Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/30/quad-core-nehalem-mac-pros-support-16gb-ram/)

Other World Computing has begun selling (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory) 4GB SDRAM memory modules for the Quad-Core Nehlaem Mac Pros that were introduced in March (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/03/apple-introduces-new-mac-pro-with-nehalem-xeon-processors/). A reader emailed OWC (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7359152#post7359152) and confirmed that 4GB modules had been successfully tested on the Quad-Core Mac Pros.

According to Apple's official specs, the Quad-Core Mac Pros only support up to 2GB modules in its 4 memory slots resulting in a maximum installed memory of only 8GB. This finding by OWC means the maximum installed memory in these new machines is at least 16GB. While the cost of 4GB modules is somewhat prohibitive at the moment, this should ensure future expandability as the price of memory drops.

In contrast, Apple's 8-Core models carry 8 memory slots total and can officially support 4GB modules bringing their maximum installed memory capacity to 32GB. The advertised 8GB max vs 32GB max RAM discrepancy between the Quad and 8-Core machines has been a major issue for some customers. Apple has been known to under-advertise the maximum ram capacities for their machines in the past.

Article Link: Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/30/quad-core-nehalem-mac-pros-support-16gb-ram/)

[edesignuk]

What peckers :rolleyes:

[iCantwait]

OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb?

[koobcamuk]

OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb?

People that can afford a Mac Pro, generally.

[talkingfuture]

Surely thats enough RAM to control the entire world!

[bigandy]

I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

[DELLsFan]

All other things equal in the world, I think it'll take about a year or two for prices on those 4GB sticks to fall down to earth. Even then, I still wouldn't buy them from Apple if they offered them. :eek:

Apple has only recently begun to lower their ram prices. Consumers like me want to see this trend continue and stabilize at some value on par with third party resell pricing consistently for like a year or two. THEN maybe I'll buy Apple ram. Unless I'm getting a mini, it's third party vendor for me for now. Apple's pricing history on the ram they sell is still an outrageous blemish on their credibility. It'll take time to earn back this trust, IMO.

:apple:

[job]

I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

Uh, how would you have gotten more than 16GB in the new Quad anyways??

AFAIK no one makes 8GB or larger DIMMs - so with the 4 available slots in the new quad-cores, it makes sense that the limit would be 16GB.

Or am I missing something here?

[star-affinity]

”This finding by OWC means the maximum installed memory in these new machines is at least 16GB.”

Just what I thought all along... :)

[RedTomato]

Last week something happened I thought wouldn't happen for a while.

My computer with a massive (to me) 4GB RAM started seriously lagging and swapping while I was doing some mild work (NOT play).

The cause? I was simulating an office network that I will take over running in the next few months (new job).

Running Windows Server 2008 in VMWare Fusion, with 2GB, and an XP client in another virtual machine, with 1GB, left only 1GB for my macbook.

These were the minimum I could reasonably give each of the 3 OSes. I'm gonna have to face that 4GB isn't enough for me. :eek:

[wally626]

If you want 16 GB of RAM now or in the relatively near future it would be cheaper to buy the Octo-core mac and use 8 2GB sticks. there is no reason for Apple to advertise 16 GB in the quad-core until RAM prices drop enough to justify it.

[haravikk]

These were the minimum I could reasonably give each of the 3 OSes. I'm gonna have to face that 4GB isn't enough for me. :eek:
I'm glad I had the extra money to burn when I got my Mac Pro last year and went for an extra 8gb (two 4gb chips), as the 10gb total really means I rarely have swapping issues :)

[robbieduncan]

I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

You were getting the single CPU/4 Core machines not the dual CPU/8 core ones?

[Lesser Evets]

I wonder why the step down?

My older version can handle 32 GB. And within 5 years it will be maxed out, certainly. All my past Mac Pros start out with SO MUCH MEMORY I'll never need, and about 5 years later they look like tinker toys and are too limited in terms of memory.

[Full of Win]

Is this from the CPU / Intel or is it more of Apple BS of making you get buy a higher level product to get the small features you want (e.g. Firewire in MBP's)

[Bubba Satori]

Surely thats enough RAM to control the entire render!

fxt :D

[job]

I wonder why the step down?

The quad-cores only have 4 available slots because that's all that's there on the single processor card. The octocores have 8 slots because of the two processor cards/trays/whatever you want to call them.

