128GB RAM - When?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Yellowstone2012, Jul 7, 2011.

  1. Yellowstone2012 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    #1
    Is it possible Apple will introduce a Mac Pro with an option of 128GB RAM?

    Thanks.
     
  2. And1ss macrumors 6502a

    And1ss

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
  3. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    They might. The 64gb version is a bloody beast!
     
  4. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #4
    I know OWC say 8x16GB DIMMS don't work (and only sell 6x16GB), but technically they should. Don't think anyone has tried 32GB DIMMs, but again there doesn't appear any technical reason they wouldn't work. Buy them if you want that much memory, return them if they don't work.
     
  5. DasShrubber macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    #5
    You know you're old when....
     
  6. Yellowstone2012 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    #6
    Well, it you wanna use the thing for a couple of decades, yes. No other computer manufacture (that I know of) is producing a computer with those specs.

    I hope so; 128GB, and I may be in. Peferred specs:

    Two 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores)
    128GB RAM
    512GB solid-state drive
    512GB solid-state drive
    512GB solid-state drive
    Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
    Two 18x SuperDrives
    Apple Magic Mouse + Magic Trackpad
    Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) & User's Guide



    When/If I do get this; I plan on using it for a couple decades. (maybe even more than a couple)
     
  7. iPhysicist macrumors 6502a

    iPhysicist

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Location:
    Dresden
    #7
    Decades!? - this will maybe be entry level in 5 years and useless in 10 years for professional use. So burn your money now and you will remember this act for at least 2 decades.

    :rolleyes:
     
  8. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #8
    You must be joking. That would be like getting by today with a 25MHz Mac Quadra, MacOS 8.1, 68MB of RAM, and a floppy drive. You'd have 24-bit color at a maximum resolution of 832 x 624.

    http://support.apple.com/kb/SP235

    You're joking, right?

    Right? :(
     
  9. Cindori macrumors 68040

    Cindori

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #9
    +1 to this, Apple will probably cut 2010 Mac Pro out from OSX 10.9
    and 5770 is already just barely enough for todays graphics
    you dont gain from building supercomputers, you gain from buying new every 5-8 years

    10 years ago we had desktop computers with 1-3GHz CPU, now we have 1.2GHz dual cores in our cellphones...
     
  10. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #10
    Dell, Fujitsu, HP and Lenovo all sell dual processor Intel workstations that support 192GB (12x16GB) that use the same technology Apple are. The Mac Pro has been shown to support 6x16GB. You can buy 32GB DIMMs (which work on the Dell and Fujitsu systems, and I assume the others too as there is no reason they wouldn't).

    You don't seem to understand technology and how to purchase a suitable system for your use, so you might want to make a new thread explaining what you intend to use your system for.
     
  11. Tower-Union macrumors 6502

    Tower-Union

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    #11
    But your going to hack the EFI and support those of us with 2006 Mac Pro's right. . . RIGHT? :D





    Note: Half joking - would be cool if it could be done - but I'm not making any demands or expectations of ya!
     
  12. highdefw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    #12
    Nothing you can possibly buy now will be of much use a decade from now. Technology is evolving faster and faster and years go by. 10 years from now we'll be looking at terabytes as we look at megabytes today...
     
  13. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #13
    so holodecks with holograms in 15 years. then what?

    Gates once said download of human consciousness should be possible.
     
  14. And1ss macrumors 6502a

    And1ss

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    #14
    LOL Good one! "Thumbs up". -_____-"
     
  15. Mobius 1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    USEA
    #15
    What you're doing is wasting ur money


    The $$$$$$$$ MP don't even have CrossFireX or SLI
     
  16. WardC macrumors 68030

    WardC

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #16
    I am just dying to upgrade to 128GB of RAM so I can run TextEdit with all the bells and whistles in all of it's full black-and-white glory.

    Amazing how with a Sandy Bridge Mac Pro you may be able to run 128GB of RAM and yet you can't even run a program like AppleWorks because of no Rosetta support in Lion. Argh Apple, Argh!
     
  17. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #17
    640KB ought to be enough for anybody.
     
  18. Schismz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    #18
    I know I know, TextEdit offered simplicity even before $49 hyper-focused writing apps did the same thing. But why stop there, if you have at least a 12 core machine with 3 SSDs on RAID0 and can utilize OpenGL on the 5870, Word actually runs at acceptable speed.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    I get what you're saying, but trying to hold onto a computer by putting huge amounts of ram doesn't make any sense. Think about the processing power you're going to need for a program that actually uses anywhere near that much RAM. Yes, you may have the RAM, but processor technology (and therefore more powerful programs to use it) will be light years advanced from now by then.
     
  20. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #20
    128GB of RAM makes sense if you buy into...

    "The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry is its continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering gains made by the computer hardware industry."

    - Henry Petroski

    http://quotes.cat-v.org/programming/
     
  21. CFoss macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #21
    128GB is not needed in your computer today. Sure, it will probably be a standard in computers in several years time, but for now, it's just overkill.
     
  22. mac.tastic macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    #22
    The same could be said for 8GB 5 years ago.
     
  23. SandboxGeneral Moderator

    SandboxGeneral

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Location:
    Orbiting a G-type Main Sequence Star
    #23
    Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    I'm sure eventually the option will be there for that much RAM. Though I doubt it will be any time soon. When applications come along that can utilize that much, then we can expect to have that option.
     
  24. stix666 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    #24
    Won't it soon be possible to load the OS in RAM?
     
  25. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #25
    I think its possible already, just exorbitantly expensive.
     

Share This Page