OWC is now selling 32GB RAM kits for 2010 iMacs

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Hellhammer, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #1
  2. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
  3. mwayne85 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    #3
    Yikes! That's pricy. But just the fact that it supports that amount of memory is pretty cool.
     
  4. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #4
    Basically all SSDs are expensive. Only cutting edge RAM is expensive.
     
  5. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #5
    Yeah I know.
     
  6. tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #6
  7. Emathieu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    #7
    Hmm... interesting. I always thought we were limited to 16GB as well.
     
  8. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #8
    RAM size limits in specs sheets many times only tell you with what the product what tested at the time it was written.
     
  9. tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #9
    Agreed.

    Any Sandy Bridge iMac will be able to support 32GB.

    It's one thing when Apple says Max RAM = x when they sometimes limit it (see 2008 Stock 15" MacBook Pro 6GB/8GB actual and original iMac Bondi Blue (I had 320MB in mine, when Apple said the max was 128 or 256MB.)

    Now when Intel says it will only take x amount, I'm going to take them at their word.
     
  10. Badger^2 macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #10
    Its been out for awhile now, I may have mentioned it in passing in another post.

    these chips also allow the new MBPs to go to 16 gigs -- OWC said the sold out almost immediately of the first run
     
  11. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #11
    So, you take Intel's word at whatever time it was written, instead of OWC's, who just tested again the limit by themselves?
     
  12. tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #12
    Yes, in that Intel have done a lot more tests and validation on the chipsets and CPUs that they make.

    It'd be odd for Intel to say "Hey, only Macs with our processors and chipsets can take 32GB max." You regular PC users are stuck with 16GB max.

    If this were the case, my 2009 iMac i7 should be able to take the 32GB max as well, being as it's the same chipset and essentially the same processor, just one bin down (i7-860 vs i7-870.)

    I'd be happy if it actually took 32GB.
     
  13. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #13
    Don't you know that the reason why many times RAM size limits in spec sheets are smaller than actual is because there were no bigger modules for testing at the time it was written?
     
  14. Badger^2 macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #14
    @ $100 a gig maybe not.

    Perhaps it will be able to take 32 gigs, did you email OWC and ask?
     
  15. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #15
    That the chips are essentially the same means nothing in the context of a whole system.

    My March 2009 MBP which is a 2008 Unibody with a tad faster processor could always take 8GiB of RAM while the ones released in 2008 were limited to 6GiB until they got new firmware to fix something else.
     
  16. tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #16
    <sarcasm>Yes, because when the 2009 iMac was released, 4GB modules were all the rage, cheap and plentiful. </sarcasm>
    And yet Intel still validated 16GB of RAM on the i7-8xx series.
     
  17. Hellhammer thread starter Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #17
    Intel lists 8GB as the maximum RAM for mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs but in their horribly long data sheet, they actually mention that 16GB works too. Probably the same thing with this.
     
  18. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    4GB DIMMs came out in 2009. Intel doesn't need to wait until they become available in newegg.
     
  19. Macginger macrumors member

    Macginger

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Location:
    Wiltshire, United Kingdom
    #19
    could someone maybe give a performance benefit in percentages?
    just wondering if the performance matches the cost :eek:
     
  20. tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #20
    I'm aware of that. No need to be pretentious about it.

    Given that Intel validates RAM for their chipsets quite scrupulously, I'm sure they had access to 4GB and 8GB modules quite early to test.

    Anyways, I guess it'll work then.

    Now I'm on the line with someone with OWC who is going to test this in the 2009, given that the same chipset and all that is present in the 2009 version.
     
  21. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #21
    The performance benefit is basically infinite when you have huge datasets that thrash the system.

    I would think few such power users are using an iMac instead of a Mac Pro.
     
  22. Badger^2 macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #22
    More ram wont give you more "performance".

    It will give you the ability to have more applications open at once and those wont slow down... but for simple performance, meh.

    So you can open more and larger files without having increased page outs, for example.

    And Im talking about daily use, stock 4 gigs vs 16 gigs.
     
  23. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #23
    We're in 2011. You can't assume they had 8GB samples in 2009.

    Again, it might not work in your machine because of older firmware.
     
  24. tsugaru, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011

    tsugaru macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton
    #24
    16GB hasn't been much of an improvement over 8GB for me. Let's me turn off the page file in Windows, but for the price at the moment, yeesh.

    OWC is going to run a test on the 2009 11,1 iMac later to see if the 32GB works on there. If it runs on the 11,3 it should run on the 11,1, given the same chipset and processor family!

    RAM Picture - For some reason the IMG tags aren't working
     
  25. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #25
    You wrote it backwards.
     

Share This Page