[Bubba Satori]

http://rubysdreamhome.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/vaseline.jpg

[MIDI_EVIL]

http://rubysdreamhome.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/vaseline.jpg

HAHAHA.

[steveza]

Is this from the CPU / Intel or is it more of Apple BS of making you get buy a higher level product to get the small features you want (e.g. Firewire in MBP's)It would be a limitation of the motherboard. My X58 chipset board from Asus supports 24GB RAM.

[Michael73]

Uh, how would you have gotten more than 16GB in the new Quad anyways??

AFAIK no one makes 8GB or larger DIMMs - so with the 4 available slots in the new quad-cores, it makes sense that the limit would be 16GB.

Or am I missing something here?

Not sure they fit into the *new* MP, but awhile ago I started this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=570611).

In fact, just look here (http://www.memorydeal.net/8gb-of-ram-memory-module-upgrade-ddr2.php) for 8GB DIMMs. Crazy expensive, I know!

[Hattig]

The new Nehalem CPUs have three channels of DDR3 memory each. So why are there four slots - one channel will have two DIMMs and the others one. Other boards will have 6 slots per CPU. Still, I guess Apple got the CPUs early from Intel...

[seedster2]

there is no reason for Apple to advertise 16 GB in the quad-core until RAM prices drop enough to justify it.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Trying to defend the indefensible. Apple charges a lot for ram and certain upgrades to MacPros as is. Since when is ram costs a barrier?

Have you seen what they charge for physical RAID cards, SSD Hard Drives, etc.?

Seems like they were artificially forcing customers to go for the 8 core by publishing misleading limitations.

[iJaz]

I can understand that they would under-advertise the RAM capacity in the consumer products, (like my soon 3 years old MacBook, happily humming along with 4GB) so the Pros get the Pro products. But under-advertising max RAM in the Pro products just seems stupid.

[ditzy]

I thought that this was great when I first read it. I still do, but Apple must have known from the get go that the quad mac pro could take 16 gigs of RAM. Which would force some to artificially go up to an 8 core when they otherwise would not have. Even if they charged a fortune for the extra gigs at least it would be honest.

[polaris20]

OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb?

Everyone, in about a year or two. Buying a Quad now with 8GB knowing you can go to 16GB when prices drop is a nice feeling.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

I figure that this was coming eventually.

[stxdla20]

If you want 16gb of ram why would you even bother buying the Quad-Core Mac Pro? If you can afford 16gb of ram then you probably bought the 8-core with 32gb.

[gnasher729]

I thought that this was great when I first read it. I still do, but Apple must have known from the get go that the quad mac pro could take 16 gigs of RAM. Which would force some to artificially go up to an 8 core when they otherwise would not have. Even if they charged a fortune for the extra gigs at least it would be honest.

It seems that at this point in time, 4 GB RAM chips are ridiculously more expensive than 2 GB chips. They are so expensive, that a quad core MacPro + 4 times 4 GB RAM would be more expensive than an eight core MacPro + 8 times 2 GB RAM. Can you imagine how the whiners would be whining if they figure out that a quad core + 16 GB costs more than an octo core + 16 GB?

[LeoFio]

If you want 16 GB of RAM now or in the relatively near future it would be cheaper to buy the Octo-core mac and use 8 2GB sticks. there is no reason for Apple to advertise 16 GB in the quad-core until RAM prices drop enough to justify it.

With this reasoning, Apple should not advertise the 8-core model supporting 32GB RAM, but rather 16GB?:rolleyes:


Rated negative for false advertising.

[mmccaskill]

Could Apple actually enforce the advertised memory limit with an EFI update?

[milo]

Good news, but still idiotic on Apple's part to put in four slots instead of six. It's not like there's not enough room for it.

[milo]

The quad-cores only have 4 available slots because that's all that's there on the single processor card. The octocores have 8 slots because of the two processor cards/trays/whatever you want to call them.

In that case, it looks like using the trays was a dumb idea if it imposed a lower ram limitation in the machine.

[ditzy]

It seems that at this point in time, 4 GB RAM chips are ridiculously more expensive than 2 GB chips. They are so expensive, that a quad core MacPro + 4 times 4 GB RAM would be more expensive than an eight core MacPro + 8 times 2 GB RAM. Can you imagine how the whiners would be whining if they figure out that a quad core + 16 GB costs more than an octo core + 16 GB?

I get that they are more expensive, that just the way it is, but that is no reason for withholding that they are capable of 16 gig.

