32 GB of RAM

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by nigrunze, Aug 10, 2007.

  1. nigrunze macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    #1
    Just curious about this.

    I noticed on crucial's site that it says the Mac Pro's maximum RAM is now 32 GB by using eight 4GB sticks. Apple's site still says that the maximum is 16 GB and so does the MacRumors guide. Does anyone know anything about this.

    If it turns out that 32 GB is supported, then WOW that's alot of memory.:apple:

    Maybe that's what the EFI firmware update was for.
     
  2. yippy macrumors 68020

    yippy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #2
    If Crucial says it can take 32GB of ram then it probably can. Apple has a history of understating the ram capabilities of their computers based on the size of the modules available at the computers release. So if higher density ram becomes available after the product is released, Apple never updates the specs even though the computer can take the new, higher density ram sticks.
     
  3. nigrunze thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    #3
    That's pretty cool. Expensive though.

    That was a fast reply.:)

    I knew about Apple not updating their RAM specs on their website. I've used Mactracker a bit and it mentions that. I'm still amazed about how much RAM it can use. 32 GB. The current limit on the iMac is 4 GB. Maybe it's because of the destop/server motherboard vs. notebook motherboard. I'm not sure how much RAM most C2D desktop motherboards can support.

    Is it the CPU or the motherboard which determines this. I think the MB/LB.
     
  4. kwood macrumors 6502a

    kwood

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Location:
    In the Great White North.
    #4
    There was a professor or someone with a similar profession who posted on this board at one point who had a Mac Pro with 32GB of RAM. I don't know how that story turned out though, and I can'[t find the thread at the moment.
     
  5. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #5
    32GB of memory for only $6079.96.
    For that kind of money I'd want a free 30" Apple Display included.
    I know, I know, that's a lot of memory and worth it.
     
  6. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #6
    Yep, like many other machines Apple understates the max amount of RAM the Mac Pro is capable of. 32GBs is a lot though, should keep the machine usable for a long time :).
     
  7. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #7
    Depends on what "this" is. :) If you're referring to how much physical RAM can be put in the box, then that's up to the motherboard. What style of RAM modules does it take? And how dense can those RAM modules get?

    The CPU and operating system, together, determine whether all of the RAM can be accessed. If the processor and OS are both 64-bit, then they can address up to 16 exabytes (or, think of it as 16,000,000,000GB) of RAM. If either are 32-bit, then the max the machine can address is 4GB.

    The next challenge is whether your applications are 32 or 64-bit. If they're 32-bit (most of the Mac apps are) then each app can only address 4GB of memory. 64-bit apps will be able to address all 32GB offered by a Mac Pro.

    jas
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #9
    It has always been 32GB, that was confirmed the day the XServe was released and Apple was offering 32GB of memory on its first day out the door.

    It was just that Apple sold 4GB DIMMs for the XServe and 2GB DIMMs with the Mac Pro.

    ---

    Same chipsets in both, with Apple tweaking the XServe a bit by using different I/O and PCI express drive SATA/SAS chips instead of the built in Intel ports.
     
  9. metalmoses macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
  10. seclusion macrumors regular

    seclusion

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #11
    I remember saying that I wouldn't need anymore then 512 mb in my PC, which was the max it could take. Then I tried recording music with it. Hard to believe but currently my system could use the ability to access more then 4 gigs of ram. I only have 5 gigs is the MacPro but in recording studio's there are people that use huge sample libraries that have to have 10 computers, each loaded with orchestral sample libraries that max out 4 gigs in no time. If composers could have access to all those samples in one system, it sure would save a lot of networking and $$. The $6000 + doesn't seem so bad then.
    I'm sure there are other apps that could use that upgrade alone.
    Later
    Brian
     
  11. pengu macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Diddily Daddily...
    #12
    the more ram you have the faster the machine will be. OSX leaves things you've used in memory until it needs to clear them out (to use for something else) so, the more ram you have, the more OSX can leave in cache.
     
  12. pseudonymph macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    #13
    Memory-hungry applications (databases, bioinformatics, other scientific data crunching, etc.)

    You might think it's way more than anyone would ever need, but for some applications it's still not enough.
     
  13. thxdave macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #14
    I'm a little confused about the usage of the memory. Is it the app that addresses the 4 gigs of memory or is it the combination of the app and the OS? Or, if you launch a series of memory-hungry apps, will each of them claim as much memory as they can get (along with the OS) and use up the max of 32 gigs.....IF you were nuts enough to run that many memory-hog programs simultaneously. ;)
     
  14. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #15
    Few people NEED or can AFFORD that much in August 2007, but the good thing about it is that the current MacPro shows it can expand. I purchased mine when I found out you could go to 32gig and change out processors. You could, probably, buy a MacPro now and have a machine that will be powerful and current for years to come. I looked at this as a 5+ year purchase, and I suspect it will be a computer I can use for up to 6 years without any hassles.

