Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

More Options for 128 GB Mac Pro RAM Upgrades Now Available

My first hard drive was a cassette deck for the Atari 800.

The first Mac I bought for myself, a 7100/66 had a 250MB hard drive. I sold that and bought a 7100/80 with a 750MB hard drive. Yes, you used to actually think selling a computer to pick up an extra 14MHz was... a valid idea. Do the math though, it was a 17.5% increase, lol.

Anyhoo, 8 ram slots would have gone a long way towards solving the expense and slow 1066GHz speed. MacPro don't play.
 
DTphonehome said:
Oh please. No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

----------



Young'un. Mine was 40 MB. And I'm sure there's lots of people here who can beat that by a lot.
Click to expand...

My first computer was the Apple II, and it had 8KB of RAM and no Disk, just 2 floppy drives. That was back in the 70's, a very long time ago. And I am still an Apple fan after all those years.
 
tarproductions said:
My first computer hard drive was 10GB. I love technology.
Click to expand...
My first computer didn't have a hard drive, nor indeed a floppy disk, you could load programmes from cassette tape though. I had to wait for my third machine to have two floppy drives ! I love technology too.
 
Question for you guys (and gals). I just got a nMP, only thing I opted for was the 8-Core model. I always buy RAM via Crucial or OWC. This guy has 16GB's (4x 4GB), and I only need 32GB RAM total. Checking OWC I'm perplexed. I could grab 4x 8GB for $449 plus $25 credit back for each 4GB RAM returned, bringing it down to $349. I also noticed a 32GB Module for $599, which would leave 3 open slots in case I wanted to add another one.

Is there a performance difference between 4 modules versus 1? I realize the 32GB modules are limited to 1066MHz versus 1866MHz, but my real question is the system using 4 modules over 1 simple module. Thanks!
 
the short answer is - yes, there is some difference between single/dual/triple/quad channel configs. That said - the benefit of more memory consistently trumps while the memory config itself was small in real world noticeability. Our blog here shows some testing:
http://blog.macsales.com/22745-mix-and-match-more-memory-faster-mac-pro-2

Also - we only did dual channel or better configs... a single module would make a greater difference with just the single channel addressing and I'd suggest 2 x 16GB first... to which you could then add 32GB x 1 or x 2 later.... for up to 96GB as opposed to starting out with just 1 x 32GB.

Hope this helps.

bedifferent said:
Question for you guys (and gals). I just got a nMP, only thing I opted for was the 8-Core model. I always buy RAM via Crucial or OWC. This guy has 16GB's (4x 4GB), and I only need 32GB RAM total. Checking OWC I'm perplexed. I could grab 4x 8GB for $449 plus $25 credit back for each 4GB RAM returned, bringing it down to $349. I also noticed a 32GB Module for $599, which would leave 3 open slots in case I wanted to add another one.

Is there a performance difference between 4 modules versus 1? I realize the 32GB modules are limited to 1066MHz versus 1866MHz, but my real question is the system using 4 modules over 1 simple module. Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
RonMan said:
I keep upgrading my 2008 MacPro. The end is near, but by spreading the investment out over several years and buying things I can reuse I have saved money. When I do by the new MacPro, I won't buy the top end, but I will add to it for the next 6-8 years and be very happy.
Click to expand...

Dang str8. Even for less serious users, the Mac Pro has been the best way to future proof for cheap. I bought my 2008 in 2012 for $1100, spent $300 to max out to 32 GB Ram, and a $120 for an SSD. The beast runs modern games and parallels like a champ, and I fully expect at least 2 more years out of it. No other comp can give me that level of performance and reliablity for 4 years for the $1520 I spent.

I am, however, a little concerned with the lack of internal expansion in the new Mac Pro. In order to future proof, I would think internal expansion is preferable to external modules.
 
OWC Larry said:
the short answer is - yes, there is some difference between single/dual/triple/quad channel configs. That said - the benefit of more memory consistently trumps while the memory config itself was small in real world noticeability. Our blog here shows some testing:
http://blog.macsales.com/22745-mix-and-match-more-memory-faster-mac-pro-2

Also - we only did dual channel or better configs... a single module would make a greater difference with just the single channel addressing and I'd suggest 2 x 16GB first... to which you could then add 32GB x 1 or x 2 later.... for up to 96GB as opposed to starting out with just 1 x 32GB.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Absolutely helps! Thanks! I'll throw in my order for 2x 16 modules and send back the 4x 4Gb modules I won't need that could go towards the upgrade. :)
 
Mix and Match?

So these larger memory modules run at 1066MHz, but the ones that Apple has run at 1866MHz. Does this mean that the Mac Pro would have to be all 1066MHz memory, or is it possible to mix and match; say, two modules at 1866MHz and the other two at 1066MHz?
 
ptb42 said:
I think you might be close. The ZX81 was first released in the UK in 1981. I have one of the first Compaq "luggables", which I bought in 1983. It had two floppy drives, which I upgraded by adding a 10 MB hard drive the next year.

In 2014 dollars, it cost me about $12,000 (including the upgrade). But, that included a whopping 512K of RAM.
Click to expand...


