Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 15, 2013, 10:01 AM   #1
monkeybagel
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Fyi - 128gb ram

I have been running 128GB of RAM in various OSs on a 2012 Mac Pro. Although any OS X version before 10.9 does not support more than 96GB, it does not seem to compromise system stability. It does know the system has 128GB, however will use 96GB in Activity Monitor. Windows variants in 64-bit versions also work fine.

Just wanted to post this in the event anyone was considering the upgrade...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen shot 2013-09-15 at 10.58.31 AM.png
Views:	48
Size:	39.6 KB
ID:	433286  
monkeybagel is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 11:38 AM   #2
MacsRgr8
macrumors 604
 
MacsRgr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
In any case, that's a very cool screen shot that many MacRumors' members will be jealous of...

I am!
__________________
Steve Jobs. 1955 - 2011. My Hero.
MacsRgr8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 11:41 AM   #3
jetjaguar
macrumors 68000
 
jetjaguar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new jersey
very nice
__________________
Bunch of Apple products
jetjaguar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 11:49 AM   #4
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Hope you will be able to update this when 10.9 comes out to confirm that it was just an OS issue and older Mac Pros will get full 128GB support with future OSes.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 12:10 PM   #5
JavaTheHut
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
A question to the OP

Could you confirm or deny that you can create a RAM drive with the spare 32GB, there by leaving the remaining 96GB for the OS to address.

Thx
J
JavaTheHut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 01:26 PM   #6
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
wow I am struggling to think of a case where I could use that much RAM….. very nice indeed…..
__________________
Bunny has an iPhone 5C, an iPad Mini Retina, a PC & a MacBook Pro retina

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
costabunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 01:42 PM   #7
comatory
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
I have been running 128GB of RAM in various OSs on a 2012 Mac Pro. Although any OS X version before 10.9 does not support more than 96GB, it does not seem to compromise system stability. It does know the system has 128GB, however will use 96GB in Activity Monitor. Windows variants in 64-bit versions also work fine.

Just wanted to post this in the event anyone was considering the upgrade...
damn! you must be using 8x16GB sticks am I right? expensive! i'm a "prosumer" so i don't really have use for such an amount but i bet you make use of it

anyway i had just a thought for some old timers. when do you think 128GB will be "new 4GB" seems like this amount is huge but I remember having 1GB in my PC rig in 2004 and it was considered a bigger amount.

5-8 years from now?

EDIT: just looking at this in Mactracker: dual USB iBook 2001 model had 64 megs when shipped. the same model had stock 512 megs in 2005, that's 8x in 4-5 years. 8 gigabytes are "good" standard now which would mean that by 2018, stock config will use 64GB.
comatory is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 02:16 PM   #8
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbongo View Post
Hope you will be able to update this when 10.9 comes out to confirm that it was just an OS issue and older Mac Pros will get full 128GB support with future OSes.
This seems to be the case.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-09-15 at 3.13.41 PM.png
Views:	305
Size:	167.3 KB
ID:	433313  
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 02:23 PM   #9
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by comatory View Post
damn! you must be using 8x16GB sticks am I right? expensive! i'm a "prosumer" so i don't really have use for such an amount but i bet you make use of it

anyway i had just a thought for some old timers. when do you think 128GB will be "new 4GB" seems like this amount is huge but I remember having 1GB in my PC rig in 2004 and it was considered a bigger amount.

5-8 years from now?

EDIT: just looking at this in Mactracker: dual USB iBook 2001 model had 64 megs when shipped. the same model had stock 512 megs in 2005, that's 8x in 4-5 years. 8 gigabytes are "good" standard now which would mean that by 2018, stock config will use 64GB.
I think it would be several years, but any leap in technology could change that.

I recall a similar moment when I upgraded a Pentium MMX machine (Sony VAIO PCV-90) to 128MB from 32MB. Well above the standard norm but it was used and nice to have. That was many, many years ago.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaTheHut View Post
A question to the OP

Could you confirm or deny that you can create a RAM drive with the spare 32GB, there by leaving the remaining 96GB for the OS to address.

Thx
J
I will check and see. I would think that anything below OS X 10.9 will probably deduct it from the 96GB.

10.9 also displays the correct DIMM population as well.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-09-15 at 3.25.05 PM.png
Views:	87
Size:	76.4 KB
ID:	433315  
monkeybagel is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 02:25 PM   #10
Demigod Mac
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Only ECC Registered Mac Pro specific 16GB sticks I've heard of are Mushkin's... but check the reviews:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820226350

... doesn't seem to work.

