128 GB of RAM in new Mac Pro late 2013

avner

macrumors newbie
May 27, 2015
5
3
Wonderful feedback!

Thank you so much for your lightning fast feedback!

I am ordering two more identical 32gb sticks, which should bring me up to the 192gb mark. All 5 sticks will be absolutely identical so there should not be any issues mixing & matching memory.

I am so excited to see if we can hit above the 128gb memory limit,

My GTX Titan arrives today & I am local to Macvidcards.com so I will be having it flashed so it can run natively in OSX.

Also one small sidetone, I found the official 2013 Mac Pros

AC wifi & Bluetooth 4.0 card with the mini pci adapter and it works perfectly!

So far I have matched the

1200mbps SSD using the 30$ Snitch adapter.

the AC wifi & bluetooth 4.0 using the mini pci adapter

The dual X5690s benchmark almost as high as the 12 core,

The GTX Titan X is no comparison even for the D700 as it is 12gb in a single card and most importantly is CUDA enabled.

USB 3.0 + 2 E-sata ports + 2 SATA III ports in the CALDIGIT usb 3.0 card.

Lastly the memory is the only thing I am trying to breach the ceiling on.

Ofcourse this leaves me with one open PCIe slot, 4 empty drive bays and two more optical bays that I put dual blu ray LG drives I got off ebay for 50$ each.

I think the reality that the 2009 mac pro with the upgraded firmware can handle all of this is absolutely incredible, what an engineering marvel that 6 years later its still capable of being cutting edge.

Any who I will post as soon as I have the additional 64gb of memory.

Thank you everyone!
 

avner

macrumors newbie
May 27, 2015
5
3
Theoretical memory limit has been breached!

So far I have 160gb of ram, I think it can go further.

At 160gb using 5 sticks of 32gb I tried adding an additional 32gb using two 16gb sticks and I got a kernel panic.

However when using just 32gb the system it works perfectly.

I attached a screenshot of it showing as 160gb of ram.

So at least we know for sure it goes above 128gb, it doesn't seem to recognize my 6th stick that should put it

at 192gb.

Anywhoodles, any thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: kazkus and VaZ

LightBulbFun

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2013
2,226
2,081
London UK
Theoretical memory limit has been breached!

So far I have 160gb of ram, I think it can go further.

At 160gb using 5 sticks of 32gb I tried adding an additional 32gb using two 16gb sticks and I got a kernel panic.

However when using just 32gb the system it works perfectly.

I attached a screenshot of it showing as 160gb of ram.

So at least we know for sure it goes above 128gb, it doesn't seem to recognize my 6th stick that should put it

at 192gb.

Anywhoodles, any thoughts?
maybe you can try resetting the PRAM after each ram upgrade and maybe it will only boot with Just 32GB sticks? (im not sure how well those sticks play with other sticks of ram) its interesting it cant detect what ram its running on "???" might have something to do with the KPing when you install 16GB sticks. but any how its realy awsome to see this being done as i predicted in the past that the cMP should in theory work with 32GB Ram modules... (Now i wonder can you put 128GB of ram in a singal socket cMP?)
 

reflecti0nX

macrumors newbie
Mar 3, 2015
26
1
Theoretical memory limit has been breached!

So far I have 160gb of ram, I think it can go further.

At 160gb using 5 sticks of 32gb I tried adding an additional 32gb using two 16gb sticks and I got a kernel panic.

However when using just 32gb the system it works perfectly.

I attached a screenshot of it showing as 160gb of ram.

So at least we know for sure it goes above 128gb, it doesn't seem to recognize my 6th stick that should put it

at 192gb.

Anywhoodles, any thoughts?
That's great news! Weird that it doesn't show the speed.

1) Can you post a screenshot of System Report -> Memory? It may show the speed.

2) Clarification - you say your system doesn't seem to recognize your 6th stick. Is your 6th stick a 32GB DIMM or a 16GB DIMM?

3) Have you tried adding just a single 16GB DIMM instead of 2? Did that work?

4) When you get a kernel panic, did you attempt to boot in safe mode? Did that work?

