how long before MBP support 8 gigs RAM?

[rockinrocker]

of course this is complete speculation, but what do you guys think? pretty soon or not for a couple more generations?
is it more of a question of getting that much ram on a laptop sized chip than other issues?

 

[kflook]

I don't see that happening for while yet. I think it's a matter of size and space available.

 

[0007776]

It will depend on how long it takes until 4GB chips are manufactured. I am not completely sure but I think that the current logic board could take 8GBs if the chips were available.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

you'll have to wait for a new chipset so I would investigate intel's new chipsets.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

According to Intel, the PM965 and GM965 chipsets only support 4 GB.

In case you can't read Intel-techese, the limiting factor is the fact that the xM965 chipset supports 1Gb-technology RAM chips, 16-chip modules, and two modules. The desktop version of the chipset supports four modules. (1 Gigabit divided by 8 equals 128 MegaBytes per chip, times 16 chips per module equals 2 GigaBytes per module, times two modules equals 4 GigaBytes. The four modules available on desktop chipsets doubles this to 8 GigaBytes.)

The next generation of chipset will likely be based on the desktop P35/G35, which also support 1 Gb technology chips, 16-chip modules. Again, the desktop chipset supports four modules. Assuming that the mobile version still only supports two modules, it will still be limited to 4 GB. (Unless the mobile version adds 2 Gb technology chips. But even the latest ultra-high-end X38 desktop chipset doesn't support 2 Gb technology chips; not to mention the fact that they don't exist yet. ) Another possibility would be that the mobile chipset will support 4 modules, but I doubt that. And even if it did, it would mean Apple would have to redesign their computers to have four SO-DIMM slots. Again, unlikely.

 

[iW00t]

Why do you need so much ram?

I find the processing speed more of a limiting factor than anything else.

OSX is a hog.

 

[saltyzoo]

If you need more than 4 gig of RAM in the near future, then a notebook is probably the wrong technology choice for you.

 

[aaronw1986]

If you need more than 4 gig of RAM in the near future, then a notebook is probably the wrong technology choice for you.

I agree.

 

[zioxide]

http://www.intel.com/business/casestudies/proof_of_concepts_dcs.pdf

So it should be possible to put 8GB in the current MBPs once 4GB sodimms are available.

 

[Brianstorm91]

What do you need all of that for

 

[jedivulcan]

Laptops with 8gb?! I thought specifically, the SR logic boards were set to a max of 4gb... time will tell however.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

http://www.intel.com/business/casestudies/proof_of_concepts_dcs.pdf

So it should be possible to put 8GB in the current MBPs once 4GB sodimms are available.

Nope, re-read my post (or, if you want the insane technical details, read the PDF I linked to.) The xM965 chipset doesn't support the proper technologies needed to support 4 GB SO-DIMMs.

The xM965 chipsets support memory chip technology where each chip is 256 Megabits, 512 Megabits, or 1 Gigabit. 1 Gigabit is the same as 128 Megabytes. (8 bits equals one byte, 1 Gigabit equals 1024 Megabits, 1024 Megabits divided by 8 equals 128 Megabytes.) The xM965 chipsets support up to 16 memory chips per module (SO-DIMM.) 128 MB per chip * 16 chips = 2048 MB (2 GB) per SO-DIMM. The xM965 chipsets support a maximum of one SO-DIMM connector per channel, and have two channels. This makes a maximum of 4 GB.

The limiting factor, realistically is the 1 Gb chip technology size. In order to make 4 GB SO-DIMMs, you would need 2 Gb chips. xM965 doesn't support 2 Gb chips. Yes, if they allowed 32 chips per module, it could be possible; yes, if they allowed 2 SO-DIMM connectors per channel, it could be possible. But both of those are rather ridiculous in a notebook.

By comparison, the older 945xM chipsets used in the pre-Santa Rosa MacBooks/MacBook Pros also officially supports 4 GB (same technology limitations as xM965,) so the fact that Apple only supports 2 GB in the Core Duo models, and 3 GB in the Core 2 Duo models is a limitation of Apple's, not Intel's. The 4 GB limit for current (and likely future P35/G35-based laptops,) is an Intel chipset limit.

As I mention in my previous post, while the desktop P35/G35 chipsets only support 1 Gb chips, it is possible that the mobile equivalents could support 2 Gb chips, but since they don't even exist yet, I don't know...

 

[rockinrocker]

What do you need all of that for

sample based midi instruments.

 

[rockinrocker]

If you need more than 4 gig of RAM in the near future, then a notebook is probably the wrong technology choice for you.

i also concur, which is why i'm in the mac pro waiting club.

like i said, i was just wondering if this was something that might be on the horizon, or (as i kind of suspected) was still a ways off. 'cause if i could get that much ram in a mobile form factor there wouldn't really be much of a need for a big ol' house mac pro.

"I find the processing speed more of a limiting factor than anything else."

the bottle neck here is more the size of the front side bus than the processor(s) them selves, right?

 

[Brianstorm91]

the bottle neck here is more the size of the front side bus than the processor(s) them selves, right?

Also the heat build up once you get nearer 3GHz on the Core 2 Duos, it becomes quite significant. The 2.6 in the MBP is about the best at the moment, although I heard the Penryns are much better.

