32GB (2x16GB) not yet being sold?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Hexley, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    They would be what, $400 each if they existed?
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #4
    Should sell for 2-3x of 2x8GB?
     
  5. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #6
    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
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #7
    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]
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #8
    Probably more than that, 16GB was nearly $2000 when it came out.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #11
    32gb in my notebook would be fantastic. CPU as bottleneck. pshaw. not everyone uses these things in the same way, man! :cool:
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Mac-Tech

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #12
    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
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    Virginia
    #13
    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...
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #14
  15. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #15
    "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

    "16GB ought to be enough for anybody." - Mac-Tech, 2012
     
  16. Hexley, Dec 15, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2012

    thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #16
    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)?
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #17
    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.
     
  18. thekev, Dec 15, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2012

    macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    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.

    http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT204872BB1067Q

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


    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.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Mac-Tech

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #20
    I don't get what you mean? :confused:

    ----------

    So your saying having all those applications open at once will require 32GB of ram?
     
  21. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #22
    Is this something that will work in our 204-pin sodimm format, for any current i5/i7 based macbook pro?
     
  23. macrumors regular

    richnyc

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Location:
    NYC
    #23
    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 Files:

  24. macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #25
    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...)
     

Share This Page