In a 6-core Mac Pro, why does apple advertise 16GB Max when 32GB will work?

[bluesteel]

I was wondering why, in a 6-core Mac Pro, apple advertises a 16GB (4 x 4GB) Max when 32GB (4 x 8GB) has been confirmed to work? I don't get it.

Is there any kind of a performance hit if one were to go against Apple's recommendations and use 8GB chips in a 6-core?

 

[Vylen]

The maximum of 16GB is because Apple only sells 4GB sticks... and 4GB is the maximum capacity of RAM sticks that fit the Mac Pro specification - anything larger is buffered RAM as opposed to unbuffered.

Apple can't say a maximum of 32GB and not sell the appropriate RAM to do it.

 

[ovrlrd]

A couple reasons.

Apple probably does not want to stock up on the expensive 8GB modules because they would have to charge customers way too much for them (they already cost way too much as it is).

Also Apple probably does not see as big of a market for it with the single processor configs. They want to encourage high end customers to buy the dual processor configs which offer more memory slots anyway.

In the end it is all about money.

 

[bluesteel]

understood, makes sense.

 

[Umbongo]

A couple reasons.

Apple probably does not want to stock up on the expensive 8GB modules because they would have to charge customers way too much for them (they already cost way too much as it is).

I doubt that has anything to do with it. They have charged ludicrous amounts in the past for memory. They wanted $6,000 for 32GB in 09.

Also Apple probably does not see as big of a market for it with the single processor configs. They want to encourage high end customers to buy the dual processor configs which offer more memory slots anyway.

In the end it is all about money.

Apple couldn't offer it on single processor configurations because Intel don't support registered memory on them.