 

[TimJim]

Once 4GB chips become cheaper.

 

[zioxide]

Nope, re-read my post (or, if you want the insane technical details, read the PDF I linked to.) The xM965 chipset doesn't support the proper technologies needed to support 4 GB SO-DIMMs.

The xM965 chipsets support memory chip technology where each chip is 256 Megabits, 512 Megabits, or 1 Gigabit. 1 Gigabit is the same as 128 Megabytes. (8 bits equals one byte, 1 Gigabit equals 1024 Megabits, 1024 Megabits divided by 8 equals 128 Megabytes.) The xM965 chipsets support up to 16 memory chips per module (SO-DIMM.) 128 MB per chip * 16 chips = 2048 MB (2 GB) per SO-DIMM. The xM965 chipsets support a maximum of one SO-DIMM connector per channel, and have two channels. This makes a maximum of 4 GB.

The limiting factor, realistically is the 1 Gb chip technology size. In order to make 4 GB SO-DIMMs, you would need 2 Gb chips. xM965 doesn't support 2 Gb chips. Yes, if they allowed 32 chips per module, it could be possible; yes, if they allowed 2 SO-DIMM connectors per channel, it could be possible. But both of those are rather ridiculous in a notebook.

By comparison, the older 945xM chipsets used in the pre-Santa Rosa MacBooks/MacBook Pros also officially supports 4 GB (same technology limitations as xM965,) so the fact that Apple only supports 2 GB in the Core Duo models, and 3 GB in the Core 2 Duo models is a limitation of Apple's, not Intel's. The 4 GB limit for current (and likely future P35/G35-based laptops,) is an Intel chipset limit.

As I mention in my previous post, while the desktop P35/G35 chipsets only support 1 Gb chips, it is possible that the mobile equivalents could support 2 Gb chips, but since they don't even exist yet, I don't know...

Then why does intel's doc say scalable up to 8GB pending sodimm variation. Maybe they do support 2 gigabit chips but it just isn't documented. I guess time will tell though.

 

[iToaster]

As far as I know, the MBP supposedly does right now, although nobody makes a 4 Gb chip. I can't say for sure though, but I read something that said it did.

 

[iW00t]

sample based midi instruments.

Does it take so much memory?

 

[kaiwai]

I find the processing speed more of a limiting factor than anything else.

OSX is a hog.

OSX is a hog? what planet are you on? the same one where Windows Vista is the perfect operating system, and George Bush is a transexual black lesbian who has a fetish for leather?

 

[TheStu]

OSX is a hog? what planet are you on? the same one where Windows Vista is the perfect operating system, and George Bush is a transexual black lesbian who has a fetish for leather?

TeeHee!

But truly, I find OS X to be truly efficient when it comes to the processor. The only way it could be considered a hog is that it will use all the processor you can throw at it. Be it a single core, 1GHz G4, or an Octo-Core Xeon, OS X will find a use for that CPU power once it needs it.

 

[kaiwai]

TeeHee!

But truly, I find OS X to be truly efficient when it comes to the processor. The only way it could be considered a hog is that it will use all the processor you can throw at it. Be it a single core, 1GHz G4, or an Octo-Core Xeon, OS X will find a use for that CPU power once it needs it.

Or when it is run as a server and throughput is the ultimate priority. Then again, if one viewed throughput as a high priority, on would run Solaris or some big iron UNIX

Mac OS X is first and foremost, optimised for the desktop. Thats where Apple's money is made.

 

[diamond.g]

Also the heat build up once you get nearer 3GHz on the Core 2 Duos, it becomes quite significant. The 2.6 in the MBP is about the best at the moment, although I heard the Penryns are much better.

Odd, that isn't the case from what I have read. Most overclockers are getting great clocks on air with the stock heat sink.

"I find the processing speed more of a limiting factor than anything else."

the bottle neck here is more the size of the front side bus than the processor(s) them selves, right?

That is part of it. Along with memory speed/bandwidth, processor speed/bandwidth, and hard disk speed/bandwidth. The higher they all are the better the system performs. With MB/MBP's there are thermal limits that probably get hit faster, due to things like case design. It becomes a delicate balance.

 

[Creibold]

Just wait and see.

While no one actually needs more than 4GB's of RAM in a laptop, it is good to know that your machine will be upgradable in the future. This is just touchy-feely good thinking, so that your machine can "stay up with the pack" 2 or 3 years down the line. That said, if I have the option of Upgrading my macboom pro SR to 8 gigs of RAM when it is available, I may do that - if the price is right.

There have been about 4 threads that i remember where somone has said "no, 4GB's is the max." or "It maxes out to 8GB's". So I'm just going to wait see what happens in context to the 2007 Macbook Pros. If they actually do max out at 4GB's it's not like I'm going to cry. I'll still have more than enough memory with Leopard's memory control abilities.

 

[rockinrocker]

Does it take so much memory?

it can, it all depends on how much stuff a person wants to run, and with how much latency. i like to have a nice selection of instruments available, and if they can all be loaded into ram rather than having to use direct-from-disc the latency is no longer an issue.