More Options for 128 GB Mac Pro RAM Upgrades Now Available

MacRumors · Mar 26, 2014

Earlier this month, Transcend announced the launch of 128 GB RAM kits for the new Mac Pro, offering users willing to spend nearly $2500 the ability to go beyond Apple's maximum of 64 GB.

Several new options for 128 GB RAM upgrades have launched since that time, offering consumer more choices in sourcing their RAM. Last week, MacMall began selling 32 GB modules from Axiom for $620, thus matching Transcend's $2480 price for the full 128 GB kit.

And today, OWC announced its own kit, offering the full 128 GB for $2130, a savings of $350 over Transcend and Axiom for the time being.

As with all of the other 128 GB kits, OWC's will run at 1066 MHz due to limitations in Intel's chipset for addressing the higher capacity of RAM. Lower-capacity RAM kits can run at faster 1866 MHz speeds, but OWC notes that the performance hit of the 128 GB kit is generally minor compared to the benefit of having much more RAM.

While current DRAM device technology limit 32GB modules to a 1066MHz memory clock in the Apple Mac Pro 2013, due to enhanced CAS Performance of OWC MaxRAM 32GB Modules, actual real-world performance is insignificant in low memory need scenarios while offering incredibly significant performance gains in all cases where application use benefits from greater than 64GB of total memory installed.

In addition to its new kits of 32 GB modules, OWC also offers RAM kits for the Mac Pro using 8 GB and 16 GB modules at much lower pricing than through Apple. As a result, customers may prefer to order their Mac Pro from Apple with a minimum of RAM and save some money by upgrading the RAM through OWC or another vendor offering high-quality RAM for lower prices than at Apple.

Article Link: More Options for 128 GB Mac Pro RAM Upgrades Now Available

tarproductions · Mar 26, 2014

My first computer hard drive was 10GB. I love technology.

DTphonehome · Mar 26, 2014

Oh please. No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

----------

tarproductions said:
My first computer hard drive was 10GB. I love technology.

Young'un. Mine was 40 MB. And I'm sure there's lots of people here who can beat that by a lot.

dumastudetto · Mar 26, 2014

tarproductions said:
My first computer hard drive was 10GB. I love technology.

Mine was in the megabytes I can't remember how big though.

These new Mac Pros are truly incredible machines with enough power to satisfy the needs of every computeriser. The question is how long before there's a Mac Pro in every home? The technology continues to advance but consumers aren't keeping up so far.

NY Guitarist · Mar 26, 2014

DTphonehome said:
Oh please. No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

----------

At first glance I read this as "No one will ever need more than 64 GB of RAM."

8281 · Mar 26, 2014

dumastudetto said:
The question is how long before there's a Mac Pro in every home? The technology continues to advance but consumers aren't keeping up so far.

Um...what? I'm a little confused. Most people will never need that much RAM. You might as well ask when everyone will have a Formula 1 car parked in their garage.

HuntingPudel · Mar 26, 2014

dumastudetto said:
Mine was in the megabytes I can't remember how big though.

My first HDD was a 5.25" full-height 5MB job in a PC/XT. There was no way in the world that a normal user could fill all that space up! Yeah, right.

0815 · Mar 26, 2014

DTphonehome said:
Oh please. No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

----------

Young'un. Mine was 40 MB. And I'm sure there's lots of people here who can beat that by a lot.

This makes me now feel old - my first PC had two floppy drives, when I got a new one a few years later I got generous 20MB drive (at the time everybody had 10MB hard drives and they called be crazy for getting such an enormous hard drive). System memory was almost not existing :-(

campingsk8er · Mar 26, 2014

Really, who needs 128GB of RAM?

aajeevlin · Mar 26, 2014

dumastudetto said:
Mine was in the megabytes I can't remember how big though.

These new Mac Pros are truly incredible machines with enough power to satisfy the needs of every computeriser. The question is how long before there's a Mac Pro in every home? The technology continues to advance but consumers aren't keeping up so far.

