Seems Apple regressed this iMac from 2012 and newer as the 2011 was the last version to support 32GB in the 21.5" iMac model. No, 27" is not an option as it's too big and wobbly.
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.
When will the 21.5" iMac support 32GB of RAM again?
- Thread starter dogslobber
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple never officialy supported 32gb, the maximum they support is 4 4gb modules, but as owc and others found out, 4 8gb works fine:
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP623
I would imagine once 16gb modules become more common, and Intel's and other chip sets support the larger size, the newest mac models that don't use soldered ram will support larger ram sizes.
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP623
I would imagine once 16gb modules become more common, and Intel's and other chip sets support the larger size, the newest mac models that don't use soldered ram will support larger ram sizes.
There's only two RAM slots in the 21.5".
Nobody makes a single 16GB RAM stick, and never will. Such chips will only exist for DDR4 and won't be backward compatible with DDR3.
In fact, I find the 27" not big at all. It's lovely and right. The 21.5" on the other hand seems a little bit cramped for my tastes.
2 slots is the big problem. 21.5" 2011 had 4.
27" is an okay size for a second monitor. 27" is too large if you only are web browsing and using full screen in 10.10 is awful, IMO. Each to their own, I guess.
32 GB is too large if you're only web browsing as well. Makes sense
Exactly!
I was wondering why you would need 32 GB for Web Browsing? Unless you have 100-200 tabs open...
32 GB is too large if you're only web browsing as well. Makes sense
You must not be a 10.10 Safari user!
----------
Who says I just run a web browser?
Er, you did...
No, I said if that's the only thing you were doing in context of the 27" iMac. That doesn't unilaterally state that is the case all the time. It certainly ain't for me as I run VMs in parallel, etc.
Then, why, if you run VMs in Parallels etc, would you cite using only a browser in full screen in 10.10 as an example of why the iMac 27" is too large for you?
It's kind of a problem, thanks to Intel. 16GB DDR3 SODIMMs have been available for about a year, but they generally work with processors other than Intel. I think Intel outlined support for 16GB banks but then didn't implement it properly except in a handful of CPUs/chipsets. So if the iMac had AMD processors, it would probably work. But without Intel support, the RAM won't be produced in volume and the prices will be high.
http://www.intelligentmemory.com/dram-modules/ddr3-so-dimm/
a 2011 model (outdated) consumer level computer with 32GB of ram is just funny. Your 4 year old CPU and GFX and crappy spinning hard drive are huge bottlenecks
False. 16GB DDR3 RAM sticks have existed for a long time, but they're only sold with ECC. There hasn't been enough of a market for non-ECC systems for anyone to bother.
This 16GB module is used by a number of Dell's high-density systems:
http://www.kingston.com/us/memory/search/?partid=KTD-PE316LV/16G
And heres a 32GB module:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820242005
Last edited:
ECC RAM isn't the same as the regular RAM sticks in the context of this thread.
I use those ECC sticks in my nMP as well.
Everyone knows each tab takes 3.2MB
Actually, you'd need 10,000 tabs if they each took up 3.2MB in order to fill 32GB.
False. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, non-ECC 16GB DDR3 SODIMMs have been available for about a year, but the issue is with support because Intel's earlier implementation is flawed.
Safari is one big memory leak. Leave mail.yahoo.com running for a week and then see if 32GB will help you!
If I wanted bleeding edge gear I wouldn't buy an iMac. Don't confuse "good enough" with your irregular pursuits.
Pretty sure the 21.5" has soldered RAM. To actually get to 32GB might require DDR4 with its higher density chips and lower operating voltage. Or the price of DDR3 might be now like $600 and deter far too many users who might as well just get a bigger screen and add more after-party ram for the same price. Need double the space of 16GB and somewhere to place them but not waste space if no one opts for it.
There's a point where too much RAM is hampered by the 21.5's other average hardware specs (like that 5400rpm drive).
There's a point where too much RAM is hampered by the 21.5's other average hardware specs (like that 5400rpm drive).
Yes! I'm risk adverse which is why I bought that last of the thicker aluminium iMacs from 2011. I would wait a rev or two before thinking of the retina displays.
----------
I thought the current 21.5" was 2x slots. It does suck if it's soldered. I replaced the internal spinner with a SSD so that wouldn't be an issue for me but in general it is a bottleneck with any spinner nowadays.
Oops, I was looking at that new lowest model. The other 21.5" should be accessible but you have to take apart the whole thing apart to swap them.
The lowest end 21.5" that uses MacBook Air parts has soldered 8GB of RAM.
The quad core ones aren't soldered, but it's too hard to get to the RAM slots. You've to take apart the entire display to get to it.
Yes. I looked it up on iFixit and it's basically a full-fledged teardown, display and logic board disassembly.