16GB RAM Xserve Graphic?

zaphoyd

macrumors regular
Jun 25, 2002
121
31
Wisconsin/Illinois
2GB chips?

Are there 2GB chips available? Do you think they were planning on make 2GB chips available and could not get them in stock? They certainly wouldn't add 8 more slots for 1GB chips... Maybe 2Gb chips are available, and you can have 16GB, just like my iMac whose ram max is 128MB has 288MB.
 

rweidmann

macrumors newbie
Jan 12, 2004
7
0
2GB modules

I think the issue is availability of 2GB EEC modules. Didn't Rubinstein in some interview even say that the Powermac G5 does support these modules once they come out. I think that they are simply not out or too expensive.

Apple has often understated the capabilities of memory controllers due to non-availability of high capacity memory modules.
 

Pismo

macrumors 6502a
Apr 30, 2002
528
48
NH
If 2GB Dimms existed, can the Xserve and OS X Server support that much RAM? Those Dimms would probably cost $1000 or more each!
 

metfoo

macrumors member
Apr 25, 2002
61
0
phil s. stated they were waiting for 2 GB modules to be cheap enough to use. 16GB will come, mjust not today. the 8gb barrier is just temp barrier
 

BenRoethig

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2002
2,729
0
Dubuque, Iowa
Originally posted by metfoo
phil s. stated they were waiting for 2 GB modules to be cheap enough to use. 16GB will come, mjust not today. the 8gb barrier is just temp barrier
True. Both the dual PMG5 and the Xserves can support 2gb DIMMs ofr up to 16gb. However, they are very rare and unaffordable for most.
 

0 and A ai

macrumors regular
Jan 12, 2004
171
0
Re: 2GB chips?

Originally posted by zaphoyd
Are there 2GB chips available? Do you think they were planning on make 2GB chips available and could not get them in stock? They certainly wouldn't add 8 more slots for 1GB chips... Maybe 2Gb chips are available, and you can have 16GB, just like my iMac whose ram max is 128MB has 288MB.
what the heck imac do you have.
 

yoman

macrumors 6502a
Nov 11, 2003
635
0
In the Bowels of the Cosmos
all that ram

16GB!! I can't imagine what would 16GB RAM be used for. That's almost as much as my hard drive space: 18.62GB. Wow! Good on apple for being forward looking in ram. Makes the xServe more future proof. :)
 

Dave K

macrumors member
Aug 9, 2002
73
0
Crucial began offering 2 GB PC3200 ECC DIMMS sometime last month.

IIRC, the developers notes on the G5 PowerMacs noted that, while the tech sheet says 8 GB max, the memory controller always supported 16 GB should 2GB DIMMS be available. Given that Apple tends to reuse chipsets between machines, I would be very surprised if the xServe wasn't the same.

Edit: Not reading Crucial specs fully.
 

wymer100

macrumors member
Apr 16, 2002
53
0
I also remember Phil S. mentioning that the xServes would go up to 16Gb of RAM, but the 2Gb sticks were just too expensive right now. Crucial has a 2Gb stick for US$999. Ouch, considering that you have to buy in pairs. However, a 2Gb kit (presumably 2x1Gb) from Kingston is something like US$1117.
 

stingerman

macrumors 6502
Jul 6, 2003
286
0
If you need a 16GB database server, 999 is pretty cheap compared to the alternatives. This definitely puts Apple at the very high end of cluster-able servers.
 

Chryx

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2002
248
0
Originally posted by Dave K
Crucial began offering 2 GB PC3200 ECC DIMMS sometime last month.

IIRC, the developers notes on the G5 PowerMacs noted that, while the tech sheet says 8 GB max, the memory controller always supported 16 GB should 2GB DIMMS be available. Given that Apple tends to reuse chipsets between machines, I would be very surprised if the xServe wasn't the same.

Edit: Not reading Crucial specs fully.
Those Crucial Dimms are registered, which to my knowledge won't work in the Xserve or (or the Powermac)
 

tny

macrumors 6502
Jun 3, 2003
394
37
Washington, DC
Re: all that ram

Originally posted by yoman
16GB!! I can't imagine what would 16GB RAM be used for. That's almost as much as my hard drive space: 18.62GB. Wow! Good on apple for being forward looking in ram. Makes the xServe more future proof. :)
I can imagine a use for that much ram.
 

pgwalsh

macrumors 68000
Jun 21, 2002
1,639
218
New Zealand
Re: Re: all that ram

Originally posted by tny
I can imagine a use for that much ram.
That was an interesting read and I think we could have an interesting thread topic on this.

I'm thinking writeable rom chips for OS and certain applications like PhotoShop.. That would be much more stable and wicked fast.
 

jamilecrire

macrumors regular
Dec 20, 2002
105
7
Re: all that ram

Originally posted by yoman
16GB!! I can't imagine what would 16GB RAM be used for. That's almost as much as my hard drive space: 18.62GB. Wow! Good on apple for being forward looking in ram. Makes the xServe more future proof. :)
Enterprise level database server. I keep bugging Oracle about making their release "supported" but it looks like I'll be going with Sybase instead. I'm looking to migrate my companies application from a dual setup (linux/jsp/oracle & windows/asp/sql server) to one platform. Apple offers Tomcat with their Apache distribution so we'll be converting to OS X Server, JSP & Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise (http://www.sybase.com/products/databaseservers/ase) instead of Oracle.