It had 1k of memory. I got the 16k expansion pack later as a birthday present. Bloody thing crashed all the time because it was unstable connection. So used a ribbon cable. Damn childhood memories haha
And oh the sound of loading games and programms via tape. Only to have them crash at the last moment agh haha now its instant. Kids have no idea what we went through :)


edit :

nostalgia haha

if you put the sound too loud it'd crash, too quite it'd crash. Man what a headache. And you'd get all the way to the end of the tape/load and it'd crash, retry another volume position, mark it with pen haha

 
Last edited:
Like the 16GB modules available from both Apple and OWC, these 32GB modules are ECC Registered. You can mix 16GB and 32GB registered of the two speeds together in the Mac Pro 2013. With these 32GB modules, the 16GB will sync to that 1066MHz clock.

Short answer is - no, you do not have to have all same speed memory. It will mix without issue with sync going to the speed all modules can support.

note - you can mix ECC Non-Reg with other ECC non-reg... and ECC Reg with ECC Reg. Can not mix non reg with registered. For the Mac Pro 2013 - 4GB and 8GB modules are ECC non-Reg and will mix together but not with the 16GB and higher modules.

NewtonAurelius said:
So these larger memory modules run at 1066MHz, but the ones that Apple has run at 1866MHz. Does this mean that the Mac Pro would have to be all 1066MHz memory, or is it possible to mix and match; say, two modules at 1866MHz and the other two at 1066MHz?
Click to expand...
 
ptb42 said:
I think you might be close. The ZX81 was first released in the UK in 1981. I have one of the first Compaq "luggables", which I bought in 1983. It had two floppy drives, which I upgraded by adding a 10 MB hard drive the next year.

In 2014 dollars, it cost me about $12,000 (including the upgrade). But, that included a whopping 512K of RAM.
Click to expand...

My first computer was a TRS-80 Model I, birth year 1977. It had a whopping 4KB of RAM. That's right, kilobyte. :)

First PC was an XT which had a huge 5¼ full-size MFM/RLL 20MB harddisk. It was easier to fill the directory space (meaning you couldn't write more file to the filesystem) than it was to fill the capacity.
 
Oh, great news!

Now can we have that size for STORAGE on the iPhone?
Or even better, make the MacBook Pro retina 13" with 256GB as standard?
 
My college gave me an old PC/AT with a 5.25" 20MB hard drive to stay off his shiny 386 PC. Of course, it couldn't play Doom. Prior to this I had three Commodore 64 computers for ten years (1984-1994).

I could buy a 20-count box of 3.5 1.44MB floppies to backup up the entire hard drive. That became impractical when I installed an IDE controller card and a 520MB 3.5" hard drive. Never did fill up that hard drive until I moved it over to an old 486PC and installed Windows 95.

Those were the days. :eek:
 
dumastudetto said:
Mine was in the megabytes I can't remember how big though.

These new Mac Pros are truly incredible machines with enough power to satisfy the needs of every computeriser.
Click to expand...

Not when Anandtech reveals idle temp is 69C and load temp is bordering 100C. They might be within Intel's specs, but most who've dealt with computers in real life use know that higher temperatures = lower lifespan. Not to mention the MP goes over 450W for load usage, which in turn generates more heat and could potentially pose a fire hazard.

And for a power machine, I do not want to see the PCU throttling down when doing 3D rendering. Most computerisers would agree, they want to buy a power machine that does not drop power when it's needed the most. 3D rendering is one example of where the CPU and GPU will indeed be hit the hardest, just like the simulated Prime95 and other benchmark tests.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/14

It is just as possible the test unit they received was faulty, but user comments do suggest there could be problems down the road.

The question is how long before there's a Mac Pro in every home? The technology continues to advance but consumers aren't keeping up so far.
Click to expand...

That depends - most consumers would rather play angry birds on an iphone, which costs less - even after 2 years on a cell phone contract - than a low-end MP2013. They just don't need or want the power, and those who need it are likely going to read up on these technical concerns.

----------
attila said:
My first computer had 2048 kilobytes of RAM. More than enough for desktop publishing with Aldus PageMaker!
Click to expand...

Back then, black and white was the only format... :) Full color is the way to go...
 
thermodynamic said:
Not when Anandtech reveals idle temp is 69C and load temp is bordering 100C. They might be within Intel's specs, but most who've dealt with computers in real life use know that higher temperatures = lower lifespan. Not to mention the MP goes over 450W for load usage, which in turn generates more heat and could potentially pose a fire hazard.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's pretty hot for an idle speed, if true. Is that with the base default configuration of only 4 cores? Or is that maxed out with 12? I could possibly forgive 12, but not 4 or 6 given Apple advertised how the ENTIRE DESIGN is based around the circular cooling concept. Apparently, it doesn't cool very well, after all if those are correct figures. My 2008 MBP and late 2012 Mini idle at like 40C and 45C, respectively. Now admittedly, Apple's default fan curves are horrible, though. I use Mac Fan Control to set a more acceptable curve, especially for the MBP which is notorious for its 8600M GT chipset that has had numerous heat-related failures (6 years now and no failure here with these settings). But still. 100C may not be the shutdown temp for those CPUs, but what about the other components? How long will it last running 100C all the time in a setting where it needs to crank out the power (which I thought was a huge part of the reason for the machine in the first place).

As for a 450W power supply, I noticed a $12 a month drop in my electric bill when I switched from my PPC PowerMac (350W supply) to the 2012 Mac Mini Quad i7 (and it's not even using sleep mode since OS X doesn't recognize NFS as a reason to stay awake).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back