5) Can you try booting into memtest86 with 192GB of RAM? If memtest86 shows 192GB and memory tests fine, that could hint that OS X may not be compatible with more RAM, even if hardware can handle it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eksu

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
13,987
6,601
Hong Kong
Just dig out this old thread, anyone get beyond 160GB RAM on the cMP? (or >64GB RAM on the single processor model)

I am really interested in if we can push the W3690 with 96GB RAM (3x32GB) :D
 

loby

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2010
935
652
Just dig out this old thread, anyone get beyond 160GB RAM on the cMP? (or >64GB RAM on the single processor model)

I am really interested in if we can push the W3690 with 96GB RAM (3x32GB) :D
For what it is worth, I am running a Mac Pro 2013 with 64 GB without difficulties. If you go to 128 GB the memory speed is reduced (as stated before) and is fact, but some may not noticed the speedy difference that much, but it depends on what you are doing of course. I believe apple does not suggest going to 128 GB even though you can put it into the system because maybe due to possible overheating issues and/or the fan may kick in earlier then expected.

UNLESS you really need all of that RAM as the thread's starter said they needed, I would stick with what apples says is the max. That is because I believe apple had some difficulty with this design and model and may be why they have delayed putting out a new mac pro. Heating issues seem to be the problem on occasion with people. so putting twice the amount of recommended RAM in may cause the can to overheat some.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
13,987
6,601
Hong Kong
For what it is worth, I am running a Mac Pro 2013 with 64 GB without difficulties. If you go to 128 GB the memory speed is reduced (as stated before) and is fact, but some may not noticed the speedy difference that much, but it depends on what you are doing of course. I believe apple does not suggest going to 128 GB even though you can put it into the system because maybe due to possible overheating issues and/or the fan may kick in earlier then expected.

UNLESS you really need all of that RAM as the thread's starter said they needed, I would stick with what apples says is the max. That is because I believe apple had some difficulty with this design and model and may be why they have delayed putting out a new mac pro. Heating issues seem to be the problem on occasion with people. so putting twice the amount of recommended RAM in may cause the can to overheat some.
I totally agree that on the nMP. However, on the cMP, if I stick to the Apple's limit, I can run only 8GB memory in total. That's not quite enough for nowadays. TBH, I am now running 48GB without any issue. I just want to know what's the real limit of this old machine. I do realise that no 2Rx4 32GB DDR3 ECC stick avail, I can only find 4Rx4 stick, which may force the RAM run at lower frequency. Personally, I don't mind to run the memory at a little bit slower speed (lower frequency will match with lower latency, e.g. from 1333 CL9 to 1066 CL7, the actual speed difference is just about 2% on the cMP) if the memory size can be double.
 

rockyromero

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2015
465
147
For what it is worth, I am running a Mac Pro 2013 with 64 GB without difficulties. If you go to 128 GB the memory speed is reduced (as stated before) and is fact, but some may not noticed the speedy difference that much, but it depends on what you are doing of course. I believe apple does not suggest going to 128 GB even though you can put it into the system because maybe due to possible overheating issues and/or the fan may kick in earlier then expected.

UNLESS you really need all of that RAM as the thread's starter said they needed, I would stick with what apples says is the max. That is because I believe apple had some difficulty with this design and model and may be why they have delayed putting out a new mac pro. Heating issues seem to be the problem on occasion with people. so putting twice the amount of recommended RAM in may cause the can to overheat some.
I've had 128G memory on Mac Pro 2013 for over a year, constantly running, without overheating.

Works well, although I have not tapped into full memory utilization, yet.

 
  • Like
Reactions: diamornte

mac666er

macrumors regular
Feb 7, 2008
240
181
San Francisco, CA
I continue to use this with 128GB. I use up the memory and while memory speed is indeed slower, it is really not noticeable for running programs in memory.

I really don't understand people that complain about the memory speed. Especially in this particular forum. I haven't been presented with a problem that would benefit from faster memory speed here. I know some folks that do indeed need it. They buy NVIDIA's 4,000 USD cards since they have 24GBs of GDDR5 Memory. I would rather have 6 times that memory capacity at slightly lower speed and one tenth the cost.

I haven't had thermal issues at all.