[bug67]

More RAM GOOOOOOOOOOOD!:D

[mozumder]

Holy crap the 32 GB option is only $1800 at OWC. Meanwhile, Apple sells the same thing for $6100!!! What the hell?!? That'll save me $4.3k!

I am planning a purchase as well. I was wondering if 24GB is faster than 32GB? Is the 4th RAM slot on the Mac Pro buffered or registered, hence slower? And if so how much?

[mccoma]

I am planning a purchase as well. I was wondering if 24GB is faster than 32GB? Is the 4th RAM slot on the Mac Pro buffered or registered, hence slower? And if so how much?

The chipset does triple or double channel, so 3 slots filled = triple channel or 4 slots filled = double channel. I think it was 33 vs 25 on the speed. I need a new machine (after 5 years) and will probably do the fill 3 slots on the octo machine.

[Silencio]

If you want 16gb of ram why would you even bother buying the Quad-Core Mac Pro? If you can afford 16gb of ram then you probably bought the 8-core with 32gb.

RAM prices do trend dramatically downwards over time. I've upgraded all my Macs with more RAM incrementally over the life of the machines, and the more RAM capacity, the better. I bought the low-end, quad core 2.8GHz Mac Pro and started out with 6GB, then upgraded to 10GB, and there's plenty more room where that came from if I need it.

Even with unofficial support for 16GB of RAM, the new quad Mac Pro just doesn't have enough memory capacity for a machine that should be useful for 4-5 years. That they didn't put six RAM slots on each processor board is also quite vexing. 6x4GB for 24GB of RAM would be more acceptable.

I have to say IMHO the new low-end Mac Pro is perhaps the most disappointing single Mac model Apple has rolled out since switching to Intel.

[Umbongo]

It seems that at this point in time, 4 GB RAM chips are ridiculously more expensive than 2 GB chips. They are so expensive, that a quad core MacPro + 4 times 4 GB RAM would be more expensive than an eight core MacPro + 8 times 2 GB RAM. Can you imagine how the whiners would be whining if they figure out that a quad core + 16 GB costs more than an octo core + 16 GB?

With Apple's pricing this is correct. With actual market prices it isn't the case.

The 8GB limit is probably just to upsell buyers to 8 core systems and so that they can still make a big profit on a high end memory option (the other options are of similar current market prices).

[RedDrink]

I just upgraded my MacBook 2,1 from 2GB to 4GB and Apple clearly states that the max support is 2GB.

What's up with that?!

[gnasher729]

With this reasoning, Apple should not advertise the 8-core model supporting 32GB RAM, but rather 16GB?:rolleyes:


Rated negative for false advertising.

No. You didn't think this through at all.

4 Core + 8 GB = reasonably priced.
8 Core + 16 GB = reasonably priced.
4 Core + 16 GB = very expensive, anyone other than a complete moron would buy 8 Core + 16 GB instead because it is cheaper and better.
8 Core + 32 GB = very expensive, but if you need 32 GB, you don't have a choice.

[timish]

I wonder why the step down?

My older version can handle 32 GB. And within 5 years it will be maxed out, certainly. All my past Mac Pros start out with SO MUCH MEMORY I'll never need, and about 5 years later they look like tinker toys and are too limited in terms of memory.


Mac Pro has been out since 2006........how have you had a "Mac Pro" for 5 years?
:confused:

[timish]

OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb?

LOL I've had 16GB RAM in my Mac Pro for the past 2.5 years. :D

[milo]

LOL I've had 16GB RAM in my Mac Pro for the past 2.5 years. :D

And I'm sure it was way cheaper to do in your machine since you had eight slots to work with instead of just four. Same goes for the G5 machines, the new quad is even a step back from those in that respect.

Really, would it have killed Apple to put even SIX ram slots on the quad? So dumb.

[timish]

And I'm sure it was way cheaper to do in your machine since you had eight slots to work with instead of just four. Same goes for the G5 machines, the new quad is even a step back from those in that respect.

Really, would it have killed Apple to put even SIX ram slots on the quad? So dumb.

Yeah that is true, I do have the 8 ram slots.

I paid $800 for my (8) 2GB chips but that's off topic.

Agreed on the step back. Kinda stupid to limit the expansion on the machine.

Might as well make it a "Mac Pro Performa"

LOL

[thoshino]

16Gb is half a world better than 8 Gb, but it's not enough. It's still a downgrade from the 32 Gb of previous generation.

On the bright side though, this may mean that the bottle-neck that makes "low-end" Pro-owners get a new computer in the future will be the single processor construction, not the RAM maxing out after just 3 years. If new graphic cards are made available it might last almost 5 years. Unlike the previous gen that will almost certainly be usable for 6-7 years after first release.

My guess is that the stock previous gen will still be in use after the last "new" single-processor Pro's reach the recycling station.

[thoshino]

I have to say IMHO the new low-end Mac Pro is perhaps the most disappointing single Mac model Apple has rolled out since switching to Intel.

You're being to modest. IMHO It's Apple's take on Nintendo's "Virtual Boy".

[brop52]

I just upgraded my MacBook 2,1 from 2GB to 4GB and Apple clearly states that the max support is 2GB.

What's up with that?!

Your maximum is actually 3.3GB but you can install the 4GB to take advantage of dual channel RAM.

[twoodcc]

i'm really disappointed that apple only put 4 ram slots in the quad

[polaris20]

If you want 16gb of ram why would you even bother buying the Quad-Core Mac Pro? If you can afford 16gb of ram then you probably bought the 8-core with 32gb.

Because you may buy the 8GB now, with the intention of upgrading later when the RAM gets cheaper.

[DoFoT9]

Because you may buy the 8GB now, with the intention of upgrading later when the RAM gets cheaper.

why are people having a cry about it?? its not the ACTUAL limit on the RAM, its just the current limit because bigger (8gb) RAM modules aren't available yet (and if they were they would cost SO much)

[milo]

I thought the whole point of the MP is that it's supposed to be a HIGH end machine - now you're saying for $2499 you get "low end"?

At that price its certainly not aimed at consumers, why even bother putting out a machine that fails to really make any segment of the market?

This is exactly what is wrong with the new MP lineup - before you could get an 8 core, up to 32 gig of ram, truly "pro" machine for $2799. Now they've dropped the price a little (but not low enough to be practical) but made it pretty questionable for high end users.

And watch it with the name calling, no reason for that here and just makes it hard to take your comments seriously.

[Plutonius]

I thought that this was great when I first read it. I still do, but Apple must have known from the get go that the quad mac pro could take 16 gigs of RAM. Which would force some to artificially go up to an 8 core when they otherwise would not have. Even if they charged a fortune for the extra gigs at least it would be honest.

If you use 4 Gig modules, they all have to be 4 Gig. Apple nowhere stated that you couldn't put more then 8 Gig in a quad. Apple only stated that they support up to 8 Gig in the quads and this was only because they didn't want to run into problems with people using different sized RAM modules if they are using a 4 Gig module.

[Plutonius]

Good news, but still idiotic on Apple's part to put in four slots instead of six. It's not like there's not enough room for it.

Four slots instead of six was the biggest design flaw in the 2009 Mac Pros but they didn't have the room unless they changed the dimensions of the enclosure.

I myself, believe that they should have changed the enclosure dimensions and put six slots in.

[Eidorian]

Four slots instead of six was the biggest design flaw in the 2009 Mac Pros but they didn't have the room unless they changed the dimensions of the enclosure.

I myself, believe that they should have changed the enclosure dimensions and put six slots in.The octo just has the additional daughter board with the additional 4 RAM slots. The quad is just one.

[milo]

If you use 4 Gig modules, they all have to be 4 Gig. Apple nowhere stated that you couldn't put more then 8 Gig in a quad. Apple only stated that they support up to 8 Gig in the quads and this was only because they didn't want to run into problems with people using different sized RAM modules if they are using a 4 Gig module.

Memory

1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
8-core: Eight memory slots (four per processor) supporting up to 32GB of main memory using 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB DIMMs
Quad-core: Four memory slots supporting up to 8GB of main memory using 1GB or 2GB DIMMs

And "they didn't want to run into problems with people using different sized RAM modules"? That doesn't even make sense, and the same potential issues have been there for years over various models. If that was the real reason, then why do they support up to 32 on the 8 core?

I'm not sure why apple only says 8 gigs, but that is simply wrong, and they should correct their specs.

[dabrace1984]

Apple has been known to under-advertise the maximum ram capacities for their machines in the past.

Reading this post on an early 2008 MacBook Pro with 6GB of OWC RAM. According to Apple (and Crucial.com) this model's max is 4GB.

But Apple NEVER lies.

