Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How much RAM could the 4 quad core and 8 core 2.8 GHz Mac Pros take?
- Thread starter Chris7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 2009 Mac Pros have an Intel 5520 chipset (Tylersburg-36D), no?
From what I can gather from Intel's data sheet there's also a 128GB maximum for these.
At least TOHM (Top Of High Memory) is given as '[63:26]' which means 2^37 I think, or 128GB.
But then again, I might read this wrongly.
From what I can gather from Intel's data sheet there's also a 128GB maximum for these.
At least TOHM (Top Of High Memory) is given as '[63:26]' which means 2^37 I think, or 128GB.
But then again, I might read this wrongly.
TallestSkil, 192GB is the design limit. 
The Integrated Memory Controller (IMC) was placed on the CPU this time around.
BTW, the Blackford was the chipset (5000V IIRC; P & X variants exist too) used in the 2006 MP, and has a max memory capacity of 64GB.
For some strange reason, the multi quote tabs wouldn't highlight when selected...
Yup.
The Integrated Memory Controller (IMC) was placed on the CPU this time around. BTW, the Blackford was the chipset (5000V IIRC; P & X variants exist too) used in the 2006 MP, and has a max memory capacity of 64GB.
For some strange reason, the multi quote tabs wouldn't highlight when selected...
Yeah, 64GB is what I read on the Apple developer pages. I didn't know it was 5000V tho. I read 5000X once however - long ago when the 2006 MP was young. What are there in all anyway P, V, Z and X right?
EDIT: Yeah, here it is (2006 MP):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So anyway, what's happening in the 2009 machines? Intel doesn't wish to provide such nicely formed English sentences any longer? Didn't we just look at an Intel server based on the same chip with 144GB or RAM installed as well as another server board with 24 RAM slots capable of 192GB (specified)?
.
I read 5000X once however - long ago when the 2006 MP was young. What are there in all anyway P, V, Z and X right?EDIT: Yeah, here it is (2006 MP):
"The MCH provides four channels of Fully Buffered DIMM (FB-DIMM) memory. Each
channel can support up to 4 Dual Ranked FB-DIMM DDR2 DIMMs. FB-DIMM memory
channels are organized in to two branches for support of RAID 1 (mirroring). The MCH
can support up to 16 DIMMs or a maximum memory size of 64 GB physical memory in
non-mirrored mode and 32 GB physical memory in mirrored configuration."
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/313070.pdf (Page 20)channel can support up to 4 Dual Ranked FB-DIMM DDR2 DIMMs. FB-DIMM memory
channels are organized in to two branches for support of RAID 1 (mirroring). The MCH
can support up to 16 DIMMs or a maximum memory size of 64 GB physical memory in
non-mirrored mode and 32 GB physical memory in mirrored configuration."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So anyway, what's happening in the 2009 machines? Intel doesn't wish to provide such nicely formed English sentences any longer?
Didn't we just look at an Intel server based on the same chip with 144GB or RAM installed as well as another server board with 24 RAM slots capable of 192GB (specified)? .
The 5000V, P, and Z variants were released in June 2006. The 5000X dropped in September 2006.Yeah, 64GB is what I read on the Apple developer pages. I didn't know it was 5000V tho.
EDIT: Yeah, here it is (2006 MP):
"The MCH provides four channels of Fully Buffered DIMM (FB-DIMM) memory. Eachhttp://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/313070.pdf (Page 20)
channel can support up to 4 Dual Ranked FB-DIMM DDR2 DIMMs. FB-DIMM memory
channels are organized in to two branches for support of RAID 1 (mirroring). The MCH
can support up to 16 DIMMs or a maximum memory size of 64 GB physical memory in
non-mirrored mode and 32 GB physical memory in mirrored configuration."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The '06 Mac Pro released August 7, 2006.
I can't say about the lack of proper sentences as a policy of Intel's, but anything's possible.So anyway, what's happening in the 2009 machines? Intel doesn't wish to provide such nicely formed English sentences any longer?
.
24 DIMM slot boards are nice, as it allows the use of 8GB sticks to reach the max capacity of the IMC.
All while saving on the cost to do so as well. Anything larger (16 & 32GB RDIMM), and I start to shudder...
The 5000V, P, and Z variants were released in June 2006. The 5000X dropped in September 2006.
The '06 Mac Pro released August 7, 2006.
Ummm, I don't think so. If you are going by the PDF data, that's the date the dox were finalized for public consumption. The P/V/Z dox have the same date: http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/313071.pdf
As I recall the 5000X was available to developers in quantity in April of 2006 and samples far before that. Also The Mac Pro (2006) was formally only announced on August 7, 2006 at WWDC. Here's my 2006 Mac Pro via CPU-Z
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=598187
LOL Look at my RAM though... Bahahaaaa I wonder what the differences are though?
.
