Do anyone know if the RAM on the 27inch is upgradeable to DDR4 -- something the SkyLake processors are supposed to be able to handle.
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.
New 27-Inch iMac Supports Up to 64GB of RAM, OWC Offering Upgrade Kits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not without Apple changing the mobo, and the sad thing is that 16GB DDR4 SO-DIMMs would probably be cheaper once widely available.
This does seem crazy expensive. Would four of these Crucials not work?
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/16gb...m_medium=cpc&gclid=COXIw6-V0MgCFQsCwwodUJEE5w
I'm using my nMP since January 20014 and I didn't have a single system hang so far. With any of the OS's that came since then. Wish I could say the same for my old 2008 Mac Pro. It used to hang quite frequently due to GPU getting hot.
That is 2x8GB, not the single 16GB sticks you need. Correct product is https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct204864bf160b
64GB Kits (4 x 16GB sticks) for the 2015 iMac 27" from PACCOM are available at only US$729 on Amazon now.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=me=A9FV3DH73W9DT&field-keywords=paccom
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=me=A9FV3DH73W9DT&field-keywords=paccom
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
go to Intel webpage and search for i5-6600k or i7-6700k. You will find they support 1867 or 2133 only in DDR4 (which the iMac does not support), but in DDR3 max 1600. Well, Apple says the iMac could take 1867 on DDR3, but what is the actual performance increase when using 1866 versus 1600 memory? The answer can be found by searching on Youtube or Google for "1600 vs 1866". You will find many videos and articles that confirm there is no soeed difference at all. So why pay extra money for 1867 memory?
4x16GB (64GB Total)1866MHZ DDR3 SODIM at amazon ( 891 $ ) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...rue&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_6&smid=AHJ6HS5PQ4QLI
I suggest everyone not hurry on 64GB on board, to wait few weeks until mainstream brands releses 16GB SO-DIMM @1866
I suggest everyone not hurry on 64GB on board, to wait few weeks until mainstream brands releses 16GB SO-DIMM @1866
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Why pay $170 more for a 64GB kit (compared to the Paccom 64GB kit on Amazon) that brings you no performance gain, but only "looks nicer" because it shows a 1866 speed?
I know most people think 1866 is faster than 1600, but google around and you will find lots of Youtube videos comparing 1333 vs 1600 vs 1866 up to as high as 2400 with no increase in system performance. Linustechtipps also recommends to better save the money.
well, it's time that a known magazine makes a true performance comparison on an iMac with memories of different speeds. On Windows PCs it has been done many times, always with the same result of "no difference"
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I've no interest either on Pacon or other brands, Mi personal advice to iMac buyers is to wait at least few weeks prior to order 64GB kits, when mainstream brands will launch their 16GB SODIMM.
IMHO after spending about 3500$ (or upto 4000 if configured full), 170$ saving on an DDR3 kit slower than the Apple supplied part, lacks much sense. if you want to save few bucks on an new iMac retina, then just buy previous year model, whatsoever speed gains are minimal with this generation.
Crucial's kits has already been up for a while now, but Mushkin has just launched a 1866 kit for only a few dollars more: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226769