[milo]

Four slots instead of six was the biggest design flaw in the 2009 Mac Pros but they didn't have the room unless they changed the dimensions of the enclosure.

I myself, believe that they should have changed the enclosure dimensions and put six slots in.

They had the room for eight slots on the eight core machine, that's not a bigger case. And let's not forget that this same case has been around for years - it's not like ram cards are suddenly way bigger or something, apple just has a gap on the quad where the other four slots would be.

Apple could have put eight on the quad if they really wanted to.

Reading this post on an early 2008 MacBook Pro with 6GB of OWC RAM. According to Apple (and Crucial.com) this model's max is 4GB.

But Apple NEVER lies.

I don't know if I'd call the ones in the past lying, usually Apple lists the max using the biggest available chips that are shipping and often the number goes up later as higher capacities become available (and Apple doesn't seem to go back and update their specs later, probably some legal issue). This case is odd that they list the 4G chips for the 8 core but not with the quad, when they work fine with either.

[polaris20]

why are people having a cry about it?? its not the ACTUAL limit on the RAM, its just the current limit because bigger (8gb) RAM modules aren't available yet (and if they were they would cost SO much)

First of all, I'm not "having a cry about it". Second of all, just because a higher capacity chip exists for a given pin pattern/memory type doesn't mean a computer can take it. My Macbook Pro has 2 DIMM slots. 4GB modules exist. However I can only officially use 2GB modules, and unofficially one 4GB one 2GB. My Dell will only take 1GB DIMMs even though 2GB DIMMs exist.

[DoFoT9]

First of all, I'm not "having a cry about it". Second of all, just because a higher capacity chip exists for a given pin pattern/memory type doesn't mean a computer can take it. My Macbook Pro has 2 DIMM slots. 4GB modules exist. However I can only officially use 2GB modules, and unofficially one 4GB one 2GB. My Dell will only take 1GB DIMMs even though 2GB DIMMs exist.

lol i am aware of how chips work and their limitations. do you seriously think that the newer model will take LESS capacity chips then the previous model?? this is a professional machine, the motherboard is 64-bit. the limitations of the new MP is pretty much endless.

[brop52]

Keep in mind this is Apple. After the unibody MB first came out they incorrectly listed the 2GHz model as having a backlit keyboard and the manual to this day is still wrong in saying it requires 200-pin DDR3 RAM which doesn't exist. They don't update their pages that often. So anything that happens after the day it is released it isn't revisited until a new model comes around.

[DoFoT9]

Keep in mind this is Apple. After the unibody MB first came out they incorrectly listed the 2GHz model as having a backlit keyboard and the manual to this day is still wrong in saying it requires 200-pin DDR3 RAM which doesn't exist. They don't update their pages that often. So anything that happens after the day it is released it isn't revisited until a new model comes around.

im sure thats not the case. one of the biggest companies in the world isnt going to write something up once and never check it again.

[iMaggot]

What you guys need to be mad at is the lame video cards in the new Mac Pro's.

[brop52]

im sure thats not the case. one of the biggest companies in the world isnt going to write something up once and never check it again.

When it involves them losing money and having returns for false advertising they will fix it (the backlight issue). When it involves a blatant error involving the spec of the RAM, they haven't changed it yet so who knows. Taking a look at the system requirements for apps like FCP I know they are going to update it soon but that's only because the app itself will be updated. The specs of the requirements are out of date. Another issue is BTO pricing. They often don't lower the prices unless there is a significant drop in price or come out with new models. So now we will be stuck with the BTO 4GB pricing of DDR3 RAM on the notebooks for a while to come despite the fact that the options in the marketplace for upgrading from the third party has been cut in half from October to January. (Obviously most people don't use BTO for multiple reasons). I know they are just trying to make money and I don't fault them for that but many of the pages tend to stay static as new information is researched, new hardware is released, and new technology evolves. The consumer and third-parties do the research and testing rather than Apple.

[Concorde Rules]

I love all the moaning here from people who don't have a Mac Pro, its great.

I have one coming, and although it is a bit on the expensive side, im sure it will run as a dream.

[polaris20]

lol i am aware of how chips work and their limitations. do you seriously think that the newer model will take LESS capacity chips then the previous model?? this is a professional machine, the motherboard is 64-bit. the limitations of the new MP is pretty much endless.

In the interest of them getting you to upgrade to a higher model? Yeah, I do. Tell me; why can't I put two 4gb chips in my 15" mbp, when they exist, and they can be used with the 17"?

