Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:49 AM   #1
Hexley
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
32GB (2x16GB) not yet being sold?

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?
Hexley is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:54 AM   #2
Adamantoise
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Hmm, I haven't seen that being sold anywhere.

You'd be better of using a desktop to do whatever it is that requires 32GB of RAM on your laptop though.
__________________
iPhone 4 16GB (White)
Macbook Pro (2011) 2.3 GHz i5 8GB RAM 500GB Momentus XT HDD
Adamantoise is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:21 PM   #3
robvas
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
robvas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:30 PM   #4
Hexley
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by robvas View Post
They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
Should sell for 2-3x of 2x8GB?
Hexley is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:35 PM   #5
simsaladimbamba
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: located
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexley View Post
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.
simsaladimbamba is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:02 PM   #6
Mr MM
macrumors 65816
 
Mr MM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by simsaladimbamba View Post
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.
indeed, but I dont think its going to happen, we are almost at the start of the transition for DDR4

and its going to be amazing in terms of size, people have been testing 16gb modules with DDR4, we may expect larger sizes once they are in the market
Mr MM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:11 PM   #7
Hexley
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
DDR4 will be for Haswell-EX (enterprise/server variant).[17]

Sandy Bridge-E supports 64GB. So Haswell supporting 64GB on desktop or mobile Core i7 is not that far fetch.

Haswell will have native support for dual channel DDR3.[9]
Hexley is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:48 PM   #8
snaky69
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by robvas View Post
They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
Probably more than that, 16GB was nearly $2000 when it came out.
__________________
Early 2008 MBP 2.4Ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM, WD Scorpio Black
2012 MBP 2.6Ghz Ivy Bridge, 16GB RAM, 840EVO and 750GB Opti-bay
iPhone 3G, 16GB, Black
iPhone 4S, 32GB, Black
snaky69 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 05:57 PM   #9
vladster
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexley View Post
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?
I do not think they make much sense today. If you have 32GB and load enough software to allocate all your memory, then CPU would become a bottleneck. Apple needs to provide CPUS with more cores than they do today.
vladster is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 08:17 PM   #10
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladster View Post
Apple needs to provide CPUS with more cores than they do today.
I think the main focus should be to actually use the 8 threads we currently have. Poor threading is mainly what resulted in Safari's bad scrolling performance, which is probably the #1 flaw the rMBPs have (not taking into account defective units). Having 16 threads is cool but if mainly a single one is used for a lot of stuff, you're still not being very efficient.
pgiguere1 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 05:32 AM   #11
spoonie1972
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
32gb in my notebook would be fantastic. CPU as bottleneck. pshaw. not everyone uses these things in the same way, man!
__________________
2012 MPB 15, 16GB, 512SSD, Geek 11941 - Logic Audio
2009 Mac Pro, 64GB, 5,1 Firmware, X5570 swap x2, EVGA GTX570, VEP5, Kontakt, and AE
spoonie1972 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2012, 11:33 PM   #12
Mac-Tech
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
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
Mac-Tech is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2012, 11:47 PM   #13
bjm2660
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-Tech View Post
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, 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...
bjm2660 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 04:35 AM   #14
Ploki
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRe...bandwidth.html

the footnote. I think it makes sense for the cMBP as well
Ploki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 04:44 AM   #15
Hexley
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-Tech View Post
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
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

"16GB ought to be enough for anybody." - Mac-Tech, 2012
Hexley is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 04:59 AM   #16
Hexley
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploki View Post
http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRe...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)?

Last edited by Hexley; Dec 15, 2012 at 05:05 AM.
Hexley is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:18 AM   #17
Ploki
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
The personalcomputing programming is just getting sloppy and inefficient because of the "old-baggage" that it's carrying with it... Many OSX programs just need "from the groundup" rework. Just look what you can do on a friggin iPad with 2048/1576 resolution and 1GB of RAM.

