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

1333mhz 3rd party ram availability?

reel2reel said:
Ah nice! Thanks for posting.

I feel like shopping, but think I'll wait until they finish their testing and figure out whether or not the 2010's accept 8GB sticks. Although, they're selling 8GB combinations, so WTH?
Click to expand...

Np. Thanks for the original heads up. I wouldn't have kept checking if I didn't know they'd be working on something for today :)

That's a good idea on waiting. I'm curious as to see if the SP machines can support 32GB. I might just wait a bit as well then.
 
Icaras said:
Np. Thanks for the original heads up. I wouldn't have kept checking if I didn't know they'd be working on something for today :)

That's a good idea on waiting. I'm curious as to see if the SP machines can support 32GB. I might just wait a bit as well then.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, it turns out to be untrue. The 3.33 GHz six-core is looking like a sweet-spot in the lineup (if you're not needing more cores) but it would suck if it had a cap of 16GB RAM.
 
strausd said:
Anybody order their RAM yet?
Click to expand...

Just ordered 12GB of 1333 RAM (4GB x 3) from OWC for my 6-core Mac Pro. I figure I'll use the Westmere's tri-channel memory controller and wait to see if I can go to 8GB sticks next year for 24GB. Note OWC is only selling the 8GB sticks for the DP machines, so it's not clear yet if they can be used on the SP Mac Pro's.
 
PenguinMac said:
Just ordered 12GB of 1333 RAM (4GB x 3) from OWC for my 6-core Mac Pro. I figure I'll use the Westmere's tri-channel memory controller and wait to see if I can go to 8GB sticks next year for 24GB. Note OWC is only selling the 8GB sticks for the DP machines, so it's not clear yet if they can be used on the SP Mac Pro's.
Click to expand...

I ordered 16 GB 1333 MHz 4 X 4 GB for my 12-core machine. After using it for a while, maybe a year or so, I'll upgrade to 24 GB with dual tri-channel :) I'll probably stop there and not go up to 32 GB.
 
Apologies if this is a stupid question

Apologies if this is a stupid question....

Just about to order the hexacore - will be buying RAM in the UK so will probably need to use Crucial.

Can someone explain to me the benefits of having tri-channel memory? I assume that having 4x4GB is better than 3x3GB but lots of people seem to be opting for the latter...what's the benefit?

Also it seems if I did want to go for 8GB sticks (2 or 4 depending on whether real world tests show the hexacore can take 32GB) the only ones Crucial sells are registered, which per the above (very useful) post is not what I want - is that the same for OWC and other vendors in the US?

Thanks!
 
stujmac26 said:
Apologies if this is a stupid question....

Just about to order the hexacore - will be buying RAM in the UK so will probably need to use Crucial.

Can someone explain to me the benefits of having tri-channel memory? I assume that having 4x4GB is better than 3x3GB but lots of people seem to be opting for the latter...what's the benefit?

Also it seems if I did want to go for 8GB sticks (2 or 4 depending on whether real world tests show the hexacore can take 32GB) the only ones Crucial sells are registered, which per the above (very useful) post is not what I want - is that the same for OWC and other vendors in the US?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's not really having tri-channel memory, but rather using 3 memory slots. Opting for 3x4GB is beneficial because the processor only has 3 memory channels.

When putting 4x4GB, the processor doesn't operate in triple-channel mode.

When operating in triple-channel mode, memory latency is reduced due to interleaving, meaning that each module is accessed sequentially. Data is spread amongst the modules in an alternating pattern.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-channel_architecture
 
Vylen said:
Don't the Quad Cores use the same 1066Mhz RAM as the 2009 model? The price is jacked up a bit from the 2009 RAM page (the 4GB modules).
Click to expand...

I noticed this and wondered why as well. (at OWC) Could we not just order from the cheaper page, or is there really a difference in the RAM?
 
Would there be any technical disadvantage in using 1333 RAM in a single quad 2010 MP?

thanks
JohnG
 
Vylen said:
Don't the Quad Cores use the same 1066Mhz RAM as the 2009 model? The price is jacked up a bit from the 2009 RAM page (the 4GB modules).
Click to expand...

I just spoke to OWC again and they're obviously still getting things figured out. Apple hasn't even released the tech manuals to them yet. The person I spoke to confirmed the only price difference is in the 4GB modules, but he's not sure why at the moment.

I'm going to wait until the end of the week and check back again. I'm most concerned about the alleged RAM cap.
 