Sorry about that.Ummm, I don't think so. If you are going by the PDF data, that's the date the dox were finalized for public consumption. The P/V/Z dox have the same date: http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/313071.pdf
As I recall the 5000X was available to developers in quantity in April of 2006 and samples far before that. Here's my 2006 Map Pro via CPU-Z
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=598187
I wonder what the differences are though?
I'm used to the data sheets having the dates on them, with any updates specifically listed.
That it's the X model. Same family, but they do differ in the PCIe communication.
Sorry about that.
I'm used to the data sheets having the dates on them, with any updates specifically listed.
Did you notice that I had a 127MB DIMM installed in slot 5? Hehehe.. CPU-Z was smoking a joint or something and spaced out.
Did you notice that I had a 127MB DIMM installed in slot 5? Hehehe.. CPU-Z was smoking a joint or something and spaced out.
I missed it. 
Did you notice that I had a 127MB DIMM installed in slot 5? Hehehe.. CPU-Z was smoking a joint or something and spaced out.
lmao what the hell?
Harpertown vs. Clovertwon
Is there a significant performance difference between Harpertown and Clovertown processors? I would be looking for really smooth performance and fast rendering of After Effects when using HD footage.
BTW, are most of Mac Pro owners here graphics pros, or are some scientists/physicists/engineers? Seems like the people on this site know this stuff inside and out, so just a little curious what you do. My father in law is physicist who was going to purchase an 8-core Mac Pro for work, but the vast majority of his co-workers used PC's. Graphics and science are the only two uses I can think of for a machine this powerful. Anyway, just curious.
When did the first gen 8-core come out (the 3 GHz Harpertown)?
Is there a significant performance difference between Harpertown and Clovertown processors? I would be looking for really smooth performance and fast rendering of After Effects when using HD footage.
BTW, are most of Mac Pro owners here graphics pros, or are some scientists/physicists/engineers? Seems like the people on this site know this stuff inside and out, so just a little curious what you do. My father in law is physicist who was going to purchase an 8-core Mac Pro for work, but the vast majority of his co-workers used PC's. Graphics and science are the only two uses I can think of for a machine this powerful. Anyway, just curious.
Here shows the answers to both: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7270035/ But this is a bit extreme as to the speed differences. There won't be anywhere near this much difference when editing video - but this will give you a basic idea.
Thanks for the link. As far as I could tell from the chart, the 2007 3 GHz 8-core and the 2008 2.8 GHz Mac Pros have almost exactly the same numbers. It's early, and I'm a little rushed right now, so I may be missing something.
-Chris
Thanks for the link. As far as I could tell from the chart, the 2007 3 GHz 8-core and the 2008 2.8 GHz Mac Pros have almost exactly the same numbers. It's early, and I'm a little rushed right now, so I may be missing something.
-Chris
Sounds about right. The 3.0 and the 2.8 are pretty close to the same speed. The 3.0 will be a little faster at some things - especially processes that do not saturate all the cores at once to 100% - but yeah, generally very similar.
Also scroll down for the MP release dates.
What did the 4GB sticks cost a year ago? Any guess as to what they'll be in a year?
Edit:
I'm thinking for the 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM, if I end up just buying a new Mac Pro, rather than used.
(looks like the faster RAM is just a little more http://www.avadirect.com/product_details_parts.asp?PRID=13528)
No idea but a month ago or so they were like 1.7 times the price per gig than 2GB DIMMs. Now they're like 1.2 times or something.
Is there any reason to buy a used 2008 Quad vs. a 2006?
(Edit: this post is too off topic for this thread. I started a new thread with similar questions.)
It looks like the performance of the Quad 2.8 GHz and 3.0 Ghz quad core Mac Pros are pretty similar from 2006-2008 (the 2008 Quad is not listed, but I assume the performance difference is similar to the difference in the Harpertown and Clovertown 8-core, i.e. not much). Would there be any reason to buy a 2008 vs. a 2006?
Were the 2006 quad core MP's 4-core chips or duel 2 core? Would it matter for performance/reliability?
This would be my first Mac Pro. How much do these things wear out with time, and what kind of problems might I expect as it gets older (I'd probably have it for no more than 3 years)?
Many thanks for your time,
Chris
Thanks.
(Edit: this post is too off topic for this thread. I started a new thread with similar questions.)
It looks like the performance of the Quad 2.8 GHz and 3.0 Ghz quad core Mac Pros are pretty similar from 2006-2008 (the 2008 Quad is not listed, but I assume the performance difference is similar to the difference in the Harpertown and Clovertown 8-core, i.e. not much). Would there be any reason to buy a 2008 vs. a 2006?
Were the 2006 quad core MP's 4-core chips or duel 2 core? Would it matter for performance/reliability?
This would be my first Mac Pro. How much do these things wear out with time, and what kind of problems might I expect as it gets older (I'd probably have it for no more than 3 years)?