OWC has 16GB modules but they aren't registered.

Standard DDR3 1333 ECC Registered memory will work of course, but won't it make the Mac Pro's fans run high since they lack the Apple thermal sensor?
Demigod Mac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 02:45 PM   #11
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demigod Mac View Post
Only ECC Registered Mac Pro specific 16GB sticks I've heard of are Mushkin's... but check the reviews:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820226350

... doesn't seem to work.

OWC has 16GB modules but they aren't registered.

Standard DDR3 1333 ECC Registered memory will work of course, but won't it make the Mac Pro's fans run high since they lack the Apple thermal sensor?
These are Hynix modules and they do not make the fans run high at all. The machine is as quiet as it was with the original 12GB. There are 16GB ECC Registered CL9 DIMMs.

I normally purchase Crucial RAM based on a good track record with them, however Hynix is good OEM RAM and seemed to be a good choice when seeing what is available. Hynix was the OEM for the original 12GB.
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 04:13 PM   #12
flowrider
macrumors 68000
 
flowrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demigod Mac View Post
Only ECC Registered Mac Pro specific 16GB sticks I've heard of are Mushkin's... but check the reviews:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820226350

... doesn't seem to work.

OWC has 16GB modules but they aren't registered.

Standard DDR3 1333 ECC Registered memory will work of course, but won't it make the Mac Pro's fans run high since they lack the Apple thermal sensor?

Look Here:

http://www.datamemorysystems.com/dm61-765/

Lou
flowrider is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 09:58 PM   #13
OrangeSVTguy
macrumors 601
 
OrangeSVTguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Northeastern Ohio
I'm just running a single 16GB but Kingston and it works great and I get no fan noises etc. It's only 1066mhz ECC tho. I only have a quad so I got 4 total slots and are only good for 48GB I've read, I don't think 64GB works in the quads? And yes, RAM disks are incredibly fast!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-09-15 at 10.52.09 PM.jpg
Views:	78
Size:	224.9 KB
ID:	433383  
OrangeSVTguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2013, 11:25 PM   #14
Demigod Mac
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Might want to throw in another 16GB so you can get dual channel speed.
Demigod Mac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2013, 01:37 AM   #15
buysp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Yours is bigger than mine!
buysp is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2013, 06:24 AM   #16
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeSVTguy View Post
I'm just running a single 16GB but Kingston and it works great and I get no fan noises etc. It's only 1066mhz ECC tho. I only have a quad so I got 4 total slots and are only good for 48GB I've read, I don't think 64GB works in the quads? And yes, RAM disks are incredibly fast!
Yeah 64GB not working in the single CPU systems is what made me wonder if it wasn't more something to do with how the OS was interacting with the "odd" memory configuration you get with a full populated single CPU Mac Pro. They should be able to address 64GB with 10.9 if the dual systems can address 128GB.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2013, 09:51 AM   #17
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbongo View Post
Yeah 64GB not working in the single CPU systems is what made me wonder if it wasn't more something to do with how the OS was interacting with the "odd" memory configuration you get with a full populated single CPU Mac Pro. They should be able to address 64GB with 10.9 if the dual systems can address 128GB.
According to these folks, which I tend to trust with their testing and experience with Macintoshes, the maximum on a single core is indeed 48GB no matter the DIMM configuration.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memor...ry#1333-memory

On the dual processor model, it does have a footnote explaining that 128GB is only available using 10.9 or Windows x64. I was concerned that the additional RAM would causing paging problems or other issues in versions of OS X that do not support 128GB, which right now is every other version of OS X except 10.9, but that does not seem to be the case.

I will say that I am running the current beta of 10.9 with VMware Fusion 6 Professional, nesting ESXi with 64GB of RAM as well as two other administration machines running natively in ESXi; Windows 7 Enterprise x64 and Windows 8.1 Enterprise x64. They are extremely responsive, have 8CPUs each, and 16GB of RAM. I have yet to see any slowdowns or page outs of any kind. I must say I am very pleased and impressed at how stable it is.

