256GB RAM in old MP?


ashman70

macrumors 6502a
Dec 20, 2010
916
0
Which model are you referring to?

I believe the 2010-2012 models can go as high as 128GB only and that is only with Mavericks.
 

xcodeSyn

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2012
548
4
yes in theory, is it possible to install 256 GB?
It's not just in theory, Intel has validated 32GB RDIMMs for Westmere-EP (X5600) processors here. Just scroll down to the very bottom to see that Samasung 32GB RDIMM was tested. Since Mavericks only recognizes 128GB, what's the point to install more than that? If you plan to use more than 128GB RAM, any Windows workstation with 12 or more memory slots is a better choice.
 

fhenry

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 28, 2012
114
0
it is just for my curiosity, the mac pro can hold 256 GB probably when the os will be update !
 

fhenry

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 28, 2012
114
0

sunsetsothickly

macrumors member
May 21, 2005
37
0
It's not just in theory, Intel has validated 32GB RDIMMs for Westmere-EP (X5600) processors here. Just scroll down to the very bottom to see that Samasung 32GB RDIMM was tested.
Does that have any implications for the 48GB limit in the single processor 4,1 and 5,1? Can we now go to 96GB?
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,085
4,147
The Peninsula
Why would you need 256GB of RAM?!? Thats the size of most SSDs now. :eek:

I thought 64GB was a lot and 128GB was overkill.
The servers in my vSphere cluster are all at least 512 GiB.

All new servers that I buy have a minimum of 128 GiB - more if the application needs it.

I'm starting to upgrade my group's workstations to systems with 64 GiB, and option for up to 256 GiB.

Your question is a slightly updated version of the "why would anyone need more than 640 KiB" quote wrongly attributed to Bill Gates.

Just because you run tiny programs, doesn't mean that everyone runs tiny programs. ;)
 

iamMacPerson

macrumors 68030
Jun 12, 2011
2,743
863
AZ/10.0.1.1
The servers in my vSphere cluster are all at least 512 GiB.

All new servers that I buy have a minimum of 128 GiB - more if the application needs it.

I'm starting to upgrade my group's workstations to systems with 64 GiB, and option for up to 256 GiB.

Your question is a slightly updated version of the "why would anyone need more than 640 KiB" quote wrongly attributed to Bill Gates.

Just because you run tiny programs, doesn't mean that everyone runs tiny programs. ;)
Guess I was thinking of it as a personal/production computer, not a server. Now it makes sense.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,085
4,147
The Peninsula
Guess I was thinking of it as a personal/production computer, not a server. Now it makes sense.
Some of my people have 256 GiB personal systems - it depends on what you're doing.

Which is why I've said that the 64 GiB limit for the new Mini Pro is a joke. 64 GiB - get real.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,929
54
England
Does that have any implications for the 48GB limit in the single processor 4,1 and 5,1? Can we now go to 96GB?
From all that we know about it, I believe the CPUs memory controllers can't address more than 16GB each. one thing to test might be using a 5600 series CPU in a single socket board and seeing if they work with 4x16GB.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,185

xcodeSyn

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2012
548
4
Does that have any implications for the 48GB limit in the single processor 4,1 and 5,1?
Really doubt it. The 48GB limit seems to be a hardware limit for the Xeon 3500/3600 series processors, and using 32GB memory modules won't change it. Actually I'm a bit surprised no one mentioned that Intel lists the max memory size for Xeon W3680 is 24GB as specified here. So getting 48GB actual limit isn't so bad. On the other hand, Intel lists 288GB as max memory for Xeon X5680 here and 144GB for W5590 here. As Umbongo suggested, try the 5500/5600 processor in a SP system if you are curious.
 

WMD

macrumors regular
Jun 12, 2013
175
7
Florida, USA
Since Mavericks only recognizes 128GB,
What makes you say that? Mavericks raised the 96GB limit imposed by Mountain Lion, but I've never read what they raised it to. I would think they would go higher than that, for future-proofing.

Ultimately, we'd have to have OWC or someone else test the 32GB sticks in the 4,1/5,1 models. The CPU might support it but it's unclear if the firmware does.
 

rdsii64

macrumors regular
May 14, 2008
237
8
We are having a discussion about multiple gigs of ram. I remember when 512 megs was something to brag about. We have come a long way.
 

xcodeSyn

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2012
548
4
What makes you say that? Mavericks raised the 96GB limit imposed by Mountain Lion, but I've never read what they raised it to.
Since Apple never published any official memory upper limit, the statement is based on this link so far. OWC is already selling the 32GB RDIMM modules for nMP. If Mavericks can go beyond 128GB, I'm pretty sure OWC would make a big deal and let us know. Or they are still in the process of testing the upper limit? Maybe I should revise my earlier statement to "Mavericks so far can recognize 128GB pending OWC's further testing and revision".
 

fhenry

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 28, 2012
114
0
Since Apple never published any official memory upper limit, the statement is based on this link so far. OWC is already selling the 32GB RDIMM modules for nMP. If Mavericks can go beyond 128GB, I'm pretty sure OWC would make a big deal and let us know. Or they are still in the process of testing the upper limit? Maybe I should revise my earlier statement to "Mavericks so far can recognize 128GB pending OWC's further testing and revision".
it can be tested with windows 8... let wait and see !
 

xcodeSyn

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2012
548
4
it can be tested with windows 8...
Not sure what you mean. Microsoft has already tested the physical memory limit on each version of Windows client and server here. Unlike OS X, there is no artificial limit imposed on the 64-bit Windows and theoretically could address 2^64 bytes, the 512GB and 4TB are the actual memory tested and guaranteed to work. If anyone wants to spend over $4,000 to find out what we already know, that's fine.
 

fhenry

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 28, 2012
114
0
Not sure what you mean. Microsoft has already tested the physical memory limit on each version of Windows client and server here. Unlike OS X, there is no artificial limit imposed on the 64-bit Windows and theoretically could address 2^64 bytes, the 512GB and 4TB are the actual memory tested and guaranteed to work. If anyone wants to spend over $4,000 to find out what we already know, that's fine.
may owc can do a test !