[Veltliner]

This is Apple's announcement of the new MacPros.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/03/03macpro.html

It specifies a maximum RAM of 32 GB for the Dual 4-core, but only 8 GB RAM for the single 4-core.

Did I misread something, or did Apple mistype?

[Mac Write]

That info is correct.

[phobos]

Yeah I read the same thing and I got a bit confused. Why would someone limit a machine like that to 8GB. Is this just a stupid way to force buyers to the 8 core machine or is this have to do with the new nehalem processors (which I highly doubt)?

[tooki]

8GB of RAM is still far more than most Mac Pro users need, especially the low-end Mac Pro users who just want more hard drive and graphics options.

[phobos]

I can understand that but why cripple the machine?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tooki 

8GB of RAM is still far more than most Mac Pro users need, especially the low-end Mac Pro users who just want more hard drive and graphics options.

Sure that would be the case if the low-end MP were a $1599 tower.

But for a $2499 workstation the 8 GB RAM ceiling is just laughable.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by phobos 

I can understand that but why cripple the machine?

Nobody knows. There are four slots. The octo-core supports 4 GB DIMMs. It appears the quad-core should support 16 GB AM, but Apple has deliberately crippled to force upsell.

Forcing upsell to a $3299 system in an economic crisis? Sure that's gonna work.

[rippleish20]

The single quad uses a different processor, which may have a limitation on maximum dimm density. The 4 gb dimms are very expensive and Apple could also have decided that anyone able to afford them would be more likely to buy the dual quad. I doubt they would not offer them if it were realistic as they must make a nice profit on extra RAM options...

[Big Mac]

Accessible RAM has nothing to do with processor types and everything to do with the logic board firmware involved.

[Veltliner]

Shocking that it's true.

This is the first time, that you can put less RAM into a newer machine than into an older one.

That rules out the single processor unit. I wonder which great marketing guy had that idea. That pushes the envelope to get a MacPro to 3300$. Not really an easy investment decision, when you take into account that, when you have and need such a machine, you need some funds to get a good display, too.

[Big Mac]

It's pretty pathetic that I can put more RAM into my nearly five year old G5 than could a purchaser of a new low-end Mac Pro.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Accessible RAM has nothing to do with processor types and everything to do with the logic board firmware involved.

That's actually not true, as of Nehalem. There's three channels of ram directly connected to each processor, so it becomes increasingly difficult to run at full speed as the ratio of DIMMs to processors exceeds three.

That said, the 4GB dimm thing doesn't have any good reason I can see.

[Big Mac]

Oh yeah, the integrated memory controller. Sorry, forgot about that. Still doesn't make a lot of sense, as you noted.

[rippleish20]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Accessible RAM has nothing to do with processor types and everything to do with the logic board firmware involved.

Given the integrated memory controller what I said is perfectly reasonable.

Ability to use higher density DIMMs may actually be Intel trying to justify higher cost for the 5500. Although it is a drag that the single quad is limited to 8 GB (assuming this is a real limit), Apple may have decided it was better to make the single quad using the 2.66 Xeon 3500 with RAM limitation versus a 2.26 Xeon 5500 with higher RAM limits (the 5500s get very expensive above 2.26. The cost for including a 2.66 Xeon 5500 in the single would be upwards of $900-1000 from the volume pricing I've seen)

[Big Mac]

Sorry about that, you missed my follow-up reply where I acknowledged my error.

[P]

Originally Posted by tooki 

8GB of RAM is still far more than most Mac Pro users need, especially the low-end Mac Pro users who just want more hard drive and graphics options.

640K ought to be enough for anybody?

Apple used to have a max RAM of 8 times the default RAM. Now we're down to little over twice the default. No, that MP is not a good deal.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by rippleish20 

Given the integrated memory controller what I said is perfectly reasonable.

No, I'm afraid it really isn't.

Because when it comes to DIMM support the integrated mem controller behaves the same. The single-socket Gainestown (W35x0 series) supports 4 GB DIMMs. Just like it's dual-socket sibling (X/E55x0 series). At the very least the quad-core system should support 12 GB RAM (3 channels with 4GB each).

[P]

Originally Posted by rippleish20 

Given the integrated memory controller what I said is perfectly reasonable.

