Well, I think we may install 4 dimms (each dimm is 32GB or 64GB)?
After all, according to the Intel Datasheet, the Xeon support up to 64GB memory(single).
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.
New Mac Pro: Only 64BG Ram ...?
- Thread starter Trailerman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I think we may install 4 dimms (each dimm is 32GB or 64GB)?
After all, according to the Intel Datasheet, the Xeon support up to 64GB memory(single).
Wow, nice that someone remembers QEMM and perhaps Deskview. However, QEMM was a memory manager that would load into upper memory. There have been tools that would compress memory so it seemed to be "larger." This is a bit different. This idea of compression was similar to "stacker" and other compression tools.
QEMM, memaker, Hurricane and a few other memory managers were really excellent tools. Now that you got me thinking about it, I recall using Farlap DOS extender that would do 32 bit DOS stuff way above regular memory. Of course those systems were considered HUGE with 16 megabytes of RAM (grin).
Sometimes it makes one wonder now that we are carrying more than a thousandfold the amount of RAM, CPU speed and storage do we have really a thousandfold the improvement with our computers? (I think not)
Cool. They've been "in production" for a bit now from the DRAM makers, but IB V2 has really trickled out with vendors so not really much demand.
Last edited:
QEMM did more than just manage EMS and XMS
Example:
But, yes, there were other products that did memory compression as well.
Those were the days... I remember programming scientific image processing apps in the early nineties with Watcom C and the bundled DOS/4GW extender.
My workstation of the time "only" had 32MB of RAM but since the extender supported virtual memory and automatically swapped to the disk, I could use a full 4GB and did not even bother checking whether the allocs were succesful (scientists and engineers are poor programmers, I know
)there was only one company scamming people on the memory compression front. I can't remember the name of the software off-hand. But I think the one that most people rememberer when they think of ram compression would be connectix' ram doubler. and from my memory that was not a scam and in fact extremely popular. I believe Apple bought that technology from connectix and implemented it in their virtual memory manager...which up until then had been a dog.
Can I ask, if anyone knows how many GB of RAM Mavericks and other current Macs support? Maybe there's a Mac specific RAM ceiling that I wasn't aware of.
Well, let me tell you.
According to the White Paper(you can download from http://www.apple.com/osx/specs/, at the end of the page ,which named OS X Mavericks Core Technologies Overview)
At Page 6, I found the Info. below:
With its 64-bit kernel, OS X is able to address large amounts of physical RAM. OS X Mavericks has been tested to support up to 128GB of physical RAM on qualified Mac computers.
So, the max physical RAM is 128GB.
I have already found another info. from http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130611_9z-OSXMavericks-128GB-in-use.html
The Info. above is more detailed than white paper. I hope these can help you.
Shawn
That's great info. 10.8 and below were alleged to only support 96gb, so at least all the 4,1 and 5,1 machines can now max out without booting into windows.
It seems the 16gb chips (at least, the ones from OWC) have actually gone up in price since I last bought them. Great.
Thanks.
It seems the 16gb chips (at least, the ones from OWC) have actually gone up in price since I last bought them. Great.
Thanks.
Sell by date
So the 8 core 2010-2012 Mac Pros can take 128GB RAM with Mavericks yet the 2013 latest generation can only manage 64GB.
Beyond funny.
So the 8 core 2010-2012 Mac Pros can take 128GB RAM with Mavericks yet the 2013 latest generation can only manage 64GB.
Beyond funny.
Yup, that's pretty much it. Looks like I'll be keeping my 2010 Mac Pro for now ...
What a missed opportunity.
----------
Thanks Shawn - exactly what we needed to know.
FWIW, this seems to pretty much sum up the current situation:
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20131022_1-OWC-memory-for-2013MacPro.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20131022_1-OWC-memory-for-2013MacPro.html
Agreed. RAM scares me. Thankfully the QC on it is a lot tighter and I havent had much issues but now we re-introduce compression and well that just opens up some bad possibilities again.
Not really. DDR4 is a point-to-point connection. 4 DIMM slots is where things are going in Xeon E5 1600/2600 series set ups over 2014-2016 timespan. 8, 12, and higher etc. slots is far more representative of the past, not the future.
What is wrong with the Mac Pro 2013 is that volume DIMMs haven't caught up to where the trends of where things are going. More than likely the 2013 Mac Pro is capable of matching the 128GB Max cap of the 2010-2012 Mac Pros with the proper DIMM density. This issue is far more at the moment is that no one is selling them and affordability than capability.
If looking at a 5-6 years operation lifetime of a Mac Pro 2013 model then during the majority of lifetime ( 2015-2019 ) there probably will be 32GB DIMMs available. Far more, the question is whether these are going to make it to market in 2014 or not.
Giant RAM disk caches of highly compressed data isn't "normal". This is a corner case where Mavericks "compress before swap" approach won't get much traction. But all the more illustrative though of a corner case populated by a relatively small number of folks ( even relative to the "pro" space).
Actually not. 8 DIMMs aren't in the old single CPU package Mac Pro and there are no "heat problem" or "minimize sized cylinder" there. There is one CPU package in both previous and current single CPU Mac Pro implementations. Both have 4 DIMMs. End of story.
