Skip navigation
This discussion is archived

RAM for 2009 MacPro

10199 Views 20 Replies Latest reply: Jun 14, 2009 8:35 AM by J24Keys RSS
1 2 Previous Next
bsteiner2 Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
Currently Being Moderated
Mar 28, 2009 9:20 AM
Just bought a 2009 MacPro. New to the whole Mac world and I would like to add more RAM. Has anyone ever used RAM from otherworldcomputing.com? Is it good RAM?
I ordered the computer with 8GB from Apple and this website seems to have the best deal to buy another 8GB to bump the computer up to 16GB.
PC, Windows Vista, Vista is Awesome
  • Richard Platt Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2009 9:49 AM (in response to bsteiner2)
    I've been using them, Crucial and Ramjet for many years . . . all have given me flawless service. I just put 8GB of OWC Ram in my 2.26 8-Core "Nehalem" Mac Pro and it too works perfectly.

    Good luck.
    Mac Pro Nehalem 2.26 GB/20" iMac 2.4 Core 2 Duo/ 15" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.6)
  • Daphoid Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2009 11:23 AM (in response to bsteiner2)
    OWC is one of the gold standards when it comes to buying RAM for your Mac. It's either them or Crucial. They'll even take your stock RAM off you for a small credit when you buy your new RAM.

    - D
    Mac OS X (10.5.2), Mac Pro
  • Tom Alperin Level 3 Level 3 (705 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2009 6:34 PM (in response to bsteiner2)
    You might want to read up a bit on the best RAM configurations before you buy. There are four slots on a 4 core and 8 slots on an 8 core Mac Pro, but it seems that the memory is addressed faster if you use matched sets of 3 or 6, depending on which model you get.

    If you frequently have enough apps running to cause page outs to disk then the extra memory will be a benefit compared to the advantages of having matched sets of 3 or 6.

    You didn't mention which model you purchased or how many chips the 8GB were.

    For normal usage, you could end up slowing your computer down (although very minimally) by adding memory you don't necessarily need.

    I recommend Other Word Computing as well. I've ordered memory, a processor upgrade, and graphics cards from them and always been satisfied with my purchase.
    12" Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz, Mac OS X (10.4.6)
  • Bohdanz Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2009 10:15 PM (in response to Richard Platt)
    Richard,
    I hope you don't mind asking how you're enjoying your new Mac Pro - and if you've experienced any of the problems that others are having: bluetooth issues, freezing up?

    I'm thinking of getting the same 2.26 model you just got. By the way which card did you get?

    Thanks.Bohdan
    Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo, Mac OS X (10.5.6)
  • Robert Rogers Level 2 Level 2 (345 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 31, 2009 6:11 AM (in response to Bohdanz)
    I too have purchased from OWC with no problems. BTW my new Mac Pro 2X2.26 is a fine machine. I have had absolutely no issues with it. Go and enjoy. I have the ATA 4870. Bob
    2X 2.26 Quad Core Nehalem 16GB mem, Mac OS X (10.5.6), ATA HD 4870 video card
  • direwolf8 Level 4 Level 4 (1,280 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 31, 2009 7:58 AM (in response to Tom Alperin)
    I don't think that's true. The memory is organized per DIMM in 3 banks and I don't think you gain any advantage by using 3 DIMMS.
    G5, Mac OS X (10.5)
  • The hatter Level 9 Level 9 (58,535 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 31, 2009 8:12 AM (in response to direwolf8)
    This is one of the best designed performance benchmarks looking at the Nehalem 2009 done by OWC. http://blog.macsales.com/

    http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Benchmarks/NehalemTests.html

    Configuring memory - Pro Apps Performance
    http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html

    "6 is better than 8 - Confirmed"
    http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html

    However, filling all memory slots isn't necessarily going to slow down your Nehalem Mac Pro since the vast majority of real world applications do not saturate the memory bandwidth.


    But everything I know about DDR3 and Nehalem says on-chip memory and configuration does matter. And chip makers have had to adjust and learn what Intel requires to get the best performance from their chips even as we speak.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr3-1600-roundup.html
    Mac Pro Windows 7 9800GTX/8800GT 4 x WD Caviar 640, Mac OS X (10.5.6), ACD 23" Sonnet Tempo E4P APC RS1500
  • Phil-Deface Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 31, 2009 2:53 PM (in response to The hatter)
    Just wondering what you guys think... (particularly other UK users)

    I'm now looking seriously at purchasing a 2 x 2.26 machine, and wondering which configuration from I should get as standard (trying to be cost effective). Usage will primarily be heavy photoshopping.

    1. I had been thinking: 4 x 2gb chips - allowing me to expand up to 12gb without having to throw/sell off the standard 6gb chips. Also assumed running two identical sets of 3 chips would be better.

    2. After reading the (http://blog.macsales.com) article Hatter pointed to.. it suggests going for 10gb by using the 6 x 1gb chips and adding 2 x 2gb chips.

    EDIT: I'd be assuming the 2gb chips would both be in the same 1st position of the 4 slots?

    Does option 2 sound best, purely going by optimum speed / cost / least chip wastage...?
    Maxed out Powermac G4 Quicksilver, Mac OS X (10.4.11), Holy mackerel thats oldskool
  • Phil-Deface Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2009 7:59 AM (in response to Phil-Deface)
    Doesn't matter now.
    I just purchased a shiny new Mac Pro. Decided to get the standard 6gb and upgrade with good 3rd party ram later. Going to be a long next few days waiting for it to arrive....
    Maxed out Powermac G4 Quicksilver, Mac OS X (10.4.11), Holy mackerel thats oldskool
  • Gene Rynkewicz Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2009 5:35 PM (in response to The hatter)
    "This is one of the best designed performance benchmarks looking at the Nehalem 2009 done by OWC. http://blog.macsales.com/

    http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Benchmarks/NehalemTests.html"

    Wow. This is a VERY interesting test. It seems that the single CPU system CAN take 4GB memory chips. Sure they're super expensive now, but I'm sure as DDR3 becomes more mainstream they'll get cheaper.

    This ability to have 16GB or RAM in the single CPU system is defenitely good news and makes the quadcore a much more attractive solution for the cost conscious (like me), looking to get their first MP.

    Gene
    Windows XP
  • Troy Muller Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2009 11:55 PM (in response to Phil-Deface)
    Come on, spend 3200 on a new Mac Pro and put in RAM in odd configurations? Please.....OWC sells the 16GB pack for 300 bucks, well worth it and I have original RAM in case apple WHINES about having non-apple RAM!
    8-Core Mac Pro 2.26, Mac OS X (10.5.6), 16GB RAM, Radeon 4870 VC
  • Phil-Deface Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2009 11:48 AM (in response to Troy Muller)
    Thanks for the advice... however as you rightly pointed out the machine is very expensive so I'll have to make do with what I can for the time being. By Purchasing two extra 2gb chips, I'll take the machine to 10gb of ram which according to the above test takes the performance right up (and wastes nothing). I'll be fine to run the machine like this for a while until I can afford to replace all the stock 1gb chips with better ram. Also when the machine arrives I'll be installing additional WD Caviar black 1tb drives which at this stage are more important than breaking over the 10gb ram barrier.

    OWC ram isn't directly available in the UK. Kingston are listing chips & kits for the 09 Mac Pro's. Not sure about Crucial, their description seems flaky. Will be making some calls on monday to order the new memory (anyone recommend a good vendor please let me know)... Apple are saying my machine will be here around Wednesday.
    Soon to arrive: Mac Pro 2 x 2.26 / 10gb / ATI Radeon 4870 + 23" Cinema Display, Mac OS X (10.5.6), - 6years with a slow G4 coming to an end!
  • chino Level 1 Level 1 (60 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2009 11:59 AM (in response to Gene Rynkewicz)
    Gene Rynkewicz wrote:
    "This is one of the best designed performance benchmarks looking at the Nehalem 2009 done by OWC. http://blog.macsales.com/

    http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Benchmarks/NehalemTests.html"


    And to quote the last line from that test article. "In the meantime, we suggest that adding the maximum memory will be most beneficial overall."

    Wow, really? This coming from a site that sells RAM?

    If you look at the After Effects benchmarks, only the 2.26 Nehalem really benefits from RAM, moving from 151 to 115. The 2.66 barely moves at all, and the 2.93 gains maybe 10%.

    Photoshop results, according to that pretty chart, don't benefit at all. The 2.93 even produced slower results with 32GB RAM. If you look at the 2nd Photoshop chart, the results are so sporadic to mean anything at all.

    Everyone always hears that more RAM is better, but obviously that's not always the case. Processor speed is still the major influence.

    I, however, will be adding more RAM since I own the 2.26 Nehalem.
    Mac Pro 8-core, Mac OS X (10.5.6)
  • The hatter Level 9 Level 9 (58,535 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2009 12:30 PM (in response to chino)
    Before we had lower memory bandwidth but memory could make up the differences for still being 32-bit -- in some cases.

    HT and multicore is a stumbling block, core-thrashing, and virtual cores have been a plague for years.

    The ideal to me with Nehalem would be 6 channels - for EACH cpu, not four DIMMs. Ah well, that's something for 2010 to fix along with 10% boost from 32nm.
    Mac Pro Windows 7 9800GTX/8800GT 4 x WD Caviar 640, Mac OS X (10.5.6), ACD 23" Sonnet Tempo E4P APC RS1500
1 2 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.