Agree, it's hard to judge and say what is fair for the price for these Mac Pro's. As most of us have no idea what the production costs are. I almost want to say that at the price of point $3,000 it really isn't that "not bad" for what it is offering (I recall my best friend's new computer almost 10+ years ago was $2000). But at the same time, because it really isn't that cheap, one starts to think about price vs. actual usage. Giving that a Mac Mini for $550+ can do everything I need, is it really worth it to spend the extra money (let's keep this to regular family/tech savvy consumers). I think, if Apple is really to put this out for $2000-2500, I think that might be a decent price for these Mac Pros. Then again, I honestly don't see that happening.

RightMACatU · Mar 26, 2014

DTphonehome said:
Oh please. No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

----------

Young'un. Mine was 40 MB. And I'm sure there's lots of people here who can beat that by a lot.

That would be 1988. Few of my friends got a 40MB HD with their PC and I went for 80MB which was unthinkable back then. My friends all went: "Dude! you'll never use all of that" MegaLOL!

RonMan · Mar 26, 2014

What is big and fast enough?

I started at 5 MB in disk space and I now have a single drive with 4TB (and a lot of other drives too). No matter what we do, the technology will outstrip our ability to really believe what can happen.

If I had the computer power, memory and space that is in my iPhone 5s, my masters work in physics would have gone so much faster. I would not have believed ANYONE if they told me that a phone would faster than a VAX 11/780 in 30 years.

I have a 2008 MacPro that I keep updating and updating; RAM, SSDs, graphics cards. No, I can't match the new one, but I still do 3D rendering for CAD, Aperture, PS6 and a lot more. I drool for a new MapcPro. When I do buy it I will have it for, what, 10 years, before it can't keep up, and who knows what add-ins will be available to allow it to keep up? Apple makes it easy to keep machines forever. The only reason I don't crank up the Mac II is that I can't find the monitor for it. I want to show my god children what pre-historic looked like.

ebouwman · Mar 26, 2014

8281 said:
Um...what? I'm a little confused. Most people will never need that much RAM. You might as well ask when everyone will have a Formula 1 car parked in their garage.

RIGHT NOW it's like having an F1 car but it wasn't long ago that I looked at the Mac Pro with 16gb of ram and thought that no home user would ever want or need that. That was 2007, today 16gb or ram is not that insane.

It's hard to imagine it right now though, but give it 10 or 15 years.

BreuerEditor · Mar 26, 2014

campingsk8er said:
Really, who needs 128GB of RAM?

Film editors working in 4K+
Motion graphic designers
3D animators
CAD designers

The more RAM the merrierI currently have 32GB in my late '12 27" iMac and I STILL max it out in After Effects and Premiere when exporting both 1080p and 4K sequences (easily!). More memory helps speed up render times, which means I can do more work in less time. So yes, we need more

DTphonehome · Mar 26, 2014

aajeevlin said:
Agree, it's hard to judge and say what is fair for the price for these Mac Pro's. As most of us have no idea what the production costs are. I almost want to say that at the price of point $3,000 it really isn't that "not bad" for what it is offering (I recall my best friend's new computer almost 10+ years ago was $2000). But at the same time, because it really isn't that cheap, one starts to think about price vs. actual usage. Giving that a Mac Mini for $550+ can do everything I need, is it really worth it to spend the extra money (let's keep this to regular family/tech savvy consumers). I think, if Apple is really to put this out for $2000-2500, I think that might be a decent price for these Mac Pros. Then again, I honestly don't see that happening.

This is simply not a machine for home use. This is for PROS. Meaning, people who actually make money from their computer workstations. If an upgrade makes you more money, then it's worth it. Otherwise, keep using what you already have.

pedromcm.pm · Mar 26, 2014

Well...

Looks like the new Mac Pro already has a strong following. People working with it, pushing it to the limits (trying), people developing accessories for it, more hardware, etc.

