the Mac Pro when it's entire expansion is legacy in 1 to 2 years. As a final note Thunderbolt 2 is just Thunderbolt 1 with 1 bidirectional channel in stead of 2 unidirectional. This is not a major improvement over the original.
    The final consideration though not a major problem yet is the limit to 6 Core Xeons. This is likely due to the heat the 8 Core Xeons generate combined with a centralized cooling design. One of the major reasons to get a Dual Xeon is the 8 Core CPU options. Without that then there really is far less reason to get a Dual Xeon over a single 6 core and eventually 8 core workstation. This is a sacrifice that will reveal more later than now.
    Considering the Mac Pro is meant to be the flagship platform for Apple's Pro market, there are really way to many limitations on this one to compete with the PC equivalents. There is only so much OSX will add to any system.
    Eric
    ADK

  • WHY AFTER EFFECTS STILLS SO SLOW IN THE NEW MAC PRO?

    I have the new mac pro with this settings:
    3 GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon E5
    64 GB 1867 MHz DDR3 ECC
    AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB
    Software OS X 10.9.2
    And the AE performs slower than in my old mac pro. I have set the preferences as seen on all those tutorials on this site, I have an SSD external disc for cache files, memory and multiprocessing settings correctly...and previews are very very slow, and I can not even render a single comp without waiting 10 minutes. I am very disappointed and frustrated with this situation...
    Am I missing something?

    I don't understand why it's even up to the user to figure out what settings are best.  Isn't the application in a vastly superior position to know what its resource constraints are at any given moment?  Instead I have to try rendering a couple of comps, kill the render, fix the render queue since AE STILL doesn't offer a graceful way to quit and resume renders.
    I have to say that one of the attributes of AE that consistently disappoints me is multiprocessing and its accompanying memory management policies.  I regularly produce hundreds of network graphics at a go, and I can never reap any benefit from multiprocessing, because AE has to load the entire project into each core, instead of just loading the comps it needs to render at any given time.  Similarly, a project that requires 400 heavily-automated versions (a regular occurrence for some of my Latin America clients, where graphics have to be versioned for multiple feeds and languages) can simply choke AE.  If it could load this stuff into memory on-the-fly (or at least offload some of it when memory gets tight), this wouldn't be a problem, and I sincerely doubt the performance would be worse than it is now.  This is on a previous-gen Mac Pro with 48 GB RAM, so, while not strictly state-of-the-art, it's no slouch.
    Heck, even opening some of these projects just to browse their contents is a painful 30-minute process, as AE apparently has to not only load everything into memory before I can even do anything, but, judging by how it hangs for many minutes at  99% on the progress bar, it also seems to be evaluating all the expressions in all the hundreds of comps (presumably so it can render the project thumbnails).  And yes, I've tried splitting the projects up, but this leads to its own complications, particularly when revisions come in a week or two later.
    I don't want any of this to sound overly negative, since I know AE has a small team and this sort of stuff isn't trivial to implement.  I do appreciate this application and all it does, particularly for me creatively and professionally.  I just get a bit tired of seeing new releases come every year and this stuff seems to go unaddressed.

  • The new Mac Pro (6,1) and TRIM

    With its economical internal design and limited internal expansion options, the new Mac Pro depends heavily on the speed and flexibility of Thunderbolt 2 for expansion. In the old days, we could add four HDs in the internal bays and one more under the optical drive. This also allowed us, if we used SSDs instead of HDs, to enable TRIM for other than Apple drives.
    We know that TRIM doesn't work with a USB 3.0 connection. The question is, can TRIM be enabled on an SSD connected in some fashion through Thunderbolt? I know that graphics cards can be plugged into an external PCIe expansion chassis and that eSATA SSDs, such as the OWC Mercury Accelsior_E2, can plug in too. But does having to pass through the Thunderbolt interface interfer with or prevent TRIM support? For that matter, what kind of external connection to an SSD at the other end of the Thunderbolt cable would be able to support TRIM? I'm currently using a CalDigit PCIe card which provides two eSATA external connections, and when a NewerTech Voyager Q is connected and an SSD plugged into it (like putting bread in a toaster), the drive is seen as "Rotational" in System Information, and TRIM cannot be enabled.
    Since TRIM support is important for continued performance and longer life of SSDs, is this an issue with the new Mac Pro's design philosophy?

    Hopeful but not comforting.
    With Mavericks, not all SSDs will report TRIM support, but doing a benchmark both before and after the change should confirm that TRIM is functional.
    I should see TRIM = YES and not from some benchmark.
    Thunderbolt support for TRIM is good. But Intel has as yet? never supported TRIM on an array, so not sure how that is accomplished.
    "Is" or "may" and "could" - I just  wouldn't make a "TRIM is supported by 10.8.5 and later" as it may vary by Macs that had native SATA III with PCIe support, the new Samsung controller Apple has been using. Certainly not in 5,1 Mac Pro except if and only for an Apple SSD BTO upgrade.

  • Does the new Macbook Pro 15" (late 2013) supports 4K via Thunderbolt/Displayport?

