will 2011 Quad MBPs support 32GB RAM?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by bniu, Dec 25, 2011.

  1. bniu macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #1
    Looking at the intel spec sheet at http://ark.intel.com/products/52227/Intel-Core-i7-2820QM-Processor-(8M-Cache-2_30-GHz), it looks like Intel has upped the RAM limit to 32GBs of RAM. Does that mean the 2011 MBPs have the latent ability in their chipsets to support up to 32 gigs of RAM once 16GB SODIMMs are brought to market? Apple uses standard Intel chipsets right?

    If so, that'd really extend the lifespan of my 2011 MBP :D. 16GB of RAM this year and 18 months later, 32 gigs!
     
  2. applefanboy4739 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    #2
    I don't know why anyone would think that they need more than 4k of RAM. :)
     
  3. TheJing macrumors 6502a

    TheJing

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere in Europe
    #3
    Out of curiosity, what exactly do you do on your computer to need 32GB of RAM?
     
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    You couldn't even boot your computer with only 4K of RAM. :rolleyes: Many users can easily require more than 4GB of RAM. It depends on your normal workload.
     
  5. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #5
    That is Bill Gates speaking. ;)
     
  6. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #6
    OK, so what do you have to say, Bill?
     
  7. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #7
    Ah *****, I should have included the quote you quoted.
    That
    is believed to be one of Bill Gates famous quotes back in the day, when MegaBytes where still like a Terabyte today.
     
  8. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #8
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed
     
  9. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #9
    That's an ignorant statement to make based on your own restricted frame of reference. I, of course, assume you meant 4 GB since my first computer (zx spectrum) had more memory than 4 kilobytes.
     
  10. bniu thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #10
    1080p encoding and processing, tens of safari tabs open, running 30 programs at once, crunching big amounts of data via matlab, and doing all of that simultaneously because I want to.
     
  11. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #11
    That's why I said "believed", but thanks for the "640k" version, as that was the number I remember, as it is printed outside a Mac/Apple Store in Berlin.

    ----------

    Then you might take a look at the iMac, as the current iMac can support 32 GB of RAM via the 8 GB modules.
     
  12. bill-p macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #12
    I don't know why anyone would think that they can do computing without visually seeing anything on the screen. :)

    That statement was made with the assumption that everyone was okay looking at a wall of texts on a computer. That was where Apple stepped in, and it is from then that we got to this day.
     
  13. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #13
    I have to say, I wouldnt have a problem having such a huge RAM.

    But 16GBx2?
    I think I can buy a new laptop with that price tag :p
     
  14. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #14
    I guess we will find out once 32 GB become available, not before. SO-DIMMs are tiny, I don't know how they would fit 16 GB on one of them, but I'm sure they will work it out.
     
  15. mgartner0622 macrumors 65816

    mgartner0622

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    #15
    After all, that's what everyone was saying about 8GB a year or two ago.
    Personally, it's great that the new intel processors now support 32GB and all, but I can't see anyone who actually needs that much ram.
     
  16. Jiten macrumors 6502a

    Jiten

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    #16
    We will get there folks. 32 GB on a portable, multi -terabyte SSDs - the works. Its just not financially practical at this point in time.
     
  17. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #17
    As far as I know, only the 2011 iMacs support 32 GB of RAM, not the Macbook Pros
     
  18. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #18
    Since there are no 16 GB SO-DIMM RAM modules, we can't verify that. But the Intel chipset used in 2011 MBPs is able to support 32 GB RAM.
    The iMac can use 32 GB of RAM due to the 8 GB SO-DIMM modules out there.
     
  19. tekkietekkie macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    #19
    a few years ago nobody would believe 8GB chips :) it won't be long and there will be 32GB ones its pretty crazy

    currently I can't imagine needing 32GB of RAM but then again I didn't think I would need 16GB either and using Lightroom / Photoshop + plugins I nearly max that out sometimes now

    I remember my first PC (intel chip anyway) 286 when it had a 40MB hard drive with 1MB of RAM I think it was and that was top of the line LOL
     
  20. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #20
    That would be interesting if true. How far along are 16 GB modules in development? Would you or anyone else know?
     
  21. 15danielp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona
    #21
    Wow you totally missed the joke. And all the posts after it.
     
  22. Higney85 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #22
    I remember the upgrade to 256mb of ram on an intel 1GHz back in the day... I thought it did everything imaginable. Times will change. I echo the fact that in time 32GB will not sound extreme and 1TB SSD's will ship in entry level notebooks (or whatever they will be called then). Its the world of tech; only requirements are time and money.
     
  23. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #23
    I remember the 640k limit on DOS.

    Was a pain in the ass, because even when you have more, like 8 MB, some stupid applications would insist on running from the first 640k... change autoexec.bat and config.sys and reboot... was so annoying.

    I think Win 95 finally got rid of that madness.
     
  24. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #24
    Yes. You had to use EMS and XMS. It's no laughing matter.
     
  25. BiggAW macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #25
    Even for all that, that's a little bit much in the RAM department.
     

Share This Page