    2 gigs seems average now, but in 6 years 32 gigs will seem average or little. AS machines get larger/faster the software people tend to use all that space, speed and memory for their apps. I remember in 2000 having an apple with 500 Megs RAM and thinking I was on top of the world- that wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee today.
     
  15. pengu macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Diddily Daddily...
    #16
    exactly. 8 years ago, i bought my first computer - an imac with 64mb of ram and 6gb HDD. in 2 weeks im picking up a LAPTOP that has 4gb of ram. 12 months ago i upgraded my G5 PM from 1GB to 3GB of ram. the speed increase was huge. as i said before. more RAM means more potential cache for applications, files, etc.

    not to mention, 32GB leads to the potential for a realistic re-introduction of "RAM disks" for things like photoshop scratch disks, etc.
     
  16. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #17
    Much like each OS, each application is either 32-bit (4GB) or 64-bit (16 Exobyte (EB)). OS X's memory mangement and file system management libraries are both 64-bit. However, its graphical and GUI libraries are still 32-bit. And, since the vast majority of the applications we run (FCX, Photoshop, Office, etc, etc) are graphical in nature, they're limited to being 32-bit. So, they can only address 4GB at a shot (yes, I know Adobe has added a 'hack' plug-in for PS to access more... but it's still not a true 64-bit app).

    So, that all said: each individual 32-bit application can access 4GB. You can run a series of them, though, and eat up as much RAM as the box can hold. In this case, that's 32GB. So, conceivably, you could run 8 very memory-hungry apps, and max out the physical memory in the box. At that point (actually, well before that point) you're going to start paging.

    jas
     
  17. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #18
    Right. I'll bet that if DDR2 PC2-5300 style DIMMs stay a prominent type of RAM, then we're going to see 8GB modules before too awfully long. With that, the Mac Pros will be topped out at 64GB.

    And applications are going to continue to get porky as far as memory requirements. As soon as the floodgates are opened and OS X is completely 64-bit (10.5), then we're going to see some apps get... big. It's a recompile and re-link away, in a lot of cases.

    jas
     
  18. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #19
    I always hope for memory to linger, but it never does stay for long. If it can hang around for 2 or 3 years we could get some amazing memory into our current MacPros. 64Gig would be perfect for large PS print work documents.

    10 years ago I got a Power Mac tower 8600, and it didn't even have 64megs of memory. The hard drive was 4GB. 300 Mhz of power processing. THAT was power. If we continue on that sort of slope I suspect 1TB drives will be puny in 10 years, and the computers will have close to 1TB RAM.
     
  19. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Location:
    TX
    #20
    Even Michael Crichton's been predicting a "wall" eventually in computer hardware (I believe it was Timeline... not positive).

    While Crichton (i.e. his character) sees that boards are just getting more "mushed" together (and will eventually fry themselves because the heat won't dissipate quickly enough), there are other potential barriers that will cause a slow-down in development. I guess the next step for the consumer to need that much RAM is VR.
     
  20. pengu macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Diddily Daddily...
    #21

    is VR the new two-letter name for Vista? :p:D
     
  21. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Location:
    TX
    #22
    yes, you see you need it's virtual reality characteristics to see through all the sh**
     
  22. emeldahay macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #23
    I often run out of memeory and I got 16GB.

    16GB is not a lot in certain circumstances.
     
  23. bprice macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Location:
    LA, Ca.
    #24
    YES!!! ….If I had a 32 bit OS(Tiger), 8 core, 3.0 ghz ,MP running max 4 gig ram(about $4.5k?) X 10..$45k ……as opposed to the same MP ,OS 64 bit(Leopard) with 32 gig ram (8k-10k ) ….to get the job done ….it’s a no brainer.

    Looks to me like the OS, CPU and app running 64 bit is going to make the job a lot more efficient and cheaper. I’m banking on Apple upgrading Logic Pro as a 64 bit app and a few other ram hungry audio programs like Vienna Symphony Library(for samples) and BFD(drum sampler) doing the same. The future looks bright and right around the bend. Of course it won’t be perfect but it looks like a giant leap to me.


    BP
     
  24. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #25
    Exactly. I have 9GB and it's more than enough for me and my work (motion graphics in HD resolutions)
     

Share This Page