MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,127
15,933
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png

Other World Computing has begun selling 4GB SDRAM memory modules for the Quad-Core Nehlaem Mac Pros that were introduced in March. A reader emailed OWC and confirmed that 4GB modules had been successfully tested on the Quad-Core Mac Pros.

According to Apple's official specs, the Quad-Core Mac Pros only support up to 2GB modules in its 4 memory slots resulting in a maximum installed memory of only 8GB. This finding by OWC means the maximum installed memory in these new machines is at least 16GB. While the cost of 4GB modules is somewhat prohibitive at the moment, this should ensure future expandability as the price of memory drops.

In contrast, Apple's 8-Core models carry 8 memory slots total and can officially support 4GB modules bringing their maximum installed memory capacity to 32GB. The advertised 8GB max vs 32GB max RAM discrepancy between the Quad and 8-Core machines has been a major issue for some customers. Apple has been known to under-advertise the maximum ram capacities for their machines in the past.

Article Link: Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM
 

bigandy

macrumors G3
Apr 30, 2004
8,852
0
Murka
I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*
 
Comment

DELLsFan

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2009
826
0
All other things equal in the world, I think it'll take about a year or two for prices on those 4GB sticks to fall down to earth. Even then, I still wouldn't buy them from Apple if they offered them. :eek:

Apple has only recently begun to lower their ram prices. Consumers like me want to see this trend continue and stabilize at some value on par with third party resell pricing consistently for like a year or two. THEN maybe I'll buy Apple ram. Unless I'm getting a mini, it's third party vendor for me for now. Apple's pricing history on the ram they sell is still an outrageous blemish on their credibility. It'll take time to earn back this trust, IMO.

:apple:
 
Comment

job

macrumors 68040
Jan 25, 2002
3,794
3
in transit
I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

Uh, how would you have gotten more than 16GB in the new Quad anyways??

AFAIK no one makes 8GB or larger DIMMs - so with the 4 available slots in the new quad-cores, it makes sense that the limit would be 16GB.

Or am I missing something here?
 
Comment

star-affinity

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2007
1,497
739
”This finding by OWC means the maximum installed memory in these new machines is at least 16GB.”

Just what I thought all along... :)
 
Comment

Cleve

macrumors regular
Jun 7, 2007
195
0
Meh

So Apple now supports half the RAM in its Mac Pro than its Predecessor did instead of a quarter. Nice!
 
Comment

RedTomato

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2005
4,086
377
.. London ..
Last week something happened I thought wouldn't happen for a while.

My computer with a massive (to me) 4GB RAM started seriously lagging and swapping while I was doing some mild work (NOT play).

The cause? I was simulating an office network that I will take over running in the next few months (new job).

Running Windows Server 2008 in VMWare Fusion, with 2GB, and an XP client in another virtual machine, with 1GB, left only 1GB for my macbook.

These were the minimum I could reasonably give each of the 3 OSes. I'm gonna have to face that 4GB isn't enough for me. :eek:
 
Comment

wally626

macrumors newbie
Apr 2, 2005
4
0
If you want 16 GB of RAM now or in the relatively near future it would be cheaper to buy the Octo-core mac and use 8 2GB sticks. there is no reason for Apple to advertise 16 GB in the quad-core until RAM prices drop enough to justify it.
 
Comment

haravikk

macrumors 65816
May 1, 2005
1,495
21
These were the minimum I could reasonably give each of the 3 OSes. I'm gonna have to face that 4GB isn't enough for me. :eek:
I'm glad I had the extra money to burn when I got my Mac Pro last year and went for an extra 8gb (two 4gb chips), as the 10gb total really means I rarely have swapping issues :)
 
Comment

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
25,611
889
Harrogate
I think we might have to reconsider the Mac Pro order we were planning on putting in tomorrow. Some of our VFX guys won't be happy with the prospect of not being able to go beyond 16Gb. I can't believe they've gone so backward on these machines. 32Gb RAM can be useful in some industries. :rolleyes:


*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*

You were getting the single CPU/4 Core machines not the dual CPU/8 core ones?
 
Comment

Lesser Evets

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2006
3,519
1,282
I wonder why the step down?

My older version can handle 32 GB. And within 5 years it will be maxed out, certainly. All my past Mac Pros start out with SO MUCH MEMORY I'll never need, and about 5 years later they look like tinker toys and are too limited in terms of memory.
 
Comment

Full of Win

macrumors 68030
Nov 22, 2007
2,615
1
Ask Apple
Is this from the CPU / Intel or is it more of Apple BS of making you get buy a higher level product to get the small features you want (e.g. Firewire in MBP's)
 
Comment

job

macrumors 68040
Jan 25, 2002
3,794
3
in transit
I wonder why the step down?

The quad-cores only have 4 available slots because that's all that's there on the single processor card. The octocores have 8 slots because of the two processor cards/trays/whatever you want to call them.
 
Comment

Bubba Satori

Suspended
Feb 15, 2008
4,726
3,756
B'ham
vaseline.jpg
 
Comment

steveza

macrumors 68000
Feb 20, 2008
1,520
15
UK
Is this from the CPU / Intel or is it more of Apple BS of making you get buy a higher level product to get the small features you want (e.g. Firewire in MBP's)
It would be a limitation of the motherboard. My X58 chipset board from Asus supports 24GB RAM.
 
Comment

Michael73

macrumors 65816
Feb 27, 2007
1,081
41
Uh, how would you have gotten more than 16GB in the new Quad anyways??

AFAIK no one makes 8GB or larger DIMMs - so with the 4 available slots in the new quad-cores, it makes sense that the limit would be 16GB.

Or am I missing something here?

Not sure they fit into the *new* MP, but awhile ago I started this thread.

In fact, just look here for 8GB DIMMs. Crazy expensive, I know!
 
Comment

Hattig

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2003
1,454
88
London, UK
The new Nehalem CPUs have three channels of DDR3 memory each. So why are there four slots - one channel will have two DIMMs and the others one. Other boards will have 6 slots per CPU. Still, I guess Apple got the CPUs early from Intel...
 
Comment

seedster2

macrumors 6502a
Sep 16, 2007
686
0
NYC
there is no reason for Apple to advertise 16 GB in the quad-core until RAM prices drop enough to justify it.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Trying to defend the indefensible. Apple charges a lot for ram and certain upgrades to MacPros as is. Since when is ram costs a barrier?

Have you seen what they charge for physical RAID cards, SSD Hard Drives, etc.?

Seems like they were artificially forcing customers to go for the 8 core by publishing misleading limitations.
 
Comment

iJaz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 16, 2004
540
0
I can understand that they would under-advertise the RAM capacity in the consumer products, (like my soon 3 years old MacBook, happily humming along with 4GB) so the Pros get the Pro products. But under-advertising max RAM in the Pro products just seems stupid.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.