Ability to use higher density DIMMs may actually be Intel trying to justify higher cost for the 5500. )

Given that the Xeon 3500 series is just Bloomfield (=Core i7) with ECC support, that is very unlikely. ark.intel.com is not updated with these products yet, so I can't make it 100%, but it is unlikely.

[Andrew Stephens]

We'll it's not like Apple don't have a history of releasing deliberately crippled base specs of their pro machines.

Adding up the new Pro's, iMacs and Mini's, the whole Apple line up is looking pretty creaky as the recession progresses.

Given the capability of recent machines it's hard to find a lot compelling about updating. Sure the new unibodies look nice but out of around ten people I know who have sprung for a new Mac in last month or so, all bar one have gone for the old style white MacBook. The one went for a UB MacBook.

[Veltliner]

I just wonder who Apple thinks is going to buy it.

If you run Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, any of the bigger graphics programs, you need RAM, RAM, RAM.

If you don't run this apps, you don't need a MacPro.

This thing will probably enter the fact sheets of Apple models as a short-lived, crippled machine, that was offered for a few months only in the beginning of 2009, and then discontinued.

Poor suckers that bought it, because it has, other than "real" MacPros, a low resale value. And will be snapped up by those who can replace the crippling motherboard with a decent one that doesn't limit RAM.

Especially as "Snow Leopard" will be introduced soon, and it has a (theoretical) mac RAM of 4 TB.

[IFLY2HIGH]

No matter how mad you people get with the pricing or what the mac's features don't have that you think it should have is not up to you. This is what Apple has brought up to play and you either buy one don't. The two models imo is perfect, one for the super duper power users, a smaller grade for people like me who want a tad bit more expandability inside with a little be more capability of the four cores vs what comes in the high end imac.

Final Cut Studio 2 recommends 2 gigs of ram.
Photoshop CS4, don't make me laugh here, 512 meg, or 1 gig recommended

You don't need RAM RAM RAM to use any of those programs, if you want it FASTER FASTER FASTER yes, but it's NOT NEEDED.

I use a little of both, I use Final Cut Express though, and this is why there is a hard core mac and a soft core mac. Seems like alot of people want the big mac pro for 2000$ and that is not gona happen, dream on.

Apple, wrap me up one of those quad core power macs please!

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by IFLY2HIGH 

No matter how mad you people get with the pricing or what the mac's features don't have that you think it should have is not up to you. This is what Apple has brought up to play and you either buy one don't. The two models imo is perfect, one for the super duper power users, a smaller grade for people like me who want a tad bit more expandability inside with a little be more capability of the four cores vs what comes in the high end imac.

Final Cut Studio 2 recommends 2 gigs of ram.
Photoshop CS4, don't make me laugh here, 512 meg, or 1 gig recommended

You don't need RAM RAM RAM to use any of those programs, if you want it FASTER FASTER FASTER yes, but it's NOT NEEDED.

I use a little of both, I use Final Cut Express though, and this is why there is a hard core mac and a soft core mac. Seems like alot of people want the big mac pro for 2000$ and that is not gona happen, dream on.

Apple, wrap me up one of those quad core power macs please!

The term "You People" has been copyrighted by Larry David. You may send your 2 cents to him.

Regarding your comments, you'd better read up instead of displaying such a lack of knowledge in a raunchy tone.

You don't even know the difference between software minimum requirements and the RAM you actually need to run an application properly.

[sek929]

The fact that they cut the maximum ram while keeping the price at 2500 is astonishing.

I would expect this on a ProSumer tower around 1700 dollars. So a brand new Mac Pro at $2500 can hold only 4 GB more than my $950 refurb iMac from 2007. That's kinda ridiculous. Now I can't even think of a single reason for someone like me to buy an Apple tower, I'd love one but if $2500 gets you the crippled model then screw that noise.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

If you run Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, any of the bigger graphics programs, you need RAM, RAM, RAM.
If you don't run this apps, you don't need a MacPro.

Even if you don't need >8GB RAM today, which workstation buyer spending $2499 on this Mac Pro can vouch for the fact that he won't need >8GB RAM in a year or two from now.

Sure you can swap Macs every other year, but that's not the type of computer the Mac Pro is. It's supposed to be pretty much the opposite of disposable.