Many thanks for your time,
Chris
Not a graphics pro per say but do allot of HD video editing and the mac pro definately cuts down rendering time compared to my iMac. Am sure allot of mac pro owners here have some type of pro applications whether video, photography or music. Some just like owning a beast and the expandability. My 1st gen mac pro crunches data for world community grid (grid computing) and is still a beast. Don't think you will go wrong getting 1st or 2nd gen macpro.
Hey Tesselator, you have to quick blowing that funky smoke into your mac pro. 178mb dimm?
Hey Tesselator, you have to quick blowing that funky smoke into your mac pro. 178mb dimm?
NP,
Yes, the 2008 has faster busses and RAM. It's a superior machine to the 2006 models. Not to mention that the 2006 machines only even begin to compete when you drop X5300 series processors into them. The X5100 are not as capable and are only dual core. The X5300 series quad-core procs are pin-compatible and just drop right in. They're pertty cheap but I think the 2006 machines + replacement procs + additional RAM will probably end up costing the same as a 2008 for about the same CPU clock rate.
The link I posted shows the default offerings from apple and the SRP in the USA. You can still get 2008 machines but they're in heavier demand now that Apple added $2000.00 (or more in some cases) to the price-tag of every 2009 octad model.
The 2008 2.8 itself is only about $2000.00 right now if that tells you anything - and it's an octad. Just to keep it on topic you can upgrade the 2008 machines (all of them) to 64GB for certain.
Hey Tesselator, you have to quick blowing that funky smoke into your mac pro. 178mb dimm?
Mighta been the shrooms?!? Fungal DIMMs?...The link I posted shows the default offerings from apple and the SRP in the USA. You can still get 2008 machines but they're in heavier demand now that Apple added $2000.00 (or more in some cases) to the price-tag of every 2009 octad model.
Tesselator
Thanks. Couldn't find the link. Are you saying new 2008 octad's are still available new? I don't see a significant performance difference between the 2.8 2008 octad and the 2009 2.26 octad.
A new 2008 octad with 3 years Apple Care would be sweet.
There's no significant performance difference between the 2.66 octad (2009 model) and the 2008 2.8GHz. The 2.8 will be faster at some things and the 2.66 will be a tiny bit faster at others (very few! almost none!). But the 2.8 will cream the 2.26 at almost everything!
I guess you can still get new 2008 2.8 machines. As of a few weeks ago they were available from Apple as "refurbished" and also as "overstock" items. They come and go I guess. Other venders still seem to have them though. Here's three kit offerings at B&H for example:
When I look at the Cinebench10 chart you posted, the numbers for the 2009 2.26 Ocad and the 2008 2.8 Octad look about the same, both for single core and multi-core render. I'm really not very familiar with what these charts actually translate into actual use. Are the numbers deceptive of real world performance?
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7270035/
Thanks for the B&H links.
-Chris
Yeah, a couple of things are happening in that chart that if you weren't part of the original 2 or 3 threads that composed it you wouldn't otherwise know. I took the BEST scores for each MP model where multiple scores were posted (here at MR). The first 2 were quite a bit lower - well, relatively speaking. That was the very best one. So that's point one. Point two would be that the CB10 MultiCore test shows the extremely rare case where L1 ~ L3 CPU caches alone are being used for an extended period at peak limits AND all possible cores are being saturated to 100%. This won't even happen in typical 3D rendering. Only simple to moderately complex, single model, still frame renders. With the QuickPath and stuff found only on the new CPUs, this test shows them at their absolute best (which is one of the reasons I chose that test to chart). We could maybe get a little better times out of 64bit code but since all of the CPUs tested in that chart are 64-bit capable it would likely just bump ALL of the scores up a bit.
So anyway, in that rare instance the 2.23 will almost match up to the speed of the 2.8. And of course it's not rare is you commonly render 8MB worth of models and data to a single still image.
Even in that case though I bet such a user is going to spend days modeling, texturing, and lighting that scene. During those days of editing the 2.8 is going to be MORE than green-bar levels faster than the 2.26. And I say "MORE" because I assume turbo-boost was engaged during the single threaded render test. It mostly won't be while editing a 3D scenes, editing textures in PS, and etc.There's a nice little overview that remarks on how the caches operate on this page: http://techreport.com/articles.x/15818 Careful tho, this is geek land and what excites authors of that ilk may in practice have no affect or even a negative affect in practice - to average users. There's a lot of speculation and passed on manufacturer jargon in there as well.
.
Tesselator,
Thanks -- I meant to get back with you sooner.
May I ask, for 64-bit applications capable of taking advantage of 4+ cores, how does the 2008 2.8 GHz quad compare with the 2009 2.66 quad?
Yeah, there's a limit to what I can really understand when the articles/threads really get into the nuts and bolts of how these chips work. Though I'm pretty new to this stuff, I'm finding it strangely addictive.Careful tho, this is geek land and what excites authors of that ilk may in practice have no affect or even a negative affect in practice - to average users. There's a lot of speculation and passed on manufacturer jargon in there as well.