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

Upgrading an iMac Pro to 256GB of RAM Only Possible at Time of Purchase [Updated]

jgdeschamps said:
You do have the power. If you really want them to change, don't buy their extremely expensive hardware. Get a Windows or Linux machine and stop giving them your money. Do not trick yourself into thinking you need a Mac to work. You don't. They need us as consumers, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Actually, many, many, many professionals require software that’s only available on macOS to get their work done. The “if you want a modular system then get a PC” argument is sooo cliche, and very unhelpful. Apple really just needs to make stuff that pros actually want to buy. They’d make everyone happy AND they’d make more money. Win-win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux, Victor Mortimer, phr0z3n and 2 others
NightFox said:
I've never seen a research lab etc running Macs - all the ones I've seen seem to run PCs either with Windows or dedicated bespoke non-OS setups. Just can't see a lab going for Macs, why would they? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
I can’t see them now with the current line of Macs but a few years ago I could. OSX was based on NeXT’s operating system which was intended for workstations. There used to be a website years ago for using Macs in research but it is now defunct.
 
mikethemartian said:
I can’t see them now with the current line of Macs but a few years ago I could. OSX was based on NeXT’s operating system which was intended for workstations. There used to be a website years ago for using Macs in research but it is now defunct.
Click to expand...
Yep. E.g. the web was invented at CERN on a NeXT computer https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web/short-history-web, so obviously those machines were used at top research institutions.

A shame that the modern-day Apple mostly seems to care about kids instagramming as the major "computer use".
 
Very curious why this is.

Is the 256gb model shipping with a different chipset/motherboard than the others? In thoery, if they're the same chipset accross the board, than it shouldn't matter when the memory is installed.

unless Apple is artificially via software limiting 3rd party RAM installation. which would be... highly questionable.
 
Kobayagi said:
Price for the maxed out one, damn....

View attachment 829061
Click to expand...

Amateurs
Capture.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Somian and peter2
PinkyMacGodess said:
Should Apple retire the 'Pro' name. It's obvious they can't deliver. Sad, really... And I cling to my Macpro4,1 hoping it lasts a few more years.
Click to expand...

I agree, Apple should remove the PRO name from all the computers.
All the PRO line up is pathetic

Mac PRO 6 years and counting.
MAcbook Pro 2016+ a complete design failure, from a failed keyboard to creating disposable non-upgradable computers.
iMac Pro another pathetic design. External design, is the same as the 10 year old iMac, heating problems and quite expensive for a Non-upgradble computer.

Futhermore, Apple is ripping off customers by forcing them to pay overpriced RAM and SSD Apple pricing.

Maybe Apple should change the Pro for Luxury, since products are way overpriced and have not much of a "PRO" machine.
 
RAM does not speed your computer up. It prevents it from slowing down, in some cases.


wtzouris said:
I'd like to see a benchmark test with actual software like Compressor showing the difference between an iMac with 64GB/128GB of RAM vs. 256 GB of RAM and then show me TWO iMacs with 64GB of RAM networked together doing the same Compressor process across all those cores. It's insane to think about spending double the cost of the computer for RAM. Why not get an iMac with 64 TB of SSD hard drive storage? Dumb. Show me the logical reason why this would be useful to any user, consumer or professional.
Click to expand...
 
aaronhead14 said:
Actually, many, many, many professionals require software that’s only available on macOS to get their work done. The “if you want a modular system then get a PC” argument is sooo cliche, and very unhelpful. Apple really just needs to make stuff that pros actually want to buy. They’d make everyone happy AND they’d make more money. Win-win.
Click to expand...

I was just assuring you that you do have options. But now you sound like a beaten wife. That's why Apple will not change. You are not willing to do so. Bye!
 
When you're at a point where 256GB RAM is actuallly useful to you in your daily work, I don't think you should be looking at a Mac...
 
jarred125 said:
You're right, I am not running anything with this because I don't own a mac. However I can point you to hospitals and researchers that do indeed use OS X for research and data modeling where this could be useful.

I am not a fan of the mac lineup but you're just acting like a child about this. I guess you don't feel that Linux and/or BSD are useful for "server" things either.
Click to expand...

Nobody is buying a Mac at that price to do anything of the sort at a hospital. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmore, Greymacuser, Gogeta-Blue and 1 other person
bladerunner2000 said:
Nobody is buying a Mac at that price to do anything of the sort at a hospital. LOL
Click to expand...

You're right, I didn't see countless purchases like this as well as systems like the HP Z8 G4 maxed out. Never ever saw that in the research wing of the hospital I worked for. Except I saw that on a regular basis.