Umbongo said:
Another thing people might want to be aware of is that when filling all the memory slots on the systems using 1333MHz it is likely going to run at 1066MHz unless Apple have deviated away from the standard Intel spec (something they don't tend to do), thus there is no reason to not use 1066MHz memory in such a case. If you already have it or can get it cheaper for example.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this? Doesn't make any sense. Maybe in the 4th slot, but I think that just doesn't run in the triple channel setup like the first three. The first 3 surely are running at the quoted speed if you are on a 1333 platform.
 
xgman said:
Where are you getting this? Doesn't make any sense. Maybe in the 4th slot, but I think that just doesn't run in the triple channel setup like the first three. The first 3 surely are running at the quoted speed if you are on a 1333 platform.
Click to expand...

This is how the memory system works on dual processor systems. Memory all runs at the speed of the slowest DIMM. 1 DIMM per channel = 1333MHz max, 2 = 1066MHz, 3 = 800MHz. Some board manufacturers (Tyan, ASUS and Sun) made it so you could overclock the memory to make it all run at 1333MHz, but it isn't part of the standard spec so I wouldn't expect it from Apple.

edit: Nevermind. That is how it works, but there is an exception with 5600 series Xeons and 1333MHz UDIMMs specifically, where it should all run at 1333MHz.
 
xgman said:
OCW sells 8gb modules for around $380 and 4x4 for $610, so around a $70 premium for an 8gb module.
Click to expand...

OWC's website doesn't list any 8GB modules for the 6 Core, but they do list it for the 12 Core (both are 1333). This doesn't make sense to me. Couldn't the 8GB stick from the 12-Core work in the 6-Core? They are both identical?
 
simplymuzik3 said:
OWC's website doesn't list any 8GB modules for the 6 Core, but they do list it for the 12 Core (both are 1333). This doesn't make sense to me. Couldn't the 8GB stick from the 12-Core work in the 6-Core? They are both identical?
Click to expand...

It may, but no one has tried it yet. It is not "officially" supported.
 
Abaddon75 said:
Just out of curiosity, why would anyone need over 16Gb of RAM anyway?
Click to expand...

Some apps eat up a ton of RAM (such as Adobe After Effects). I'm guessing the more RAM the better if you're running a lot of app's at once. The more cores you have, the more RAM you need (for example, rendering with Virtual Clusters in Compressor).

The biggest reason of all, I'd say, is that future app's are going to require more and more memory.

I'm no expert, just telling you what I know from my own experience. A graphics guy I know had 16GB of RAM in his Mac Pro two years ago. I imagine is next bump will be to 32.
 
reel2reel said:
Some apps eat up a ton of RAM (such as Adobe After Effects). I'm guessing the more RAM the better if you're running a lot of app's at once. The more cores you have, the more RAM you need (for example, rendering with Virtual Clusters in Compressor).

The biggest reason of all, I'd say, is that future app's are going to require more and more memory.

I'm no expert, just telling you what I know from my own experience. A graphics guy I know had 16GB of RAM in his Mac Pro two years ago. I imagine is next bump will be to 32.
Click to expand...

We use FCP all day on Macs, usually with no more than 8Gb of ram in each computer. Our tech's feel any more is overkill.
 
While I know they are cautious about the 8GB Dimm compatibility, I don't see much of change from the 2009 version. From what I remember of taking apart a 2009 quad Mac Pro is that the chip was a 3xxx series Xeon and not 5xxx Xeon. The previous 3xxx Xeons still had a maximum of 24gb of RAM yet, OWC was able to get up to 32gb installed in the 2009 quad Mac Pro's.
 
Abaddon75 said:
We use FCP all day on Macs, usually with no more than 8Gb of ram in each computer. Our tech's feel any more is overkill.
Click to expand...

So do I, but I don't know if I agree that more than 8GB is overkill. I'd have to see for myself. When I've got Color and FCP both running with 1000 shots in each timeline, I start to feel a bit of lag. Maybe 12GB would help, maybe not.

But 16GB for After Effects is probably bare minimum if you're doing a lot of sophisticated work.
 
reel2reel said:
So do I, but I don't know if I agree that more than 8GB is overkill. I'd have to see for myself. When I've got Color and FCP both running with 1000 shots in each timeline, I start to feel a bit of lag. Maybe 12GB would help, maybe not.

But 16GB for After Effects is probably bare minimum if you're doing a lot of sophisticated work.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

But if the extra ram really doesn't do much, it's money in the toilet.
 
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