The Thinkpad R series has supported 8gb of ram since August.....a friggin' $1000 laptop, whereas my $2000 laptop does not.

[DoFoT9]

In the interest of them getting you to upgrade to a higher model? Yeah, I do. Tell me; why can't I put two 4gb chips in my 15" mbp, when they exist, and they can be used with the 17"?

The Thinkpad R series has supported 8gb of ram since August.....a friggin' $1000 laptop, whereas my $2000 laptop does not.

while 8GB isn't support by your laptop (because of both a hardware AND software limitation) you can put 6GB in and have it working properly.

the new unibodies both support 8gb (correct me if im wrong).

the Thinkpad R must use a motherboard that supports 8gb (or possibly more) of RAM. good for them.

[polaris20]

while 8GB isn't support by your laptop (because of both a hardware AND software limitation) you can put 6GB in and have it working properly.

the new unibodies both support 8gb (correct me if im wrong).

the Thinkpad R must use a motherboard that supports 8gb (or possibly more) of RAM. good for them.

The new unibodies do not all support 8GB of RAM, only the 2.66Ghz and 2.93Ghz.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/26/apple-offering-8-gb-ram-kits-for-2-93-ghz-and-2-66-ghz-15-macbook-pros/

Fully aware mine supports 6GB.

Yes, the Thinkpad R uses a motherboard supporting 8GB, which supports what I said, that just because a DIMM goes to 4GB doesn't mean the motherboard will support it. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough before.

Just because there may someday be an 8GB DIMM doesn't mean the Quad MP will support it.

[DoFoT9]

The new unibodies do not all support 8GB of RAM, only the 2.66Ghz and 2.93Ghz.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/26/apple-offering-8-gb-ram-kits-for-2-93-ghz-and-2-66-ghz-15-macbook-pros/

Fully aware mine supports 6GB.

aahh, wasnt aware of that. mybad! thanks for the into.

Yes, the Thinkpad R uses a motherboard supporting 8GB, which supports what I said, that just because a DIMM goes to 4GB doesn't mean the motherboard will support it. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough before.

yes i know that just because they make it doesnt mean it can take it, my previous post backed up my knowledge on the subject.

Just because there may someday be an 8GB DIMM doesn't mean the Quad MP will support it.

thats very nice and all, but THIS IS THE MP we are talking about. the hardware limitations on it will not effect this 16gb limit vs 32gb limit or even maybe vs the 64gb limit. time will tell, once we see bigger DIMMs that is.

[polaris20]

aahh, wasnt aware of that. mybad! thanks for the into.



yes i know that just because they make it doesnt mean it can take it, my previous post backed up my knowledge on the subject.



thats very nice and all, but THIS IS THE MP we are talking about. the hardware limitations on it will not effect this 16gb limit vs 32gb limit or even maybe vs the 64gb limit. time will tell, once we see bigger DIMMs that is.

I guess I must have misread your post then or something. :D Honestly, only time will tell whether the quad will support more than 16GB, but if it does, then all the better.

[DoFoT9]

I guess I must have misread your post then or something. :D Honestly, only time will tell whether the quad will support more than 16GB, but if it does, then all the better.

yup i guess this topic will become valid again in about 6 months when the RAM DIMMs become available in those sizes haha! they will be VERY expensive though :(

[Firefly2002]

I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

Wow.. ISO more crying

[JoeDMD]

From PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343855,00.asp)

The Mac Pro finished the Photoshop CS4 test in 1:50 under Mac OS X but took only 1:17 to finish the same tasks under Windows. The performance difference is due to the fact that the Mac version of CS4 can directly address only 3.5GB of the system's memory, while the Windows 64-bit version can access the full 6GB of memory. This can add up to a significant performance benefit.

We are discussing 8vs16vs32 GB RAM, but photoshop can only address 3.5 GB?
On the original release thread someone was discussing the need for more memory when working with multiple RAW images in photoshop. You may want or need more memory, but can't use it.

[DoFoT9]

From PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343855,00.asp)

The Mac Pro finished the Photoshop CS4 test in 1:50 under Mac OS X but took only 1:17 to finish the same tasks under Windows. The performance difference is due to the fact that the Mac version of CS4 can directly address only 3.5GB of the system's memory, while the Windows 64-bit version can access the full 6GB of memory. This can add up to a significant performance benefit.