Why does Apple use only 4 DIMMs per CPU package. it is simpler, faster, and with modern DIMMs densities covers 90+% of the uses in workstation market. Intel's reference boards of Xeon E5 implementations? 4 DIMM slots. Intel's reference boards for equivalent foundation Core i7 implementations? 4 DIMM slots.
It isn't design so much as demand . The number of users whose workload is covered by one CPU package and the associated 4 DIMMs slots has gone up over last 4 years.
Throw on top 3 Mac Pro cluster with a relatively cheap 3 way point-to-point Thunderbolt IP (Ethernet over Thunderbolt) network to cluster and the number of folks not covered goes down even more.
Not really. First, 'best' is a metric of quality not quantity. His rants on 'best, best, best' keep referring to numbers, not quality.
Being capable of handling future larger capacity DIMMs is a handicap? How about not being capable of handling future, larger capacity DIMMs. That seems far more like something to be labeled a handicap.
His link off to editing large Photoshop files ....
"... Photoshop CS6 was using a whopping 56GB of real memory! ... "
Last I checked 56GB was smaller than 64GB. Maverick's RAM compression will work on the "other stuff" that doesn't load large/overlapping compressed files into memory. Part of the issue in the current set up is getting the 'other stuff', besides Photoshop, out of the way. You can't. So previously needed more RAM to let it hang around. "Best" has to do with address root cause issues, not the symptoms.
Far more pressing issue was why needed an additional 20GB of RAM to keep the 56GB in RAM.
I didn't really want to start an argument here, but I'll happily put my hand up as one of the prospective customers that the 2013 Mac Pro's specifications don't satisfy. I also can't really agree with the statement above: much as we all expect that system demands will eventually plateau, they never do, and much as single chip solutions have improved massively, power users will often still prefer multiple CPUs.
Ultimately, we can all only speak for ourselves. I personally need more than 64GB out of the gate. If I had a preference, I'd also choose two CPU's over one, and more than one PCIe SSD drive. I think those specs (1 CPU, 4 DIMM slots, 1 SSD drive) are limiting and I don't see them as progressive, because quite simply, they don't satisfy my demands now, never mind in 2 to 5 years. From what I'm hearing and reading, I'm not the only one.
I love Apple, and I wanted to love the new Mac Pro. I've even kind of bought into the form factor changes, and the design philosophy, even though it means, extra cost, worrying redundancy (I will never need even one of the GPU's this machine ships with, never mind two) and rig complexity for those of us who need dedicated audio hardware, heavy duty external storage etc. Thunderbolt chassis and external storage is not going to make this the most ergonomic solution.
What I find hard to swallow is that Apple's ultimate machine has radically reduced the level of 'choice' that it's previous models offered. Want 2 CPU's? Sure. Need lots of RAM and prefer not to have to sell your children to pay for it? We'll do what we can. At the top end, professionals value choice and flexibility more than design. And I can't help feeling, the balance here is tilted totally the other way.
All just my view of course.
Jules
HP didn't get the memo about 4 slots
... HP Z420 mini-tower has 8 DIMMs, 256 GiB
... HP Z620 midi-tower has 8 DIMMs, 256 GiB (12 slots with dual socket - 384 GiB)
... HP Z820 tower has 8 DIMMs, 256 GiB (16 slots with dual socket - 512 GiB)
Look again...
... HP Z420 mini-tower has 8 DIMMs, 256 GiB
... HP Z620 midi-tower has 8 DIMMs, 256 GiB (12 slots with dual socket - 384 GiB)
... HP Z820 tower has 8 DIMMs, 256 GiB (16 slots with dual socket - 512 GiB)
Look again...
Last edited:
Incidentally, I know absolutely nothing about this company, but did stumble across this webpage earlier today:
http://www.macramdirect.com/macpro.html#mp5
Note the 128GB 2013 Mac Pro Ram kits they're offering, apparently in two different brands. Cost aside perhaps this means that a 128GB spec is more feasible (and imminent) than might have been thought ...
http://www.macramdirect.com/macpro.html#mp5
Note the 128GB 2013 Mac Pro Ram kits they're offering, apparently in two different brands. Cost aside
perhaps this means that a 128GB spec is more feasible (and imminent) than might have been thought ...Incidentally, I know absolutely nothing about this company, but did stumble across this webpage earlier today:
http://www.macramdirect.com/macpro.html#mp5
Note the 128GB 2013 Mac Pro Ram kits they're offering, apparently in two different brands. Cost aside
Damn that website is .. well - anyway, Superbiiz will have 1866MHz DIMMs soon enough I'm sure and then you will see the real price you can get them at. They are under $500 for 1600MHz at the moment per DIMM.
You mean this.. Its 165$ for a 16 gig stick - $330 for 32 , $660 for 64.. or wait.. I guess they don't have matched pairs/sets?. Have people bought off of superbiiz before? any good or bad experiences?
http://www.superbiiz.com/query.php?dp=1&dt=2&categry=727&name=DDR3-SDRAM-Server-240-Pins&brand=&pa0=&pa1=DDR3-1866&pa2=&pa3=&pa4=&pa5=&pa6=&pa7=&stock=No&nl=30&searchStr=Search+from+current+results&ob=r&myanchor=%23displaytop
You don't need matched pairs and sets. Yes, Superbiiz are a large retailer and Macrumors members have purchased from them. I frequent a lot of tech communities and haven't seen negativity towards them, just people not knowing who they are because Newegg and Amazon dominate the mindset.