It really was a great move, and looks like Apple coded their software the right way. It won't take long for almost every pro app to be optimized for it. I be a (not so) few folks at Adobe can barely wait to work with one!

groovyd · Mar 26, 2014

Tape

My first computer had a tape deck. Winning

macduke · Mar 26, 2014

This is why I want a Mac Pro. I don't need 128GB today. But in five years? Maybeand probably for less than $150 by then. My MBP in 2008 had 2GB of ram and my current rMBP has 16GB. Though I rarely hit a limit with 16GB. The limit I hit fairly often is the 512GB of SSD. I think someday RAM and SSD will be one in the same.

Tell me if and why I'm wrong: I'm thinking the Mac Pro could be my key to not doing upgrades every two years. With upgrades to 12 cores, upgradeable video card, upgrades to 128GB of ram and Thunderbolt 2.0 storage I could probably get 6-7 years out of it. 64-bit multi-core Geekbench score for the baseline late 2013 Mac Pro is 14426, while the top-end early 2009 Mac Pro beats it handily at 17795. If Apple waits until 2015 to update the Mac Pro again, the new baseline will probably be near that score around 18000. That will be around 6 years. So if you bought the 2009 Mac Pro at a base configuration (Geekbench 8075), and then upgraded to 8-core and more (17795) later when it became cheaper, you could do as well (in theory) as a baseline 2015 Mac Pro. Those of you who have upgraded older Mac Pros, please tell me if my logic is flawed. Can you go from bottom to top-end through upgrades alone over the course of several years without spending as much? Or is it better to just sell your machine every few years? I hate dealing with Craigslist, but it has worked for me in the past. It's just always stressfulespecially for such a pricey item. I don't need the top-end Mac Pro, but I do a lot of work that could benefit from a higher-end machine with a large, pixel-dense display, such as editing lots of photos, Photoshop work, web design, lots of multitasking, testing websites in IE in a virtual machine, and some video editing (720p and 1080p). I'm going to be purchasing the successor to the 5D MkIII when it comes out, so those files will probably be huge. Especially if they increase the dynamic range and megapixel count. So a low-end Mac Pro with 4K seems like a good idea. But will it last for a long time through upgrades?

skellener · Mar 26, 2014

campingsk8er said:
Really, who needs 128GB of RAM?

Mac Pros

Zxxv · Mar 26, 2014

My first computer was a brand new out of the box just released state of the art zx81. Still have it

Am I winning?

8281 · Mar 26, 2014

ebouwman said:
RIGHT NOW it's like having an F1 car but it wasn't long ago that I looked at the Mac Pro with 16gb of ram and thought that no home user would ever want or need that. That was 2007, today 16gb or ram is not that insane.

It's hard to imagine it right now though, but give it 10 or 15 years.

Ah, I see. Your wording was a little confusing, like consumers had some duty to keep up. And who knows, maybe in 20 years we won't even have RAM as we now know it.

RonMan · Mar 26, 2014

macduke said:
This is why I want a Mac Pro. I don't need 128GB today. But in five years? Maybeand probably for less than $150 by then. My MBP in 2008 had 2GB of ram and my current rMBP has 16GB. Though I rarely hit a limit with 16GB. The limit I hit fairly often is the 512GB of SSD. I think someday RAM and SSD will be one in the same.

