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.
Mac Pro QuadCore 2008 Max = 32GB RAM Now 2009 Max = 8GB!
- Thread starter tjpeople
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah, I don't get it either. I understand why only 4 slots (integrated memory controller) by why wouldn't it be 16 gig? 
Yeah, good point. Guess we'll have to wait and see until they get out into the wild....
I'm slightly gutted. Processor speed isnt really an issue for me - I am more bothered with memory capacity, ideally wanting 12-16gb. I'd happily go for the quad core if the damn thing wasnt restricted to a max of 8gb. Whats gutting is I had managed to clear a budget of £2k per machine for 2 mac pro's which would have allowed me the old dual quad core, 12gb ram and a couple of TB of hdds. No way the budget can cover £2.5k per machine
MAX that Baby out with 8Gb of RAM!!!!!
Thats some impressive amounts of memory
I thought G5's could have more than 8gb.
If it is true, 8gb/4 ram slots is really pathetic for a pro machine.
TBH I think they were doing us a favour. Intel has ramped up the price on these chips so much I think Apple did it just to have a reasonably priced pro workstation.
It would probably be $2799 baseline otherwise, and everyone would complain.
It would probably be $2799 baseline otherwise, and everyone would complain.
Its for real, its on apples site. The only thing left to find out is if it will handle more than 8GB, but this will of course be an unsupported hack.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html
I'm also confused about the claim that the new ram works better in triples rather than pairs, hence the 3 and 6 gb memory offerings. Why bother with the 4th ram slot then?
You didn't read my original post OR the link http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html
8core = max 32, 4core max=8. Its very clear.
Because Apple couldn't be bothered to upgrade the case design.
They should have gone with 6 slots per CPU and 12 total for a max of either 24 or 48GB.
No, they stuck with their old 4 slots per CPU. Because with 6 they would have had to make the case wider probably.
I think this 'upgrade' is a stop-gap one. Clearly.
I've actually read both, but you're right in a way, I've somehow managed to skip "quadcore" part of the complaint. By the way I really don't see why it wouldn't be 16GB at least.
Why do people need more than 6Gb on a Quad core anyway?
If you're a video editor you should have bought a 8core machine if you are doing audio, quad core will do fine.
Pro apps can only use 4GB each at the moment and you get full ram speed out of populating 3 slots ie 6GB ram and 12Gb on a 8 core
The older mac pro ran at full speed when all slots were filled that's why i bought 16 GB of RAM, not that it's always needed but the speed throughput is there and that's enough for me.
But like a previous comment suggested thatey should have made the boards with 6 slots each 12 slots on the 8 core
I mainly pissed about the speed of the ram (1066mz) bloddy hell i hope you can put some 3rd part ram in there to run at 1600mhz
If you're a video editor you should have bought a 8core machine if you are doing audio, quad core will do fine.
Pro apps can only use 4GB each at the moment and you get full ram speed out of populating 3 slots ie 6GB ram and 12Gb on a 8 core
The older mac pro ran at full speed when all slots were filled that's why i bought 16 GB of RAM, not that it's always needed but the speed throughput is there and that's enough for me.
But like a previous comment suggested thatey should have made the boards with 6 slots each 12 slots on the 8 core
I mainly pissed about the speed of the ram (1066mz) bloddy hell i hope you can put some 3rd part ram in there to run at 1600mhz
The RAM killed the deal for me too, I am looking at getting a EOL 2008 Dual-Quad Core Mac Pro now.