I think you underestimate (or are just trolling, likely that) how much money hospitals throw around for doctors and research departments. I've stepped foot in many rooms that had in excess of 50M in mass spec machines alone, $20K in a computer for areas like this is nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: realtuner
wtzouris said:
I'd like to see a benchmark test with actual software like Compressor showing the difference between an iMac with 64GB/128GB of RAM vs. 256 GB of RAM and then show me TWO iMacs with 64GB of RAM networked together doing the same Compressor process across all those cores. It's insane to think about spending double the cost of the computer for RAM. Why not get an iMac with 64 TB of SSD hard drive storage? Dumb. Show me the logical reason why this would be useful to any user, consumer or professional.
Click to expand...

There are a few examples why 256GB RAM is useful:

1)iMac jumps from 128GB to 256GB so there is nothing in between. There are a TON of apps that can easily use close to 128GB of memory including video editing tools and large photography work. Since these apps' memory consumption can near the 128GB limit, the only choice for iMac users is to jump to 256GB to be safe.

2)In-Memory databases would eat 256GB for breakfast. I am a heavy PC user and there are numerous database applications that would, similar to #1, quickly gobble up 64GB or 128GB of memory as the calculations are performed.

3)Virtual Machine technology where you want to assign each VM 32GB or 64GB of memory. So if you want your iMac to run 2-3 VMs simultaneously PLUS let the Mac OS itself run smoothly, yes, 256GB is necessary.

I agree that 256GB on an iMac is only for a niche crowd, but 128GB can easily be consumed with some pretty common business applications. Paying this price for RAM, yes, is insane. But if you drink the Apple koolaid then you have no choice.
 
I also have to laugh that people here think 256GB RAM is "a lot" now days.

I sit next to two R620 servers in my home office that are part of my vmware lab, one has 256GB and the other 96GB. While DDR4 is much more expensive it still isn't a boat load of cash if you're doing work that requires it.
 
potatis said:
64GB ought to be enough for anybody.
Click to expand...

just remember at one time Bill Gates said there was no reason why someone would need more than 64kb of ram.

I remember in 2003-2004 when I built my college desktop that then 2-3 gigs of ram was over kill. 1 gig was the sweet spot.
Now 32 GB of ram is what I would call my min ram on a machine. Depending on what you do ram can be a pretty valuable resource. I have seen my wife max out her work machine that had over 64gig of ram on it and cause it to crash because out of memory.
There are a lot of things out there in the professional world that just love to eat up memory. For my wife it was some engineering simulation software on a huge project. On a top of the line machine it a run of the models would be run over night some of them taking 12+ hour runs. It eats up ram.
 
EdT said:
I don't remember the name of the arcade game from the early 80's that every time you did something really stupid and died it would say "Bad Move Space Cadet". That concept probably does apply here. I'd ask what were they thinking but I don't think that they actually were thinking.

//Since it was trying to sound futuristic and computerish it was "BAD mOVE SPACE KAAA DET". The future ain't what it used to be.
Click to expand...


http://samples.mameworld.info
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EdT
jarred125 said:
I also have to laugh that people here think 256GB RAM is "a lot" now days.

I sit next to two R620 servers in my home office that are part of my vmware lab, one has 256GB and the other 96GB. While DDR4 is much more expensive it still isn't a boat load of cash if you're doing work that requires it.
Click to expand...

Most people don’t sit next to two computers, let alone servers.
 
What about buying a new imac pro with less than 256 and then upgrading?
The article mentions if you already have an imac pro only.
 
bladerunner2000 said:
Nobody is buying a Mac at that price to do anything of the sort at a hospital. LOL
Click to expand...

Disagree (sort of). We have a few $100k computers at my hospital. Targeted radiation therapy, and 3D models are big reasons. We can make a life size 3D model of a specific patient and combine it with our MRI data. We can then stick a virtual slide into the virtual patient and pull their MRI history at that specific point.

And no, we don’t use Macs because they don’t have the software for it. But we use Macs to access and review the data. We’d consider upgrading to a Mac, when the time comes, if it were an option.
 
peter2 said:
Try diagonalising a 2^N by 2^N matrix with a sufficient precision (e.g. to find the energy spectrum of a [sufficiently badly behaving] quantum physical system of N spin-1/2 particles). With 128GB of RAM you can go up to, say, 16 particles before you run out of memory while doing the computation. With 256GB you can go up to 17 particles.
Click to expand...
And it's that 17th particle that holds the secrets of the universe... ;)

...kidding because I'm jealous...
mikethemartian said:
I can’t see them now with the current line of Macs but a few years ago I could. OSX was based on NeXT’s operating system which was intended for workstations. There used to be a website years ago for using Macs in research but it is now defunct.
Click to expand...
This site?
http://hpc.sourceforge.net

I think it's defunct in part because most of these tools are better supported on Mac now, or can be installed easily through Homebrew, etc. This site was really useful when everything had to be hacked from Linux to work.
 
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