We are discussing 8vs16vs32 GB RAM, but photoshop can only address 3.5 GB?
On the original release thread someone was discussing the need for more memory when working with multiple RAW images in photoshop. You may want or need more memory, but can't use it.

there are ways to get around the limits, so that factor CAN be eliminated if people wish.

[polterdice]

From PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343855,00.asp)

The Mac Pro finished the Photoshop CS4 test in 1:50 under Mac OS X but took only 1:17 to finish the same tasks under Windows. The performance difference is due to the fact that the Mac version of CS4 can directly address only 3.5GB of the system's memory, while the Windows 64-bit version can access the full 6GB of memory. This can add up to a significant performance benefit.

We are discussing 8vs16vs32 GB RAM, but photoshop can only address 3.5 GB?
On the original release thread someone was discussing the need for more memory when working with multiple RAW images in photoshop. You may want or need more memory, but can't use it.

Of course photoshop performed better under 64 bit windows. CS4 is supported at 32 bit under mac os. For hardware comparison the test should have been run under 32 bit windows, since it would have the same 3.5 ram limitation. Until CS5 is released, photoshop in mac will be at a disadvantage to windows 64 bit; the test is flawed.

And you can use additional ram past 3.5 gb as scratch, so it's not completely useless.

But seriously, people needing more than 4 gb ram are not needing it for photoshop alone.

[xbjllb]

Holy crap the 32 GB option is only $1800 at OWC. Meanwhile, Apple sells the same thing for $6100!!! What the hell?!? That'll save me $4.3k!

I am planning a purchase as well. I was wondering if 24GB is faster than 32GB? Is the 4th RAM slot on the Mac Pro buffered or registered, hence slower? And if so how much?

OWC rocks. I've got 4 GB in my iMac that was only supposed to hold 3 GB as far as Apple was concerned.

I highly recommend OWC!

:apple:

[ileneh]

Holy crap the 32 GB option is only $1800 at OWC. Meanwhile, Apple sells the same thing for $6100!!! What the hell?!? That'll save me $4.3k!

I am planning a purchase as well. I was wondering if 24GB is faster than 32GB? Is the 4th RAM slot on the Mac Pro buffered or registered, hence slower? And if so how much?

Hi, I thought I'd post these OWC blog links in an attempt to answer your question.
2009 Mac Pro “Nehalem” Initial Speed Tests: http://blog.macsales.com/672-2009-mac-pro-nehalem-initial-speed-tests

Feed Your Mac Pro More RAM: http://blog.macsales.com/729-feed-your-mac-pro-more-ram

Cautionary Note On Mac Pro Memory: http://blog.macsales.com/547-cautionary-note-on-mac-pro-memory

Hope these help... Not trying to spam!
OWC ilene

[Gonk42]

I'm currently weighing up the two options of building my own Linux/Windows workstation and buying a Mac Pro with student discount.

I'm curious as to why 4GB unbuffered modules are so much more expensive than 4GB registered modules of otherwise the same spec for example Crucial UK prices (which are presumably much more than say OWC US prices are)

Unbuffered for Mac 12GB (3x4GB) kit of 1066 memory is £1,277:44 inc VAT

whilst registered ram kit is £407.09 both are the same spec apart from being registered or unbuffered and both are 4GB modules.

It is strange because registered memory is normally more expensive.

Also many mother boards (such as Intels) take either registered or unbuffered (but not both) so has anyone tried registered memory in the Mac Pro??

[wase4711]

so, does this mean that upgrading to 8 gigs of ram is a waste; 6 gigs is all that a quad core will actually use, since there are only 3 memory channels?

thanks!

[AidenShaw]

so, does this mean that upgrading to 8 gigs of ram is a waste; 6 gigs is all that a quad core will actually use, since there are only 3 memory channels?

It means that the first three DIMM slots will run somewhat faster, since they'll be in tri-channel mode.

The fourth slot will be single channel mode.

So you'll have 6 GiB of slightly faster memory plus 2 GiB of slightly slower.

You probably won't notice the slowdown unless you have very memory-intensive programs *and* you actually need 6 GiB or less.

If you need more than 6 GiB, then obviously things will be better with 8.

[wase4711]

Thanks Aiden for the clear response!

So, in real world computing, using the machine for everyday tasks, including photoshop, light video processing, and normal office functions like pages/numbers/ and things of that nature, getting 8 gigs of memory should yield slightly better performance than getting 6 gigs?
I still don't understand why Apple didn't make 4 gigs standard, instead of 3 gigs...

