Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM

I thought that this was great when I first read it. I still do, but Apple must have known from the get go that the quad mac pro could take 16 gigs of RAM. Which would force some to artificially go up to an 8 core when they otherwise would not have. Even if they charged a fortune for the extra gigs at least it would be honest.
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

I figure that this was coming eventually.
 
If you want 16gb of ram why would you even bother buying the Quad-Core Mac Pro? If you can afford 16gb of ram then you probably bought the 8-core with 32gb.
 
ditzy said:
I thought that this was great when I first read it. I still do, but Apple must have known from the get go that the quad mac pro could take 16 gigs of RAM. Which would force some to artificially go up to an 8 core when they otherwise would not have. Even if they charged a fortune for the extra gigs at least it would be honest.
Click to expand...

It seems that at this point in time, 4 GB RAM chips are ridiculously more expensive than 2 GB chips. They are so expensive, that a quad core MacPro + 4 times 4 GB RAM would be more expensive than an eight core MacPro + 8 times 2 GB RAM. Can you imagine how the whiners would be whining if they figure out that a quad core + 16 GB costs more than an octo core + 16 GB?
 
wally626 said:
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.
Click to expand...

With this reasoning, Apple should not advertise the 8-core model supporting 32GB RAM, but rather 16GB?:rolleyes:


Rated negative for false advertising.
 
Good news, but still idiotic on Apple's part to put in four slots instead of six. It's not like there's not enough room for it.
 
job said:
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.
Click to expand...

In that case, it looks like using the trays was a dumb idea if it imposed a lower ram limitation in the machine.
 
gnasher729 said:
It seems that at this point in time, 4 GB RAM chips are ridiculously more expensive than 2 GB chips. They are so expensive, that a quad core MacPro + 4 times 4 GB RAM would be more expensive than an eight core MacPro + 8 times 2 GB RAM. Can you imagine how the whiners would be whining if they figure out that a quad core + 16 GB costs more than an octo core + 16 GB?
Click to expand...

I get that they are more expensive, that just the way it is, but that is no reason for withholding that they are capable of 16 gig.
 
Price is nice too!

Holy crap the 32 GB option is only $1800 at OWC. Meanwhile, Apple sells the same thing for $6100!!! What the hell?!? That'll save me $4.3k!

I am planning a purchase as well. I was wondering if 24GB is faster than 32GB? Is the 4th RAM slot on the Mac Pro buffered or registered, hence slower? And if so how much?
 
mozumder said:
I am planning a purchase as well. I was wondering if 24GB is faster than 32GB? Is the 4th RAM slot on the Mac Pro buffered or registered, hence slower? And if so how much?
Click to expand...

The chipset does triple or double channel, so 3 slots filled = triple channel or 4 slots filled = double channel. I think it was 33 vs 25 on the speed. I need a new machine (after 5 years) and will probably do the fill 3 slots on the octo machine.
 
stxdla20 said:
If you want 16gb of ram why would you even bother buying the Quad-Core Mac Pro? If you can afford 16gb of ram then you probably bought the 8-core with 32gb.
Click to expand...

RAM prices do trend dramatically downwards over time. I've upgraded all my Macs with more RAM incrementally over the life of the machines, and the more RAM capacity, the better. I bought the low-end, quad core 2.8GHz Mac Pro and started out with 6GB, then upgraded to 10GB, and there's plenty more room where that came from if I need it.

Even with unofficial support for 16GB of RAM, the new quad Mac Pro just doesn't have enough memory capacity for a machine that should be useful for 4-5 years. That they didn't put six RAM slots on each processor board is also quite vexing. 6x4GB for 24GB of RAM would be more acceptable.

I have to say IMHO the new low-end Mac Pro is perhaps the most disappointing single Mac model Apple has rolled out since switching to Intel.
 
gnasher729 said:
It seems that at this point in time, 4 GB RAM chips are ridiculously more expensive than 2 GB chips. They are so expensive, that a quad core MacPro + 4 times 4 GB RAM would be more expensive than an eight core MacPro + 8 times 2 GB RAM. Can you imagine how the whiners would be whining if they figure out that a quad core + 16 GB costs more than an octo core + 16 GB?
Click to expand...

With Apple's pricing this is correct. With actual market prices it isn't the case.

The 8GB limit is probably just to upsell buyers to 8 core systems and so that they can still make a big profit on a high end memory option (the other options are of similar current market prices).
 
LeoFio said:
With this reasoning, Apple should not advertise the 8-core model supporting 32GB RAM, but rather 16GB?:rolleyes:


Rated negative for false advertising.
Click to expand...

No. You didn't think this through at all.

4 Core + 8 GB = reasonably priced.
8 Core + 16 GB = reasonably priced.
4 Core + 16 GB = very expensive, anyone other than a complete moron would buy 8 Core + 16 GB instead because it is cheaper and better.
8 Core + 32 GB = very expensive, but if you need 32 GB, you don't have a choice.
 
Lesser Evets said:
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.
Click to expand...


Mac Pro has been out since 2006........how have you had a "Mac Pro" for 5 years?
:confused:
 
timish said:
LOL I've had 16GB RAM in my Mac Pro for the past 2.5 years. :D
Click to expand...

And I'm sure it was way cheaper to do in your machine since you had eight slots to work with instead of just four. Same goes for the G5 machines, the new quad is even a step back from those in that respect.

Really, would it have killed Apple to put even SIX ram slots on the quad? So dumb.
 
milo said:
And I'm sure it was way cheaper to do in your machine since you had eight slots to work with instead of just four. Same goes for the G5 machines, the new quad is even a step back from those in that respect.

Really, would it have killed Apple to put even SIX ram slots on the quad? So dumb.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is true, I do have the 8 ram slots.

I paid $800 for my (8) 2GB chips but that's off topic.

Agreed on the step back. Kinda stupid to limit the expansion on the machine.

Might as well make it a "Mac Pro Performa"

LOL
 
16Gb is half a world better than 8 Gb, but it's not enough. It's still a downgrade from the 32 Gb of previous generation.

On the bright side though, this may mean that the bottle-neck that makes "low-end" Pro-owners get a new computer in the future will be the single processor construction, not the RAM maxing out after just 3 years. If new graphic cards are made available it might last almost 5 years. Unlike the previous gen that will almost certainly be usable for 6-7 years after first release.

My guess is that the stock previous gen will still be in use after the last "new" single-processor Pro's reach the recycling station.
 
Silencio said:
I have to say IMHO the new low-end Mac Pro is perhaps the most disappointing single Mac model Apple has rolled out since switching to Intel.
Click to expand...

You're being to modest. IMHO It's Apple's take on Nintendo's "Virtual Boy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back