Max Amount of RAM in the New Mac Pro

Sort Posts by Likes
M

macines

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 15, 2013
50
0
Hi,

first of all, I love the new design of the new pro machine,
hope you guys do too.

I want your opinions on the Max amount of ram in the new Mac Pro.

For all I now currently ddr3 ram modules max out at 8gb each.

I've seen four slots in the videos.

Does that mean max will be at 32gb?

Or is there something more expandable eg. with external stuff or something.

What do you think
 

rezwits

rezwits

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2007
635
324
Las Vegas
Umbongo said:
That should read "In addition, the DDR3 standard permits DRAM chip capacities of up to 8 Gbit." I've corrected it.

The maximum capacity for a DDR3 DIMM is 64GB.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be 16 x 1 GB DRAM CHIPs for a maximum capacity of 16GB DDR3 module? For a maximum capacity of 64GB with 4 slots? 4 x 16GB?

Just wondering...

but in the end isn't it just up to making them more dense, sticking to just DDR3?
 
Last edited:
Umbongo

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
rezwits said:
Wouldn't that be 16 x 1 GB DRAM CHIPs for a maximum capacity of 16GB DDR3 module? For a maximum capacity of 64GB with 4 slots? 4 x 16GB?

Just wondering...

but in the end isn't it just up to making them more dense, sticking to just DDR3?
Click to expand...
They have multiple ranks. There are 72x8Gb DRAM chips on a 64Gb DIMM.
 
M

macines

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 15, 2013
50
0
Umbongo said:
That should read "In addition, the DDR3 standard permits DRAM chip capacities of up to 8 Gbit." I've corrected it.

The maximum capacity for a DDR3 DIMM is 64GB.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see.

Thats great!!!

Hope they wont be that expensive though... :eek:
 
S

spoonie1972

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2012
546
47
Toronto
pastrychef said:
Mac OS X 10.8.x can only use 96GB. Mac OS X 10.9.x can use 128GB.
Click to expand...
not the quantum leap i think most people were looking for. That's a bit of a let down.

that 10.6, 10.7 - and apparently 10.8 can't use 128 in a machine that CAN support the ram was kind of... short-sighted.
 
D

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,222
1,331
spoonie1972 said:
that 10.6, 10.7 - and apparently 10.8 can't use 128 in a machine that CAN support the ram was kind of... short-sighted.
Click to expand...
More like informed about the target market. There is relatively no one above the 64GB mark. Until relatively recently 16GB modules have been prohibitively expensive for most and impossible for some . ( and that is for stretching leveraging 8 DIMM slots. Mac Pros with just 4 could not get near it.) . The majority of Mac Pros 2009-2012 sold were probably single CPU package models.

There is more than marketing reasons why Microsoft splits Windows and Windows Server. All of the memory needs to modeled in the kernel. More memory means bigger and/or modified kernel data structures. Some reason why the kernel didn't go 64 bit until the mainstream Mac standard memory configuration was up around 4GB and average deployed config was over 4GB.

The move to a 128GB cap is probably maneuvering for the arrival of DDR4 and higher densities on the next gen Mac Pro that is limited to 4 DIMMs and enabling the 8 DIMMs model to max out as transition towards retirement.
 
pastrychef

pastrychef

macrumors 601
Sep 15, 2006
4,520
1,020
New York City, NY
spoonie1972 said:
not the quantum leap i think most people were looking for. That's a bit of a let down.

that 10.6, 10.7 - and apparently 10.8 can't use 128 in a machine that CAN support the ram was kind of... short-sighted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps moving to another platform that can support infinite amounts of RAM is better suited for you and you can avoid the short sightedness of Apple so you won't be troubled.
 
S

spoonie1972

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2012
546
47
Toronto
pastrychef said:
Perhaps moving to another platform that can support infinite amounts of RAM is better suited for you and you can avoid the short sightedness of Apple so you won't be troubled.
Click to expand...
Other platforms don't run Logic Audio - and for sake of just allowing things to work well together, having my slave machine also run osx is preferred.

I guess I should be happy that 10.9 unlocks the last 32gb of the machine I own now, without needing to run another brand of OS.

I agree that the registered 16gb dimms aren't inexpensive, but at the same time, when I can keep my software templates loaded and ready to go at an instant, the capability is a huge asset.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom