 |
 |
2.8 mac pro ram install ?
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just received my 2.8 mac pro today. Came with 2gb ram. The 2 modules were installed 1 on top riser toward the mobo and the other on the bottom toward the mobo. This is different than my 2ghz mac pro. Anyway, I installed 2 4gb modules. I put both on top riser and the 2 1gb modules on the bottom toward the mobo. The manual isn't the clearest on this so thought I would confirm I did this right. Not getting any conflicts or errors so assuming its right. Just looking for confirmation. Is this right?
|
|
2010 Mac Mini, 32GB iPod Touch, 2 Apple TV (1)
Home built 12 core 2.93 Westmere PC (almost half the cost of MP) Win7 64.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ideal memory configuration has changed between the original 2006 MP and the Early 2008 MP.
What you did was right though. Apple has this little image to illustrate proper RAM configurations.
(that's why it came with one DIMM on each riser)
And there's a guide here.
|
|
•
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Note also that the 2008 Mac Pros, unlike earlier models, do not reach top RAM performance unless every single RAM socket is filled.
The absolute fastest configuration is 8x1GB, followed by 8x2GB, etc.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tooki 
Note also that the 2008 Mac Pros, unlike earlier models, do not reach top RAM performance unless every single RAM socket is filled.
The absolute fastest configuration is 8x1GB, followed by 8x2GB, etc.
The difference in memory bandwidth between 2 and 4 modules is significant, but the difference between 4 and 8 modules is trivial; and with >4 modules you're taking a latency penalty (on top of fully buffered's already high latency) which is more significant than bandwidth for some applications.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Mmm... no... If anything, the improvement going from 4 to 8 modules is greater than going from 2 to 4.
Look at actual speed tests: http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Fr...m/article.html (No, the tests aren't in a perfectly logical order, so you have to piece it together to make sense.)
It's a pretty linear improvement in bandwidth. And if you're like me (never needs close to 8GB of RAM), then you don't have to worry about the higher latency as you get to the ends of the RAM.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
The difference in memory bandwidth between 2 and 4 modules is significant, but the difference between 4 and 8 modules is trivial; and with >4 modules you're taking a latency penalty (on top of fully buffered's already high latency) which is more significant than bandwidth for some applications.
Are you saying NOT to fill the 4 outer banks? Am using 4 gb modules in A1 and A2 and 1gb modules in B1 and B2 for now but ultimately plan on filling all with 4gb modules to max out at 32gb.
|
|
2010 Mac Mini, 32GB iPod Touch, 2 Apple TV (1)
Home built 12 core 2.93 Westmere PC (almost half the cost of MP) Win7 64.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just follow Apple's guide, but put the biggest modules first on each riser. Leave small modules for last, so to speak.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