I could boot ESXi 5.1 directly from USB and make an internal SATA disk the VMFS volume, but since it is not for production VMs, the nesting works well to test the advanced features of VMware vSphere.
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 02:10 AM   #18
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by costabunny View Post
wow I am struggling to think of a case where I could use that much RAM….. very nice indeed…..
For Safari?
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 06:11 AM   #19
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
For Safari?
I suppose firefox would eventually eat it all if you left the machine on long enough
__________________
Bunny has an iPhone 5C, an iPad Mini Retina, a PC & a MacBook Pro retina

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
costabunny is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 12:42 PM   #20
matthewtoney
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Ugh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbongo View Post
Yeah 64GB not working in the single CPU systems is what made me wonder if it wasn't more something to do with how the OS was interacting with the "odd" memory configuration you get with a full populated single CPU Mac Pro. They should be able to address 64GB with 10.9 if the dual systems can address 128GB.
*Man* do I feel like a moron now.

I knew all about the 96GB limit but nothing at all about the 48GB limit for single processor machines. I've been running 3 of these in a 48GB config in my 5.1 w/W3690 for a good 8 months and I *just* ordered an additional one and it arrived yesterday - guess it is not gonna work...

Oh well, my own fault for not making absolutely certain I suppose

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
matthewtoney is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 02:37 PM   #21
jetjaguar
macrumors 68000
 
jetjaguar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new jersey
good to know about the 64gb not working in the single cpu mac pros .. was planning on doing 48gb (3x16) anyways
__________________
Bunch of Apple products
jetjaguar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 02:41 PM   #22
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewtoney View Post
*Man* do I feel like a moron now.

I knew all about the 96GB limit but nothing at all about the 48GB limit for single processor machines. I've been running 3 of these in a 48GB config in my 5.1 w/W3690 for a good 8 months and I *just* ordered an additional one and it arrived yesterday - guess it is not gonna work...

Oh well, my own fault for not making absolutely certain I suppose

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It could well work with Mavericks, that could be something they have fixed too. Worth popping a version on disk and seeing before you send it back.

Although the problem could have been the single CPU models never being expected to address more than 48GB (6x8GB) as RDIMMs aren't supported by Intel for them rather than the triple-channel/4 slot configuration being weird with that much memeory.

Last edited by Umbongo; Sep 17, 2013 at 02:50 PM.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 03:01 PM   #23
crjackson2134
macrumors 6502a
 
crjackson2134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbongo View Post
It could well work with Mavericks, that could be something they have fixed too. Worth popping a version on disk and seeing before you send it back.

Although the problem could have been the single CPU models never being expected to address more than 48GB (6x8GB) as RDIMMs aren't supported by Intel for them rather than the triple-channel/4 slot configuration being weird with that much memeory.
Pretty sure it won't work. Otherwise it would be reported that 64GB can be seen by other OS's. I was going to do the same thing until I found out from others on this form, that adding the additional DIMM would cause a boot fail.
__________________
Mac Pro 5,1 Hexa 3.33 GHz, 48 GB, ATI HD 5870
Optical-Apple Super Drive & MCE Internal Blu-ray
512GB Samsung 840 Pro 1TB WD, 1TB Barracuda
Inateck KT4004 USB 3.0/ SOLO-X2 / OS X 10.9.4
crjackson2134 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 03:22 PM   #24
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by crjackson2134 View Post
Pretty sure it won't work. Otherwise it would be reported that 64GB can be seen by other OS's. I was going to do the same thing until I found out from others on this form, that adding the additional DIMM would cause a boot fail.
Ah okay then it could be those CPUs never having been designed for more than 48GB.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2013, 03:22 PM   #25
matthewtoney
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by crjackson2134 View Post
Pretty sure it won't work. Otherwise it would be reported that 64GB can be seen by other OS's. I was going to do the same thing until I found out from others on this form, that adding the additional DIMM would cause a boot fail.
Exactly - saw the post on here somewhere where OWC thought it would work as well (in Mavericks) until they tried it with their DIMMs and it wouldn't boot at all with 64GB in the single CPU model. I expect my experience will be exactly the same but we'll see.
matthewtoney is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
128GB RAM for 2013 mac pro joecool99 Mac Pro 7 Mar 13, 2014 07:28 PM
128gb ram? Radiating Mac Pro 15 Jan 22, 2014 09:22 PM
128gb ram monkeybagel Mac Pro 23 Apr 19, 2013 03:48 PM
2GB Ram 64GB or 4GB Ram 128GB Model? Martylaa MacBook Air 4 Aug 31, 2012 04:50 PM
128GB SSD or 8GB RAM? acastic MacBook Air 8 Jun 11, 2012 09:15 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.

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

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