More than 8GB RAM on '09 Quads?

[absynthetic]

I apologize if this has been covered already, but I couldn't find anything while searching the forums.

As I understand it, OWC is selling RAM that would make it theoretically possible to upgrade the '09 Quads all the way up to 16GB (8GB more than their advertised max capacity).

My question is... will this work? The only reason I haven't jumped on the 2.93 Quad is because of the 8GB RAM limitation. If I could get it up to 16, then I'd feel sufficiently future-proofed. I'm gonna be using for some pretty intense music production. Like, 60 tracks at a time or so, all with plug ins on them. RAM is key!

If anyone knows, or better yet, has actually gotten their new quad to have more than 8gigs, please share!

 

[Umbongo]

There is no reason it shouldn't work. I don't think anyone has confirmed 16GB working yet though.

 

[aaquib]

There is no reason it shouldn't work. I don't think anyone has confirmed 16GB working yet though.

I doubt it'll work. Why would Apple only allow customers to purchase 8GB on the quads when they allow you to go up to 32GB RAM on the dual quads. Their profit margin is insanely high for RAM, so it doesn't make sense for Apple to just ignore quad core users.

Then again, it doesn't make sense that the prior gen quads supported 32GB and the current ones don't...

 

[Cliff3]

If anyone knows, or better yet, has actually gotten their new quad to have more than 8gigs, please share!

Since OWC isn't shipping the memory yet, no one outside of that firm is likely to know much. Have you tried emailing or calling OWC to see what they say?

 

[absynthetic]

Then again, it doesn't make sense that the prior gen quads supported 32GB and the current ones don't...

RIGHT?!?!

 

[Umbongo]

I doubt it'll work. Why would Apple only allow customers to purchase 8GB on the quads when they allow you to go up to 32GB RAM on the dual quads. Their profit margin is insanely high for RAM, so it doesn't make sense for Apple to just ignore quad core users.

Then again, it doesn't make sense that the prior gen quads supported 32GB and the current ones don't...

Because the margins are bigger on the dual processor systems and memory limitations are another way to differentiate them. That doesn't mean it is anything more than a marketing issue though.

edit: This is more likely the reason:

A 2.66GHz quad core Mac Pro with 16GB (4GBx4) @ Apple's pricing = $5,549
A 2.66GHz octo core Mac Pro with 16GB (2GBx8) @ Apple's pricing = $5,199

A 2.93GHz quad core Mac Pro with 16GB (4GBx4) @ Apple's pricing = $6,049
A 2.93GHz octo core Mac Pro with 16GB (2GBx8) @ Apple's pricing = $6,399

 

[bozz2006]

the earlier mac pros had initially only officially supported 16GB. So, you can't use the fact that apple doesn't offer a CTO option with 4GB chips as evidence that it won't work.

 

[Outsider]

Because the margins are bigger on the dual processor systems and memory limitations are another way to differentiate them. That doesn't mean it is anything more than a marketing issue though.

edit: This is more likely the reason:

A 2.66GHz quad core Mac Pro with 16GB (4GBx4) @ Apple's pricing = $5,549
A 2.66GHz octo core Mac Pro with 16GB (2GBx8) @ Apple's pricing = $5,199

A 2.93GHz quad core Mac Pro with 16GB (4GBx4) @ Apple's pricing = $6,049
A 2.93GHz octo core Mac Pro with 16GB (2GBx8) @ Apple's pricing = $6,399

So basically the quad is overpriced.

 

[nanofrog]

Because the margins are bigger on the dual processor systems and memory limitations are another way to differentiate them. That doesn't mean it is anything more than a marketing issue though.

edit: This is more likely the reason:

A 2.66GHz quad core Mac Pro with 16GB (4GBx4) @ Apple's pricing = $5,549
A 2.66GHz octo core Mac Pro with 16GB (2GBx8) @ Apple's pricing = $5,199

A 2.93GHz quad core Mac Pro with 16GB (4GBx4) @ Apple's pricing = $6,049
A 2.93GHz octo core Mac Pro with 16GB (2GBx8) @ Apple's pricing = $6,399

A logical reason indeed.

Combine it with the fact the 4GB DIMM's (Unbuffered ECC) weren't available, and you'll have a WINNER.

Keep in mind, they aren't actually shipping from OWC yet either. I guess they were in a hurry to get them listed on the site and get pre-orders before the competition hits.

 

[bluesteel]

it works

i talked to an apple engineer. he said 4GB RAM chips will work in the quadcore mac pros, but that apple does not support it. so strange. apple has become so strange.

 

[bozz2006]

that's nothing new. same story with the new macbooks and 15" macbook pro. 6GB works fine, but apple doesn't support it. same thing with older macbooks and mac mini. put in 2x2GB and it works perfectly. 3.3GB registers, but apple only supported up to 2GB.

 

[DeepCobalt]

It seems like Apple is just not supporting 4GB or greater capacity chips at this time. Dell, for example, says its Nehalem-based machines can take up to 192GB RAM. But this is using 16GB DIMMs in its 12 bays to get 12 x 16GB = 192GB.

Similarly, the octad Mac Pros can most likely support 8 x 16GB = 128GB.

 

[nanofrog]

Similarly, the octad Mac Pros can most likely support 8 x 16GB = 128GB.

It doesn't look like Apple set a limit in the firmware (under what the architecture is capable of), so it would be possible once said 16GB DIMM's surface.

 

[RebootD]

We need a new poll

Honestly I'd love to ask everyone this question:

"If the Quad Mac Pro had 6 Ram slots allowing up to 12GB (6x2GB) OR 24GB (6x4GB) and true Triple Channel would this have been the no-brainier purchase?

I vote a big fat yes. (Seriously I would have ordered it already)

 

[Ploki]

huh, dont know. it just doesnt feel right going to one CPU less... :S

it would certainly be a more competent machine that it is now, if you ask me Mac Pro Quad in a way is the "mid tower", it just needs to be smaller in size

 

[nanofrog]

huh, dont know. it just doesnt feel right going to one CPU less... :S

Greedy are we? Or just in an Octo core rut?

it would certainly be a more competent machine that it is now, if you ask me Mac Pro Quad in a way is the "mid tower", it just needs to be smaller in size

Smaller...well, possible if it didn't have any drives. Oh, wait... squeeze in a laptop HDD, and wouldn't that just be a porked out mini with easier upgrades?