Oh to clarify, our database is around 13GB and running it in ram is better than off a hard drive (even if it is RAID 0 with redundant servers).
 

nek

macrumors member
Aug 26, 2003
81
0
Canada
Originally posted by wymer100
I also remember Phil S. mentioning that the xServes would go up to 16Gb of RAM, but the 2Gb sticks were just too expensive right now. Crucial has a 2Gb stick for US$999. Ouch, considering that you have to buy in pairs. However, a 2Gb kit (presumably 2x1Gb) from Kingston is something like US$1117.
It may seem expensive, but anyone who wants at least 4GB of RAM is better off getting 2 2GB DIMMs for $1998 instead of 4 1GB DIMMs for $2234 and then there is still lots of room for expansion.
 

MrMacMan

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2001
7,002
11
1 Block away from NYC.
Price is an issue...

Apple can claim that it can go 16 GB Ram... but people will call them on it and apple would have to say 'buy these 2 GB sticks at $1000 a piece'... so yeah not practical to tell that to everyone.

It will happen when prices are lowered.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,248
600
Cascadia
Originally posted by MrMacman
Price is an issue...

Apple can claim that it can go 16 GB Ram... but people will call them on it and apple would have to say 'buy these 2 GB sticks at $1000 a piece'... so yeah not practical to tell that to everyone.

It will happen when prices are lowered.
Except anyone who is even contemplating a server that needs 16GB of RAM is perfectly aware of the costs involved.

The other option would be 16 1GB DIMMs (at over $500 a piece, so just as bad.)

Trust me, in the server industry, high cost isn't something customers call manufacturers on. At least, with the commodity components. Now, if Apple themselves were trying to sell the 2GB DIMMs for $4000 a piece, that's another story.
 

SiriusExcelsior

macrumors regular
Dec 6, 2003
113
4
Canis Major
i read somewhere that each 64-bit chip theoriotically supported up to 4TB (not typo) of ram... so 16gb of ram shouldn't be so much of a surprise...

this is of course assuming that such modules (512gb, 1tb, 2tb or 4 tb) were available....
 

vitaboy

macrumors member
Aug 8, 2003
87
0
Actually, a 64-bit processor can theoretically support 2^64 bytes of memory.

This is

1.845e+19 bytes
=1.801e+16 KB
=1.759e+13 MB
=1.718e+10 GB
=16,777,216 TB
=16,384 PB (petabyte)
=16 EB (exabytes)

In other words, a 64 bit processor can theoretically address more than 16 BILLION gigabytes of RAM.

By the way, I think I read the same article where the 4 TB figure was thrown around, but it was clearly a factual and mathematical error on the writer's part. 16 exabytes is millions of times more than a measly 4 terabyte system.

Even with Moore's Law, it will be quite a while before we start running into the theoretical limits of 64-bit memory addressing. :D

The reason why Apple is only stating 8 GB of RAM support (or 16 GB, which should happen once 2 GB EEC memory sticks are on the market) is for wholly practical reasons.

Even if it were possible to manufacture 1 terabyte memory sticks, the current technology for accessing that memory would be WAY too slow. For example, the G5 chips is a bandwidth monster compared to other chips on the market and it can move 6.4 GB per second in and out of the chip.

If you had a sever with a "measly" 1 TB of RAM, the G5 chip would take, oh, 160 seconds to go through the contents of the RAM completely at top theoretical speed. Never mind how long your coffee break will be waiting for the computer to go through 16 exabytes of RAM. We'll need totally fantastical technologies like holographic quantum mechanical memory or something. :D

So clearly, your memory bandwidth has to grow along with memory capacity, and so we probably won't see Macs move beyond 16 or 32 GB of RAM until a next-gen, higher bandwidth PowerPC chip comes along. G6 anyone?
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,248
600
Cascadia
IIRC PPC970 = 4TB

Originally posted by vitaboy
Actually, a 64-bit processor can theoretically support 2^64 bytes of memory.
[math removed]
In other words, a 64 bit processor can theoretically address more than 16 BILLION gigabytes of RAM.
From what I remember, the PowerPC 970 processor itself only supports addressing up to 4TB of memory. This is a specific design choice/limitation of the IBM PowerPC 970 chip. Just as the PowerPC 601 was a 32-bit chip that supported only 2GB of RAM (even though 32-bit architectures can support 4GB.)
 

vitaboy

macrumors member
Aug 8, 2003
87
0
Re: IIRC PPC970 = 4TB

Originally posted by ehurtley
From what I remember, the PowerPC 970 processor itself only supports addressing up to 4TB of memory. This is a specific design choice/limitation of the IBM PowerPC 970 chip. Just as the PowerPC 601 was a 32-bit chip that supported only 2GB of RAM (even though 32-bit architectures can support 4GB.)
This may indeed be the case, since there is no practical way today to build a system with even a petabye of RAM and test it. But theoretically speaking, 2^64 is 16 exabytes, which is a pretty mind-boggling figure that's of Douglas Adams proportions. :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.