I don't think larger capacity RAM sticks would give any issues.
 

casperes1996

macrumors 601
Jan 26, 2014
4,659
2,447
Horsens, Denmark
I really don't understand people that complain about the memory speed. Especially in this particular forum. I haven't been presented with a problem that would benefit from faster memory speed here. I know some folks that do indeed need it. They buy NVIDIA's 4,000 USD cards since they have 24GBs of GDDR5 Memory. I would rather have 6 times that memory capacity at slightly lower speed and one tenth the cost.
Such true statements. Unless you run weird databases that constantly move data around in memory or something, the difference between a super high end DDR4 kit and a normal JEDEC DDR2 kit, purely in terms of RAM speeds and nothing else, isn't really that big a deal. I mean, purely looking at the RAM speeds, it's a big boost, but so rarely is the speed of the RAM bottlenecking anything that the performance impact is really negligible. And considering macOS' way of caching data in RAM, more generally beats faster with memory.
 

avner

macrumors newbie
May 27, 2015
5
3
Just dig out this old thread, anyone get beyond 160GB RAM on the cMP? (or >64GB RAM on the single processor model)

I am really interested in if we can push the W3690 with 96GB RAM (3x32GB) :D
Hey there,

I am the one that originally posted the picture of having breached the 128gb ram limit.

I did it using 32gb low voltage DDR3L sticks that apparently seemed to work.

Unfortunately anything past 160gb and the computer would no longer boot
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
13,987
6,601
Hong Kong
Hey there,

I am the one that originally posted the picture of having breached the 128gb ram limit.

I did it using 32gb low voltage DDR3L sticks that apparently seemed to work.

Unfortunately anything past 160gb and the computer would no longer boot
Thanks for the info. So, I think it will be OK for the X56xx CPU because the OS can do at least 160GB, and the CPU is not the limiting factor. But for my W3690, it's maxed at 24GB according to Intel, a bit hard to tell if it can work properly.

Anyway, did you try if that 160GB limit still true in El Capitan or Sierra?
 

LightBulbFun

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2013
2,226
2,081
London UK
Hey there,

I am the one that originally posted the picture of having breached the 128gb ram limit.

I did it using 32gb low voltage DDR3L sticks that apparently seemed to work.

Unfortunately anything past 160gb and the computer would no longer boot
how where the sticks distributed in the computer? as a dual socket 4,1/5,1 has effectively 2 Memory controllers one on each CPU and when you say it no longer booted as in it would fail POST or OS X would crash? if OS X was crashing can you boot in verbose mode and send a picture as to where/what its panicing on?.

(maybe try 3 32GB Sticks on each CPU for a total of 192GB and see if it boots?) I know the 4,1 5,1 has a special memory related driver in OS X and you have to remove it it when say your building a Hackintosh with the MacPro5.1 model ID so maybe that could be falling over with 160+GB maybe

and finally what sticks did you use exactly? (also make sure to only use 32GB sticks dont mix it with smaller capacity sticks as that can cause issues)
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
13,987
6,601
Hong Kong
Hey there,

I am the one that originally posted the picture of having breached the 128gb ram limit.

I did it using 32gb low voltage DDR3L sticks that apparently seemed to work.

Unfortunately anything past 160gb and the computer would no longer boot
Hi, may I know what's the exact spec of your 32GB stick (if can have the picture of the sticker will be even better). There is another member unable to boot with 32GB sticks, so, may be we can figure out the correct spec requirement.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
13,987
6,601
Hong Kong
Hey there,

I am the one that originally posted the picture of having breached the 128gb ram limit.

I did it using 32gb low voltage DDR3L sticks that apparently seemed to work.

Unfortunately anything past 160gb and the computer would no longer boot
Hi, I am still figuring out which DIMM can be used on the cMP.

I talked to some memory supplier. They suggested that generations Intel CPU should only able to read 4Gbit chips (due to memory reference code issue). Therefore, if the DIMM is manufactured with 8Gbit chips, it won't work.

May I know if your 32GB DIMM module is made by 4Gbit chips or 8Gbit chips?

If have picture of the DIMM / sticker / model number will help a lots, cheers!
 

mward333

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 24, 2004
566
22
I forgot about this thread that I started in 2014. Wow. I am happy to report that this week I received my iMac Pro with 128 GB of RAM. It is an amazing resource.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790

werner hennies

macrumors newbie
May 3, 2018
1
2
I am new and possibly very late with my comment:
I have Mac Pro late 2013 and installed 128 GB RAM from OWC and installation is very easy and my Mac works over 2 years with no problems, it runs permanently and restarts only with updates to system changes.
Running 10.13.4, 2.7 GHz 12-Core Intel Xeon E5, AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB, 128 GB 1066 MHz DDR3
OWC highly recommended.
Werner
 

misanthrophy

Suspended
Aug 16, 2018
165
43
Would it be theoretically possible to use 2 of these:

Samsung 64GB PC3L-10600L M386B8G70DE0-YH93
  • Samsung
  • M386B8G70DE0-YH93
  • 64GB
  • PC3-10600L
  • DDR3-1333
  • 8Rx4
  • 240 Pin
  • Load Reduced
  • 1.35V
  • ECC
Would someone have any advantage of just using 2 memory sticks in total with 128GB RAM in a MacPro 4.1-5.1?

Or would the best option be using 3x 16GB modules each side for 96GB due to the 3 channel memory controller in those cMP's?
 
Last edited:

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,598
4,606
The Peninsula

Spacedust

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2009
935
95
I'm running 6x 16 GB DDR3 1866 MHz in cMP from Samsung for years now and it's super stable. I've never had a single failure with these sticks. Performance is just great, but they are are downclocked to 1333 MHz of course. In case of upgrade to nMP I'm ready - just plug&play 4 out of 6 sticks and I'll be running 64 GB DDR3 1866 MHz.
 

h9826790

macrumors G5
Apr 3, 2014
13,987
6,601
Hong Kong
Would it be theoretically possible to use 2 of these:

Samsung 64GB PC3L-10600L M386B8G70DE0-YH93
  • Samsung
  • M386B8G70DE0-YH93
  • 64GB
  • PC3-10600L
  • DDR3-1333
  • 8Rx4
  • 240 Pin
  • Load Reduced
  • 1.35V
  • ECC
Would someone have any advantage of just using 2 memory sticks in total with 128GB RAM in a MacPro 4.1-5.1?

Or would the best option be using 3x 16GB modules each side for 96GB due to the 3 channel memory controller in those cMP's?
Seems possible, but may be some trouble.

A quick search shows that particular DIMM use 4Gbit chip, which should be good for cMP.

All other spec seems OK as well. HOWEVER, 8Rx4 may cause issue.

That 160GB memory config was limit to max 5 DIMM installed may be because reach the total rank limit. e.g. A dual processor cMP may only able to accept up to total 40 memory rank, then five 8Rx4 DIMM will reach it's limit.

AFAIK, the advantage of using higher rank memory is to increase the memory capacity. If what are you looking for is just 128GB, use the "normal" 8x16GB 2Rx4 memory config should be a better choice on the cMP. More memory channel will be utilised to provide higher memory bandwidth.
 

LightBulbFun

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2013
2,226
2,081
London UK
Seems possible, but may be some trouble.

A quick search shows that particular DIMM use 4Gbit chip, which should be good for cMP.

All other spec seems OK as well. HOWEVER, 8Rx4 may cause issue.

That 160GB memory config was limit to max 5 DIMM installed may be because reach the total rank limit. e.g. A dual processor cMP may only able to accept up to total 40 memory rank, then five 8Rx4 DIMM will reach it's limit.

AFAIK, the advantage of using higher rank memory is to increase the memory capacity. If what are you looking for is just 128GB, use the "normal" 8x16GB 2Rx4 memory config should be a better choice on the cMP. More memory channel will be utilised to provide higher memory bandwidth.

a couple things worth mentioning is that the memory stick is an LRDIMM

I know that Westmere supports LR-DIMMs but I dont know if the MP5,1 supports LR-DIMMs

as for the 5 32GB sticks thing, that was because the guy only had 5 sticks on hand IIRC (he tried some 16GB sticks which caused a kernel panic but I think that was due to issues on mixing un matched memory sticks)

it would be very interesting to gather up a number of diffrent LRDIMMs and try them out in a Westmere-EP MacPro5,1 :) (and a Westmere-WS MP5,1 once EP testing was done)
 
  • Like
Reactions: eksu and h9826790
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.