They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
Should sell for 2-3x of 2x8GB?
When 8 GB models were released by OWC in February of 2011, they did cost 800 USD per module, thus 16 GB did cost 1600 USD.
Nowadays 16 GB RAM can be had for 100 USD, thus if 16 GB modules become available, they will cost more than 200 to 300 USD for 32 GB. It will be more around 2000 USD.
They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
I noticed that some 2012 MBPros can handle 32GB but because they only have two memory slots they can only get to this memory size by two 16GB SODIMM modules.
Would anyone have an idea when these will be sold?
Apple needs to provide CPUS with more cores than they do today.
So my question is what do you need a 32GB in a RMBP for? What applications are you running and what softwares need that much ram? Please list anything that comes to mind that takes up alot of ram.
Thanks
So my question is what do you need a 32GB in a RMBP for? What applications are you running and what softwares need that much ram? Please list anything that comes to mind that takes up alot of ram.
Thanks
http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRetina2012-speed-memory-bandwidth.html
the footnote. I think it makes sense for the cMBP as well
I am very grateful for this link. It answers a lot of unanswered questions I have relating to what MHz really is. What are the advantages of soldering hardware together other than for cost and design reasons.
Would memory with a lower CAS Latency (9 vs 10) have a correlation to more efficient FSB?
Would a lower CAS Latency (9) RAM with smaller memory capacity (2x4GB) be better than a higher CAS Latency (10) RAM with larger memory capacity (2x8GB)?
They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
Do we really need that much more space, especially in ultrabooks, while internet speeds is getting better and many people stream content? Not really.
Most of people aren't even computer literate enough to need more speed.
Effectively, doing a hybrid drive of RAM and SSD (like hybrid SSD+HDD, just a level up) could prove fast enough for most of people to eliminate the need for more. i.e.: 8GB Ram, 8GB+256GB ram/ssd hybrid drive.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
"16GB ought to be enough for anybody." - Mac-Tech, 2012
So, like, I'm a power user...at any given time, I might have mail, safari (at least 3 tabs open), preview, calendar, notes, reminders, AppStore, and iTunes open at once! That's at least, what, a gig right there...oh wait...
It appears that (2x16GB) 32GB will become available as a DDR3-1866 module by the time Intel Haswell starts shipping. CORSAIR and Kingston are already selling smaller capacity modules at that speed.
When 8 GB models were released by OWC in February of 2011, they did cost 800 USD per module, thus 16 GB did cost 1600 USD.
Nowadays 16 GB RAM can be had for 100 USD, thus if 16 GB modules become available, they will cost more than 200 to 300 USD for 32 GB. It will be more around 2000 USD.
You don't need that because you already have that. Read up on the disk cache. That is a dynamic write and read cache in RAM it grows as needed and as long as there is space. If you run a really high IO software like a server OSX will eventually swap everything out of main memory until all that is left is the server app and the disk cache. The disk cache can grow 4+GB big in a 8GB RAM system. It only grows if there is a need with really high IO and apps using it. There is absolutely no need to build a hybrid RAM SSD drive. It is entirely pointless over the SATA bus as the latency impact would still be.Do we really need that much more space, especially in ultrabooks, while internet speeds is getting better and many people stream content? Not really.
Most of people aren't even computer literate enough to need more speed.
Effectively, doing a hybrid drive of RAM and SSD (like hybrid SSD+HDD, just a level up) could prove fast enough for most of people to eliminate the need for more. i.e.: 8GB Ram, 8GB+256GB ram/ssd hybrid drive.
I think they are largely useless and pure marketing. They increase latency which is more important than bandwidth for 99% of the normal users. The failure rate grows and you need to drive more SSDs and SATA controllers which increases power consumption. There is zero point to it as practically no application needs the throughput especially not with some meager mobile CPU. When you have a 16 core workstation okay but not on a notebook. It is just marketing and looks great in benchmarks. Real world use = zero.I really liked the VAIO idea of Quad SSD Raid 0.
You don't need that because you already have that. Read up on the disk cache. That is a dynamic write and read cache in RAM it grows as needed and as long as there is space. If you run a really high IO software like a server OSX will eventually swap everything out of main memory until all that is left is the server app and the disk cache. The disk cache can grow 4+GB big in a 8GB RAM system. It only grows if there is a need with really high IO and apps using it. There is absolutely no need to build a hybrid RAM SSD drive. It is entirely pointless over the SATA bus as the latency impact would still be.
I think they are largely useless and pure marketing. They increase latency which is more important than bandwidth for 99% of the normal users. The failure rate grows and you need to drive more SSDs and SATA controllers which increases power consumption. There is zero point to it as practically no application needs the throughput especially not with some meager mobile CPU. When you have a 16 core workstation okay but not on a notebook. It is just marketing and looks great in benchmarks. Real world use = zero.
As for this whole RAM speed discussion. The CPUs today benefit little to not at all from faster RAM. They just don't need it. The only place it helps is with iGPUs like on the 13". Otherwise forget about speed.
And I doubt anybody needs 32GB RAM. Didn't read a single reasonable reason. 8GB some might need. 16GB if you are generous with VMs and some really demanding apps but beyond that swapping can take care of everything without any troubles. I don't see any load that a mobile Quad Core can handle that would really require 32GB.
I suspect they will show up in spring maybe later.