[AidenShaw]

So, in real world computing, using the machine for everyday tasks, including photoshop, light video processing, and normal office functions like pages/numbers/ and things of that nature, getting 8 gigs of memory should yield slightly better performance than getting 6 gigs?

I can't really estimate how much memory you'd use, but Windows and UNIX systems will use excess memory as a file system cache. Having the two extra gigs for the cache will probably make the system snappier.


I still don't understand why Apple didn't make 4 gigs standard, instead of 3 gigs...

Probably to save a few bucks, increase margin, and be sure that the out-of-the-box system performs best on memory-intensive benchmarks.

[wase4711]

Probably to save a few bucks, increase margin, and be sure that the out-of-the-box system performs best on memory-intensive benchmarks.

yeah, I agree with the cost savings part; although adding another gig from the factory would probably have cost Apple about 10 bucks or so..not alot on a $2500.00 machine..as far as the Benchmarks, I guess 6 gigs might give a better number in the memory benchmarks, but I bet in real world testing, like photoshop or archiving, having the 2 extra gigs would make a difference..

I guess I will upgrade to 8 gigs insted of 6; @OWC, the difference between their 6 gig and 8 gig upgrade is about 35 dollars; and, since they will give you some $$$ back if you sell them your "old" memory, the 8 gig upgrade will probably cost around 120 bucks total..blows Apple's $250 dollar 8 gig upgrade away...

Thanks again for the answers to my questions!

EDIT:
Just saw this over at Infoworld...Maybe it makes more sense to just add ram in multiples of 3 insted of 4...6 gigs would keep the clock speed of the RAM at its fastest, since you would only be populating "3" channels instead of "4"

"The strange not-power-of-two memory configuration relates to Nehalem's triple-channel memory controller. Its best performance is derived from attaching three DDR3 DIMMs to each processor. This leaves one or two DIMM sockets vacant, depending on 4 core or 8 core configuration, and there's some controversy over the performance impact of filling them.Due to this architecture change and the nature of DDR3 RAM, the RAM clock runs at 800MHz, 1,066MHz, or 1,333MHz. If the DIMM ranks are populated with a single RDIMM (Registered DIMM) per channel, the highest speed of 1,333MHz is possible. As RAM is added to those "4th" channels, the overall speed drops to 1,066MHz or 800MHz."

[midilance]

Seems like they were artificially forcing customers to go for the 8 core by publishing misleading limitations.

As it turns out they forced me to buy the previous generation 8 core and load it up with 12 GB of affordable ram. The advertised 8 GB limit was a deal breaker for me. I need it for music and video production.

[brop52]

As it turns out they forced me to buy the previous generation 8 core and load it up with 12 GB of affordable ram. The advertised 8 GB limit was a deal breaker for me. I need it for music and video production.

Apple likes to not be accurate about what the actual maximum is. The Quad Core maxes out at 12GB.

[polaris20]

Apple likes to not be accurate about what the actual maximum is. The Quad Core maxes out at 12GB.

As the title says, it maxes out at 16gb

[seedster2]

As it turns out they forced me to buy the previous generation 8 core and load it up with 12 GB of affordable ram. The advertised 8 GB limit was a deal breaker for me. I need it for music and video production.

I actually did the same. I bought 2.8 - 8 core with the business discount for my fledgling photography business.

I want this workstation for its expandability. Apple has obviously lost sight of this when the designed the quad

[Thomas2006]

I thought the whole point of the MP is that it's supposed to be a HIGH end machine - now you're saying for $2499 you get "low end"?

At that price its certainly not aimed at consumers, why even bother putting out a machine that fails to really make any segment of the market?
This is just a guess, but I think Apple might be turning the low-end Mac Pro into an "xMac". No, it will not be the $1500 model with PCI slots and eSATA that people are asking for since that would cannibalize the Mac mini and iMac sales, as well as, increase expenses associated with producing a new model. Apple will do something simple now that the processors and RAM are on a separate board.

The next update will have the high-end Mac Pro using two 6-core Core i7 processors and the low-end using a singe Core i5 processor, hopefully, with a price drop. The low-end model will still be "too expensive" for those whose processing needs can be met with a dual-core, don't want a built-in monitor, want to add/change video cards, increase storage without cluttering their desktop, and/or need to add an expansion card.