    I understand that the new Macbook Pro 15" (late 2013 with Nvidia) supports 4K screen resolutions via HDMI at low hertz. But does it support 4K via Thunderbolt/Displayport? I read on Intel's web that the NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 2GB memory in theory can support it. Would be important as a range of new 4K 32" monitors will come out over the next year. Would be great for photo, video editing etc.

    I also am very confused by this because per apple's support page it only supports 4K via HDMI at 30Hz but SHOULD support 60Hz via a mini display port 1.2 specification built into thunderbolt 2.
    However, I think it does include 60Hz support (although not mentioned on apple's website).  My evidence of this is that on the ifixit teardown they found a an Intel DSL 5520 Thunderbolt 2 controller which according to Intel's and Wikipedia's website is falcon ridge which means it should support Display port 1.2 natively.  Plus, on apple's thunderbolt page they specifically mention connecting a 4K display to a macbook pro through the thunderbolt port (not which is suggested by the support page listed above):
    "Now with Thunderbolt 2 built into the new Mac Pro and MacBook Pro with Retina display, you can connect the latest 4K desktop displays and get double the bandwidth for your peripherals. And the two generations of Thunderbolt technology are compatible with each other."
    Also, the Apple mini displayport support page has not been updated since 2012 but I believe it is just showing old information
    The BIG piece of evidence against the new macbook pro's supporting 4K through the thunderbolt port is that on apple's tech specs page they specifically mention 4K under the HDMI section but make no mention of it under the thunderbolt 2 section.

  • Performance with the new Mac Pros?

    I sold my old Mac Pro (first generation) a few months ago in anticipation of the new line-up. In the meantime, I purchased a i7 iMac and 12GB of RAM. This machine is faster than my old Mac for most Aperture operations (except disk-intensive stuff that I only do occasionally).
    I am ready to purchase a "real" Mac, but I'm hesitating because the improvements just don't seem that great. I have two questions:
    1. Has anyone evaluated qualitative performance with the new ATI 5870 or 5770? Long ago, Aperture seemed pretty much GPU-constrained. I'm confused about whether that's the case anymore.
    2. Has anyone evaluated any of the new Mac Pro chips for general day-to-day use? I'm interested in processing through my images as quickly as possible, so the actual latency to demosaic and render from the raw originals (Canon 1-series) is the most important metric. The second thing is having reasonable performance for multiple brushed-in effect bricks.
    I'm mostly curious if anyone has any experience to point to whether it's worth it -- disregarding the other advantages like expandability and nicer (matte) displays.
    Thanks.
    Ben

    Thanks for writing. Please don't mind if I pick apart your statements.
    "For an extra $200 the 5870 is a no brainer." I agree on a pure cost basis that it's not a hard decision. But I have a very quiet environment, and I understand this card can make a lot of noise. To pay money, end up with a louder machine, and on top of that realize no significant benefit would be a minor disaster.
    So, the more interesting question is: has anyone actually used the 5870 and can compare it to previous cards? A 16-bit 60 megapixel image won't require even .5GB of VRAM if fully tiled into it, for example, so I have no ability, a priori, to prove to myself that it will matter. I guess I'm really hoping for real-world data. Perhaps you speak from this experience, Matthew? (I can't tell.)
    Background work and exporting are helpful, but not as critical for my primary daily use. I know the CPU is also used for demosaicing or at least some subset of the render pipeline, because I have two computers that demonstrate vastly different render-from-raw response times with the same graphics card. Indeed, it is this lag that would be the most valuable of all for me to reduce. I want to be able to flip through a large shoot and see each image at 100% as instantaneously as possible. On my 2.8 i7 that process takes about 1 second on average (when Aperture doesn't get confused and mysteriously stop rendering 100% images).
    Ben

  • Can video cards for the new Mac Pro be installed in the field?

    Current Configuration of the new Mac Pro is as follows:
          ACES MacPro Workstation Seat
    Processor
    6-Core/3.5GHz/Xeon E5
    Memory
    32 GB
    Graphics
    2X AMD FirePro D500
    Hard Disk
    1 TB
    Display
    24" LED / HP
    Media Player
    2GB FIPS USB Drive
    Mouse
    Apple Magic Mouse
    Keyboard
    USB
    Ports
    4-USB 3.0;
    6-Thunderbolt
    1- HDMI
    Netwk Interface
    Ethernet/802.11n
    Card Reader
    NIST SP 800 Compliant
    My question is can the Graphic Display cards be removed and replaced in the field by an experience Mac Technician?
    Any special tools required?

    Now here is the back, showing the heatsink paste still in place, and the thermal pads used to cool the RAM chips to the central cooler:
    note that the two cards are not interchangeable -- they have their power lugs on opposite sides. One card has chips to support actual display output to the thunderbolt Busses, the other card has none, but has the custom micro-PCIE slot for the PCIe SSD "stick".
    One reason for this design is that to make a leap forward, you would have to water-cool the slots for a traditional form-factor PCIe slot Mac pro. Then do it again to include a second GPU. In my opinion, this model Mac Pro is about conquering the cooling problem of this much CPU and GPU compute-power in one box.
    NVIDIA graphics card replacements? maybe eventually, but not at this writing.

Maybe you are looking for