Also note: the difference between RAM speed and storage speed is bigger now then it used to be.
rMBP has effectively 16gb/s vs 0.5 gb/s storage speed...
The disk speed increase in a decade? from around 50mb/s to 500mb/s. thats 10x increase. If you do quad-raid you get a more decent number, but who has quadraid?
RAM speed incrase in a decade? From around 300mb/s to 16000mbs. Thats 50x speed increase.

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 really liked the VAIO idea of Quad SSD Raid 0.
Ploki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:24 AM   #18
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexley View Post
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)?
Don't stress too much on CAS. Lower is obviously better, but you're over thinking it. Most operations do not involve drag racing memory chips. Intel replaced their older FSB with QPI a while back unless you're referring to something different. You may never see such an option in the form of sodimms and compatible with Ivy Bridge. It could be Haswell or Broadwell before these things appear.

The workstation ECC versions have been around for some time. Mobile workstations already address this issue on Windows and Linux with some boards supporting 4 sodimms, so it's really only a hard limit for Mac users. I don't think the chipset supports 64GB, so this may not be enough of a market to really push memory chip vendors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robvas View Post
They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspe...T204872BB1067Q

Try $240, and I know I've seen them for less. I haven't seen any in sodimm form factors yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploki View Post
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.
This doesn't make as much sense as you think in the sense of traditional. The placement on the bus would not allow it to function as normal ram. What you're really describing here is a larger drive cache. The machine can already address disk space as a portion of virtual memory, which is all the applications see anyway. SSDs are a bit smoother with this, but I still hit slow downs at times even with the large SSD. Pushing additional memory chips onto the SATA bus would do nothing to fix this.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.

Last edited by thekev; Dec 15, 2012 at 05:31 AM.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:42 AM   #19
Ploki
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Yeah I know that actually.

I was thinking more longterm and especially with macbook-air type ultrabooks where you *could* have the part of the hybrid drive on another controller/port instead of integrated into sata. It would hinder upgradability but i think that is already ****ed up on Airs, and the target market for it is not that crazy about upgrade anyway.

Apple already has a custom SATA connector anyway, you could make a combo modified DIMM+Sata connector for the proprietary SSD used in Airs and retinas.
Ploki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:28 PM   #20
Mac-Tech
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexley View Post
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

"16GB ought to be enough for anybody." - Mac-Tech, 2012
I don't get what you mean?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjm2660 View Post
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...
So your saying having all those applications open at once will require 32GB of ram?
Mac-Tech is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:07 PM   #21
Hexley
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
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.
Hexley is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 10:33 AM   #22
spoonie1972
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexley View Post
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.
Is this something that will work in our 204-pin sodimm format, for any current i5/i7 based macbook pro?
__________________
2012 MPB 15, 16GB, 512SSD, Geek 11941 - Logic Audio
2009 Mac Pro, 64GB, 5,1 Firmware, X5570 swap x2, EVGA GTX570, VEP5, Kontakt, and AE
spoonie1972 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 03:56 PM   #23
richnyc
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by simsaladimbamba View Post
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.
True that!!! It is unbelievable how DDR3 SODIMM prices collapsed over the last year and a half, to our advantage

OWC Memory Price Trends
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2012-1210-MacBookPro-16GB.png
Views:	95
Size:	37.4 KB
ID:	384863  
__________________
MBP9,2 (16GB RAM, 768GB SSD); iPhone5s 16GB
richnyc is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 03:17 AM   #24
dusk007
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploki View Post
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploki View Post
I really liked the VAIO idea of Quad SSD Raid 0.
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.
__________________
15" MBP 2013 2.3/750M, 16GB/512GB
dusk007 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 03:28 AM   #25
Ploki
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by dusk007 View Post
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.
I added later that it would be a combo-interface, sata+dimm (latency issues).

Anyways, I can see your point, still, swapping only works on SSD. The moment you have HDD you need more ram because swapping kills performance in split second.

Or you use logic pro, where swapping kills off the app. (always check your ram usage...)
Ploki is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC