Because you may buy the 8GB now, with the intention of upgrading later when the RAM gets cheaper.
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.
Quad-Core Nehalem Mac Pros Support 16GB RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because you may buy the 8GB now, with the intention of upgrading later when the RAM gets cheaper.
Exactly
why are people having a cry about it?? its not the ACTUAL limit on the RAM, its just the current limit because bigger (8gb) RAM modules aren't available yet (and if they were they would cost SO much)
why are people having a cry about it?? its not the ACTUAL limit on the RAM, its just the current limit because bigger (8gb) RAM modules aren't available yet (and if they were they would cost SO much)
I thought the whole point of the MP is that it's supposed to be a HIGH end machine - now you're saying for $2499 you get "low end"?
At that price its certainly not aimed at consumers, why even bother putting out a machine that fails to really make any segment of the market?
This is exactly what is wrong with the new MP lineup - before you could get an 8 core, up to 32 gig of ram, truly "pro" machine for $2799. Now they've dropped the price a little (but not low enough to be practical) but made it pretty questionable for high end users.
And watch it with the name calling, no reason for that here and just makes it hard to take your comments seriously.
At that price its certainly not aimed at consumers, why even bother putting out a machine that fails to really make any segment of the market?
This is exactly what is wrong with the new MP lineup - before you could get an 8 core, up to 32 gig of ram, truly "pro" machine for $2799. Now they've dropped the price a little (but not low enough to be practical) but made it pretty questionable for high end users.
And watch it with the name calling, no reason for that here and just makes it hard to take your comments seriously.
If you use 4 Gig modules, they all have to be 4 Gig. Apple nowhere stated that you couldn't put more then 8 Gig in a quad. Apple only stated that they support up to 8 Gig in the quads and this was only because they didn't want to run into problems with people using different sized RAM modules if they are using a 4 Gig module.
Four slots instead of six was the biggest design flaw in the 2009 Mac Pros but they didn't have the room unless they changed the dimensions of the enclosure.
I myself, believe that they should have changed the enclosure dimensions and put six slots in.
The octo just has the additional daughter board with the additional 4 RAM slots. The quad is just one.
Memory
1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
8-core: Eight memory slots (four per processor) supporting up to 32GB of main memory using 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB DIMMs
Quad-core: Four memory slots supporting up to 8GB of main memory using 1GB or 2GB DIMMs
And "they didn't want to run into problems with people using different sized RAM modules"? That doesn't even make sense, and the same potential issues have been there for years over various models. If that was the real reason, then why do they support up to 32 on the 8 core?
I'm not sure why apple only says 8 gigs, but that is simply wrong, and they should correct their specs.
Reading this post on an early 2008 MacBook Pro with 6GB of OWC RAM. According to Apple (and Crucial.com) this model's max is 4GB.
But Apple NEVER lies.
They had the room for eight slots on the eight core machine, that's not a bigger case. And let's not forget that this same case has been around for years - it's not like ram cards are suddenly way bigger or something, apple just has a gap on the quad where the other four slots would be.
Apple could have put eight on the quad if they really wanted to.
I don't know if I'd call the ones in the past lying, usually Apple lists the max using the biggest available chips that are shipping and often the number goes up later as higher capacities become available (and Apple doesn't seem to go back and update their specs later, probably some legal issue). This case is odd that they list the 4G chips for the 8 core but not with the quad, when they work fine with either.
First of all, I'm not "having a cry about it". Second of all, just because a higher capacity chip exists for a given pin pattern/memory type doesn't mean a computer can take it. My Macbook Pro has 2 DIMM slots. 4GB modules exist. However I can only officially use 2GB modules, and unofficially one 4GB one 2GB. My Dell will only take 1GB DIMMs even though 2GB DIMMs exist.
lol i am aware of how chips work and their limitations. do you seriously think that the newer model will take LESS capacity chips then the previous model?? this is a professional machine, the motherboard is 64-bit. the limitations of the new MP is pretty much endless.
Keep in mind this is Apple. After the unibody MB first came out they incorrectly listed the 2GHz model as having a backlit keyboard and the manual to this day is still wrong in saying it requires 200-pin DDR3 RAM which doesn't exist. They don't update their pages that often. So anything that happens after the day it is released it isn't revisited until a new model comes around.
im sure thats not the case. one of the biggest companies in the world isnt going to write something up once and never check it again.
When it involves them losing money and having returns for false advertising they will fix it (the backlight issue). When it involves a blatant error involving the spec of the RAM, they haven't changed it yet so who knows. Taking a look at the system requirements for apps like FCP I know they are going to update it soon but that's only because the app itself will be updated. The specs of the requirements are out of date. Another issue is BTO pricing. They often don't lower the prices unless there is a significant drop in price or come out with new models. So now we will be stuck with the BTO 4GB pricing of DDR3 RAM on the notebooks for a while to come despite the fact that the options in the marketplace for upgrading from the third party has been cut in half from October to January. (Obviously most people don't use BTO for multiple reasons). I know they are just trying to make money and I don't fault them for that but many of the pages tend to stay static as new information is researched, new hardware is released, and new technology evolves. The consumer and third-parties do the research and testing rather than Apple.
I love all the moaning here from people who don't have a Mac Pro, its great.
I have one coming, and although it is a bit on the expensive side, im sure it will run as a dream.
I have one coming, and although it is a bit on the expensive side, im sure it will run as a dream.
In the interest of them getting you to upgrade to a higher model? Yeah, I do. Tell me; why can't I put two 4gb chips in my 15" mbp, when they exist, and they can be used with the 17"?
The Thinkpad R series has supported 8gb of ram since August.....a friggin' $1000 laptop, whereas my $2000 laptop does not.
while 8GB isn't support by your laptop (because of both a hardware AND software limitation) you can put 6GB in and have it working properly.
the new unibodies both support 8gb (correct me if im wrong).
the Thinkpad R must use a motherboard that supports 8gb (or possibly more) of RAM. good for them.
The new unibodies do not all support 8GB of RAM, only the 2.66Ghz and 2.93Ghz.
https://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/2...ts-for-2-93-ghz-and-2-66-ghz-15-macbook-pros/
Fully aware mine supports 6GB.
Yes, the Thinkpad R uses a motherboard supporting 8GB, which supports what I said, that just because a DIMM goes to 4GB doesn't mean the motherboard will support it. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough before.
Just because there may someday be an 8GB DIMM doesn't mean the Quad MP will support it.
aahh, wasnt aware of that. mybad! thanks for the into.
yes i know that just because they make it doesnt mean it can take it, my previous post backed up my knowledge on the subject.
thats very nice and all, but THIS IS THE MP we are talking about. the hardware limitations on it will not effect this 16gb limit vs 32gb limit or even maybe vs the 64gb limit. time will tell, once we see bigger DIMMs that is.
I guess I must have misread your post then or something.
Honestly, only time will tell whether the quad will support more than 16GB, but if it does, then all the better.
I guess I must have misread your post then or something.
yup i guess this topic will become valid again in about 6 months when the RAM DIMMs become available in those sizes haha! they will be VERY expensive though
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.
*attempts to source previous generation 8 Core Pros*
Wow.. ISO more crying
If you are not doing pro video, what's the big deal with RAM?
From PC Magazine
The Mac Pro finished the Photoshop CS4 test in 1:50 under Mac OS X but took only 1:17 to finish the same tasks under Windows. The performance difference is due to the fact that the Mac version of CS4 can directly address only 3.5GB of the system's memory, while the Windows 64-bit version can access the full 6GB of memory. This can add up to a significant performance benefit.
We are discussing 8vs16vs32 GB RAM, but photoshop can only address 3.5 GB?
On the original release thread someone was discussing the need for more memory when working with multiple RAW images in photoshop. You may want or need more memory, but can't use it.
From PC Magazine
The Mac Pro finished the Photoshop CS4 test in 1:50 under Mac OS X but took only 1:17 to finish the same tasks under Windows. The performance difference is due to the fact that the Mac version of CS4 can directly address only 3.5GB of the system's memory, while the Windows 64-bit version can access the full 6GB of memory. This can add up to a significant performance benefit.
We are discussing 8vs16vs32 GB RAM, but photoshop can only address 3.5 GB?
On the original release thread someone was discussing the need for more memory when working with multiple RAW images in photoshop. You may want or need more memory, but can't use it.
there are ways to get around the limits, so that factor CAN be eliminated if people wish.