Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM

MacRumors · 07:19 AM

Other World Computing has begun selling 4GB SDRAM memory modules for the Quad-Core Nehlaem Mac Pros that were introduced in March. A reader emailed OWC 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

edesignuk · Mar 30, 2009, 07:09 AM

What peckers

iCantwait · Mar 30, 2009, 07:13 AM

OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb?

koobcamuk · Mar 30, 2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCantwait

OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb?

People that can afford a Mac Pro, generally.

talkingfuture · Mar 30, 2009, 07:17 AM

Surely thats enough RAM to control the entire world!

bigandy · Mar 30, 2009, 07:20 AM

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.

*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

DELLsFan · Mar 30, 2009, 07:23 AM

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.

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.

job · Mar 30, 2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

*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 · 07:52 AM

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

Just what I thought all along...

Cleve · Mar 30, 2009, 07:53 AM

So Apple now supports half the RAM in its Mac Pro than its Predecessor did instead of a quarter. Nice!

RedTomato · Mar 30, 2009, 07:57 AM

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.

wally626 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:10 AM

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedTomato

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.

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

*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 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:44 AM

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:50 AM

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkingfuture

Surely thats enough RAM to control the entire render!

fxt

job · Mar 30, 2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lesser Evets

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 08:59 AM

MIDI_EVIL · Mar 30, 2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba Satori

HAHAHA.

steveza · Mar 30, 2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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)

It would be a limitation of the motherboard. My X58 chipset board from Asus supports 24GB RAM.

Michael73 · Mar 30, 2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by job

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.

In fact, just look here for 8GB DIMMs. Crazy expensive, I know!

Hattig · Mar 30, 2009, 09:15 AM

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wally626

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 · Mar 30, 2009, 09:35 AM

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.

Mar 30, 2009, 07:07 AM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM Other World Computing has begun selling 4GB SDRAM memory modules for the Quad-Core Nehlaem Mac Pros that were introduced in March. A reader emailed OWC 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 Last edited by arn : Mar 30, 2009 at 07:19 AM.

Mar 30, 2009, 07:09 AM	#2
edesignuk Demi-God (Moderator emeritus) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Great(?) Britain	What peckers __________________ Search before you post: MRoogle **Better BBC Search**

Mar 30, 2009, 07:13 AM	#3
iCantwait macrumors 65816 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia	OMG, who the hell can afford 16gb? __________________ There truly is something beautiful about seeing a 5gb iPod plugged into an iBook

Mar 30, 2009, 07:17 AM	#5
talkingfuture macrumors 6502a Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The back of beyond.	Surely thats enough RAM to control the entire world! __________________ Futuristical bloggery with a twist.

Mar 30, 2009, 07:20 AM	#6
bigandy macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Soho, London	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. attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros __________________ "any day that involves cat pee is a really bad day" - iBlue ǝןƃooɹɯ

Mar 30, 2009, 07:23 AM	#7
DELLsFan macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New England, USA	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. 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. __________________ Dell Vostro A90 Aluminum iMac 7,1 iPhone 3G AEBS TV

Mar 30, 2009, 07:49 AM	#9
star-affinity macrumors newbie Join Date: Nov 2007	”This finding by OWC means the maximum installed memory in these new machines is at least 16GB.” Just what I thought all along... Last edited by star-affinity : Mar 30, 2009 at 07:52 AM. Reason: Forgot a ”t” at the end of ”thought”.

Mar 30, 2009, 07:53 AM	#10
Cleve macrumors regular Join Date: Jun 2007	Meh So Apple now supports half the RAM in its Mac Pro than its Predecessor did instead of a quarter. Nice!

Mar 30, 2009, 07:57 AM	#11
RedTomato macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: .. London ..	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. __________________ There was a signature here, but now there isn't. But there is now.

Mar 30, 2009, 08:10 AM	#12
wally626 macrumors newbie Join Date: Apr 2005	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.

Mar 30, 2009, 08:44 AM	#15
Lesser Evets macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jan 2006	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. __________________ 2x2.66 Xeon, 13GB RAM, 4 1TB SATA, 30" & 20" C.Displays, X1900, OSX 10.5.6, Sound Sticks, iSight, 1 TB TimeMach, 16GB iPT 2G

Mar 30, 2009, 08:50 AM	#16
Full of Win macrumors 6502a Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: standing by for the Go Signal	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) __________________ I am against trillion dollar deficits, a collapsing dollar, enemies list, letting terrorist in the US, prizes awarded without merit, and leaders with delusions of Godhood

Mar 30, 2009, 08:59 AM	#19
Bubba Satori macrumors 68000 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: B'ham

Mar 30, 2009, 09:15 AM	#23
Hattig macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jan 2003	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... __________________ iBook — 12" 1.33GHz, 1.5GB RAM, 40GB, Combodrive, 200GB Firewire Hard Drive :: iPod — 8GB Black G3 iPod nano

Mar 30, 2009, 09:35 AM	#25
iJaz macrumors 6502a Join Date: Dec 2004	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. __________________ Home: PM G5 2.3 GHz 4.5 GB RAM, 20" ACD, 1G 512 MB and 2G 1GB Shuffle, 4 GB nano RED, 80 GB iPod, iPhone 3G S⃣ 32 GB Black. Work: MacBook C2D 2.0 GHz 4GB RAM

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode