OWC is now selling 32GB RAM kits for 2010 iMacs

[Hellhammer]

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/1333DDR3S32S/

Saw this when I was browsing OWC's site, don't think this has been covered before (if so, let me know and I'll ask this to be deleted).

 

[TMRaven]

And here I thought SSDs were expensive!

 

[mwayne85]

Yikes! That's pricy. But just the fact that it supports that amount of memory is pretty cool.

 

[cube]

And here I thought SSDs were expensive!

Basically all SSDs are expensive. Only cutting edge RAM is expensive.

 

[TMRaven]

Basically all SSDs are expensive. Only cutting edge RAM is expensive.

Yeah I know.

 

[tsugaru]

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41315

Intel lists a max RAM supported for this processor as 16GB. How's this going to work?

 

[Emathieu]

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41315

Intel lists a max RAM supported for this processor as 16GB. How's this going to work?

Hmm... interesting. I always thought we were limited to 16GB as well.

 

[cube]

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41315

Intel lists a max RAM supported for this processor as 16GB. How's this going to work?

RAM size limits in specs sheets many times only tell you with what the product what tested at the time it was written.

 

[tsugaru]

Hmm... interesting. I always thought we were limited to 16GB as well.

Agreed.

Any Sandy Bridge iMac will be able to support 32GB.

It's one thing when Apple says Max RAM = x when they sometimes limit it (see 2008 Stock 15" MacBook Pro 6GB/8GB actual and original iMac Bondi Blue (I had 320MB in mine, when Apple said the max was 128 or 256MB.)

Now when Intel says it will only take x amount, I'm going to take them at their word.

 

[Badger^2]

Its been out for awhile now, I may have mentioned it in passing in another post.

these chips also allow the new MBPs to go to 16 gigs -- OWC said the sold out almost immediately of the first run

 

[cube]

Now when Intel says it will only take x amount, I'm going to take them at their word.

So, you take Intel's word at whatever time it was written, instead of OWC's, who just tested again the limit by themselves?

 

[tsugaru]

So, you take Intel's word at whatever time it was written, instead of OWC's, who just tested again the limit by themselves?

Yes, in that Intel have done a lot more tests and validation on the chipsets and CPUs that they make.

It'd be odd for Intel to say "Hey, only Macs with our processors and chipsets can take 32GB max." You regular PC users are stuck with 16GB max.

If this were the case, my 2009 iMac i7 should be able to take the 32GB max as well, being as it's the same chipset and essentially the same processor, just one bin down (i7-860 vs i7-870.)

I'd be happy if it actually took 32GB.

 

[cube]

Yes, in that Intel have done a lot more tests and validation on the chipsets and CPUs that they make.

It'd be odd for Intel to say "Hey, only Macs with our processors and chipsets can take 32GB max." You regular PC users are stuck with 16GB max.

If this were the case, my 2009 iMac i7 should be able to take the 32GB max as well, being as it's the same chipset and essentially the same processor, just one bin down (i7-860 vs i7-870.)

I'd be happy if it actually took 32GB.

Don't you know that the reason why many times RAM size limits in spec sheets are smaller than actual is because there were no bigger modules for testing at the time it was written?

 

[Badger^2]

I'd be happy if it actually took 32GB.

@ $100 a gig maybe not.

Perhaps it will be able to take 32 gigs, did you email OWC and ask?

 

[cube]

If this were the case, my 2009 iMac i7 should be able to take the 32GB max as well, being as it's the same chipset and essentially the same processor, just one bin down (i7-860 vs i7-870.)

I'd be happy if it actually took 32GB.

That the chips are essentially the same means nothing in the context of a whole system.

My March 2009 MBP which is a 2008 Unibody with a tad faster processor could always take 8GiB of RAM while the ones released in 2008 were limited to 6GiB until they got new firmware to fix something else.

 

[tsugaru]

Don't you know that the reason why many times RAM size limits in spec sheets are smaller than actual is because there were no bigger modules for testing at the time it was written?

<sarcasm>Yes, because when the 2009 iMac was released, 4GB modules were all the rage, cheap and plentiful. </sarcasm>
And yet Intel still validated 16GB of RAM on the i7-8xx series.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes, in that Intel have done a lot more tests and validation on the chipsets and CPUs that they make.

It'd be odd for Intel to say "Hey, only Macs with our processors and chipsets can take 32GB max." You regular PC users are stuck with 16GB max.

If this were the case, my 2009 iMac i7 should be able to take the 32GB max as well, being as it's the same chipset and essentially the same processor, just one bin down (i7-860 vs i7-870.)

I'd be happy if it actually took 32GB.

Intel lists 8GB as the maximum RAM for mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs but in their horribly long data sheet, they actually mention that 16GB works too. Probably the same thing with this.

 

[cube]

<sarcasm>Yes, because when the 2009 iMac was released, 4GB modules were all the rage, cheap and plentiful. </sarcasm>
And yet Intel still validated 16GB of RAM on the i7-8xx series.

4GB DIMMs came out in 2009. Intel doesn't need to wait until they become available in newegg.

 

[Macginger]

could someone maybe give a performance benefit in percentages?
just wondering if the performance matches the cost

 

[tsugaru]

4GB DIMMs came out in 2009. Intel doesn't need to wait until they become available in newegg.

I'm aware of that. No need to be pretentious about it.

Given that Intel validates RAM for their chipsets quite scrupulously, I'm sure they had access to 4GB and 8GB modules quite early to test.

Anyways, I guess it'll work then.

Now I'm on the line with someone with OWC who is going to test this in the 2009, given that the same chipset and all that is present in the 2009 version.

 

[cube]

could someone maybe give a performance benefit in percentages?
just wondering if the performance matches the cost

The performance benefit is basically infinite when you have huge datasets that thrash the system.

I would think few such power users are using an iMac instead of a Mac Pro.

 

[Badger^2]

could someone maybe give a performance benefit in percentages?
just wondering if the performance matches the cost

More ram wont give you more "performance".

It will give you the ability to have more applications open at once and those wont slow down... but for simple performance, meh.

So you can open more and larger files without having increased page outs, for example.

And Im talking about daily use, stock 4 gigs vs 16 gigs.

 

[cube]

Given that Intel validates RAM for their chipsets quite scrupulously, I'm sure they had access to 4GB and 8GB modules quite early to test.

Anyways, I guess it'll work then.

Now I'm on the line with someone with OWC who is going to test this in the 2009, given that the same chipset and all that is present in the 2009 version.

We're in 2011. You can't assume they had 8GB samples in 2009.

Again, it might not work in your machine because of older firmware.

 

[tsugaru]

16GB hasn't been much of an improvement over 8GB for me. Let's me turn off the page file in Windows, but for the price at the moment, yeesh.

OWC is going to run a test on the 2009 11,1 iMac later to see if the 32GB works on there. If it runs on the 11,3 it should run on the 11,1, given the same chipset and processor family!

RAM Picture - For some reason the IMG tags aren't working

 

[cube]

If it runs on the 11,3 it should run on the 11,1, given the same chipset and processor family!

You wrote it backwards.