This thing will probably enter the fact sheets of Apple models as a short-lived, crippled machine, that was offered for a few months only in the beginning of 2009, and then discontinued.

I'm not so sure about that, but the quad-core sure has Yikes written all over it.

Poor suckers that bought it, because it has, other than "real" MacPros, a low resale value.

And lucky bastards that want to sell a Harpertown Mac Pro. Seeing how well they hold up against the new quad-core and how ridiculously high Apple has priced Harpertown refurbs, the resale value for Harpertowns must be awesome. I'm really glad I'm not force to buy a Mac Pro right now.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by IFLY2HIGH 

Final Cut Studio 2 recommends 2 gigs of ram.
Photoshop CS4, don't make me laugh here, 512 meg, or 1 gig recommended

You don't need RAM RAM RAM to use any of those programs, if you want it FASTER FASTER FASTER yes, but it's NOT NEEDED.

1) What's really needed depends on your use. Minimum figures don't mean a whole lot. There are plenty of professional users of those apps on this board that will tell you that 2 GB is far from what you want for just barely decent performance.

2) What you also fail to understand is that RAM has to scale with cores. You cannot have four cores, expect them to run eight threads (Gainestown has HT) and supply the same amount of RAM a consumer dual-core has. I you want those eight threads to run well you need to supply memory for eight threads. RAM has to scale with cores. This can't be repeated enough.

3) Even if your needs today are met with 8 GB of RAM, do you want to be forced to throw a $2499 computer away a year from now when a new OS or app version appears. Of course not. This is a pro workstation. It needs to be extendable. The 8 GB RAM ceiling leaves zero room for future expansion in pro use. It's entirely inadequate as a workstation. It's fine in a pro-sumer dekstop, but not in what's supposed to be a professional workstation.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The fact that they cut the maximum ram while keeping the price at 2500 is astonishing.

I would expect this on a ProSumer tower around 1700 dollars. So a brand new Mac Pro at $2500 can hold only 4 GB more than my $950 refurb iMac from 2007. That's kinda ridiculous. Now I can't even think of a single reason for someone like me to buy an Apple tower, I'd love one but if $2500 gets you the crippled model then screw that noise.

I'll second your impression.

The new quad-core Mac Pro is not a bad computer. It would have been an awesome headless desktop at a lower price. It could have filled the gap between the Mac mini and the octo MPs. But since it was priced at $2499 that is entirely out of the question.

It's priced like high-end pro kit, but spec'ed like prosumer. Not a good idea in the middle of an economic crisis.

[sek929]

What happened to the slower cheaper PowerMac? My G4 was 1699, and had the 733 chip without the L3 cache of the previous 733 PowerMacs. Makes sense. I can see that they don't want to sap into the Mac Mini sales, but I'd imagine people wanting expandability aren't in the market for an ultra-compact desktop anyways.

I'd buy that machine in a heartbeat (if I didn't already have this Intel iMac) if it was under two grand, I don't need a RAM ceiling higher than 8GB, but I'm not a power user. Hell, I have Fusion run XP with 1GB, I set CS4 to to use 2GB, that leaves me with one gig left for Leopard and anything else. That's three (overall) processes that use 4 gigs up no problem.

I wonder what 2500 dollars could get you in the PC world...

[P]

Originally Posted by IFLY2HIGH 

No matter how mad you people get with the pricing or what the mac's features don't have that you think it should have is not up to you. This is what Apple has brought up to play and you either buy one don't. The two models imo is perfect, one for the super duper power users, a smaller grade for people like me who want a tad bit more expandability inside with a little be more capability of the four cores vs what comes in the high end imac.

Oh, I'm not mad - I just know what the parts that go into that machine cost, and I can compare it to what went in to the old machine. It all comes down to a machine that would cost under $2000 if Apple had used the same margin they did on the old low-end MP. At that price, I'm not buying. I hate being cheated.

And 8 gigs max RAM will become a major problem over the lifetime of the machine, if it's really enforced. Trust me on this.

[Big Mac]

An 8 GB limit wouldn't be bad on a $1500-$1900 Mac. But when you get into two grand territory, it becomes ridiculous.

[shabbasuraj]

Seriously.. Apple.. I would have rather seen a slight price decrease.. regardless of specs...


these things are expensive...