Tell me if and why I'm wrong: I'm thinking the Mac Pro could be my key to not doing upgrades every two years. With upgrades to 12 cores, upgradeable video card, upgrades to 128GB of ram and Thunderbolt 2.0 storage I could probably get 6-7 years out of it. 64-bit multi-core Geekbench score for the baseline late 2013 Mac Pro is 14426, while the top-end early 2009 Mac Pro beats it handily at 17795. If Apple waits until 2015 to update the Mac Pro again, the new baseline will probably be near that score around 18000. That will be around 6 years. So if you bought the 2009 Mac Pro at a base configuration (Geekbench 8075), and then upgraded to 8-core and more (17795) later when it became cheaper, you could do as well (in theory) as a baseline 2015 Mac Pro. Those of you who have upgraded older Mac Pros, please tell me if my logic is flawed. Can you go from bottom to top-end through upgrades alone over the course of several years without spending as much? Or is it better to just sell your machine every few years? I hate dealing with Craigslist, but it has worked for me in the past. It's just always stressfulespecially for such a pricey item. I don't need the top-end Mac Pro, but I do a lot of work that could benefit from a higher-end machine with a large, pixel-dense display, such as editing lots of photos, Photoshop work, web design, lots of multitasking, testing websites in IE in a virtual machine, and some video editing (720p and 1080p). I'm going to be purchasing the successor to the 5D MkIII when it comes out, so those files will probably be huge. Especially if they increase the dynamic range and megapixel count. So a low-end Mac Pro with 4K seems like a good idea. But will it last for a long time through upgrades?

I keep upgrading my 2008 MacPro. The end is near, but by spreading the investment out over several years and buying things I can reuse I have saved money. When I do by the new MacPro, I won't buy the top end, but I will add to it for the next 6-8 years and be very happy.

ptb42 · Mar 26, 2014

tarproductions said:
My first computer hard drive was 10GB. I love technology.

Try 10 MB.

And I still have it.

mrxak · Mar 26, 2014

macduke said:
This is why I want a Mac Pro. I don't need 128GB today. But in five years? Maybe—and probably for less than $150 by then. My MBP in 2008 had 2GB of ram and my current rMBP has 16GB. Though I rarely hit a limit with 16GB. The limit I hit fairly often is the 512GB of SSD. I think someday RAM and SSD will be one in the same.

Tell me if and why I'm wrong: I'm thinking the Mac Pro could be my key to not doing upgrades every two years. With upgrades to 12 cores, upgradeable video card, upgrades to 128GB of ram and Thunderbolt 2.0 storage I could probably get 6-7 years out of it. 64-bit multi-core Geekbench score for the baseline late 2013 Mac Pro is 14426, while the top-end early 2009 Mac Pro beats it handily at 17795. If Apple waits until 2015 to update the Mac Pro again, the new baseline will probably be near that score around 18000. That will be around 6 years. So if you bought the 2009 Mac Pro at a base configuration (Geekbench 8075), and then upgraded to 8-core and more (17795) later when it became cheaper, you could do as well (in theory) as a baseline 2015 Mac Pro. Those of you who have upgraded older Mac Pros, please tell me if my logic is flawed. Can you go from bottom to top-end through upgrades alone over the course of several years without spending as much? Or is it better to just sell your machine every few years? I hate dealing with Craigslist, but it has worked for me in the past. It's just always stressful—especially for such a pricey item. I don't need the top-end Mac Pro, but I do a lot of work that could benefit from a higher-end machine with a large, pixel-dense display, such as editing lots of photos, Photoshop work, web design, lots of multitasking, testing websites in IE in a virtual machine, and some video editing (720p and 1080p). I'm going to be purchasing the successor to the 5D MkIII when it comes out, so those files will probably be huge. Especially if they increase the dynamic range and megapixel count. So a low-end Mac Pro with 4K seems like a good idea. But will it last for a long time through upgrades?

7 years might be a stretch. 5 years would be very possible. Ultimately I think you'll find the hardware holds up quite well. How long you can go without an upgrade will probably be dependent on Apple's software support.

ptb42 · Mar 26, 2014

Zxxv said:
My first computer was a brand new out of the box just released state of the art zx81. Still have it

Am I winning?

I think you might be close. The ZX81 was first released in the UK in 1981. I have one of the first Compaq "luggables", which I bought in 1983. It had two floppy drives, which I upgraded by adding a 10 MB hard drive the next year.

In 2014 dollars, it cost me about $12,000 (including the upgrade). But, that included a whopping 512K of RAM.

More Options for 128 GB Mac Pro RAM Upgrades Now Available

macrumors bot

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 65816

macrumors 65816

macrumors newbie

Cancelled

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502

Suspended

macrumors G5

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

Our Staff