I have a Mac Pro Mid 2012 DDR3 1066MHz ram capability (up to 36 gb) i am looking for some ram DIMMs but can only find 8 GB single DIMMs witch are going to cost me £110 each to buy. PLEASE could somebody help me find some cheaper that will work. NOT APPLE
www.macsales.com/memory/macpro
4x8GB is one choice and popular but there is no 36GB I can think of doing.
There are also 3x16GB DIMM setup which is the max for single processor.
If you have a dual, then of course you can have 8x8GB 64GB total or use 16GB for 96GB supported.
Crucial and Kingston UK but I think it would be cost effective and MacSales (OWC) does ship to UK and people do when buying upgrades. Especially if you need anything else: SSD, disk drives, etc. check them out anyway very popular and easy to configure.
As someone from the UK as well, I would disregard Ralph's suggestions. OWC is premium priced, but add import costs and VAT and thier nearly as high as Apple. Mac Sales again really resells Apple RAM to the uninformed masses. The fact is that Mac Pro RAM is exactly the same as PC RAM.
I have these in my Mac Pro.
They have worked flawlessly. Dont worrk about the fact that they are 1333mhz, that means they are rated to be able to run faster than your Mac's factory RAM, and as a result your Mac will run them at 1066 and they will last longer and run cooler compared to 1066 rated RAM.
I have spend around £9k with Aria over the last decade and with all the systems I have built for startup studios and kids around me I have never had a problem with thier RAM. As others here may start complaining about the need to get a brandname product however here's a link to Corsair's equivalent on the same site.
They also sell Value RAM in pairs:
I can't recommend Corsair as I've never tried them, and after the 1.3v debacle when the i7s came out I never will.
Not all 8GB DDR3 or 16GB work and ate you forgoing ECC really?
Have you done ANY research on ECC? Unless you are running scientific experiments or need excesssive capacities it is pointless. Absolutely pointless. ECC doesnt correct errors, it maps around them dynamically in a way that is not seen by your OS, but you still need to replace your chip when ECC does that, just not immediately. Its avoiding the problem not fixing it. It also incurs a performance overhead and has higher latency. It also runs hotter than the same DDR3 non ECC, increasing failure rate.
It has one use profile. One.
Servers. If you will be keeping yor system on 24/7 and CANNOT turn it off for months then you need ECC simply so that you can complete the current task before replaceing memory in the even to a failure. This has very good uses, e.g in scientific industries where a single calculation can take months this stops them from having to restart.
I would rather buy 2x £40 non ECC and swap out if I have an issue than buy 1x ECC chip, not to mention the fact that after doing so, I would have faster RAM and spent only 66% of the cost as well as have a reliability rate far over ECC.
And all DDR2 modules that didn't work with Macs didnt do so because they didn't meet the timing and latency standards that JEDEC set for them. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3_SDRAM#JEDEC_standard_modules ) Due to not really having any kind of EFI configuration, a Mac had no way to configue timings so they are hard locked to these settings and RAM will fail to work if they cannot match them. There were a lot of modules that didnt do that back in the day. In the DDR3 era that is virtually nonexistant, but buying faster RAM guarantees that you wont have an issue as faster ram can run at slower rates with significatly lower latencies, far surpassing those specifications. I have sent him to a website where they don't actually sell 1066 anymore, so I would put £100 on every single non-ECC DDR3 chip on there working flawlessly.
Thank you for sharing your opinion about ECC. But I have the complete opposite opinion.
The larger your memory grows, the more likely you will encounter an error, and the syndrome bits are used to correct that error in less than one additional Memory cycle.
While it is true that the corrected data are not propagated back into RAM, The Double-error detection provided means you will halt the machine on a double-bit error instead of propagating damaged information into your File System.
When MY machine with ECC active is acting strangely, a quick look at System Profiler can point out a memory module that may be incurring single-bit errors, or give the RAM a clean bill of health. When your machine is acting goofy, gee, maybe its a memory problem (and good luck finding it).
I think it is pure folly to bypass Hardware error correction to save a few bucks.
I disagree.
There is no correlation between memory size and errors, only number of banks and errors. Your claim is akin to saying that the faster a processor is the more likely it is to fail, irrespective of other major factors such as process size (nm) or binning. Binning in particular has massive impact on reliability, and a bigger chip capacity is just as reliable as a smaller one as usually bigger capacities are built on a smaller process offsetting the common myths about bigger chips generating more heat (and it's the heat that wears chips not the speed or capacity). ECC fixes soft errors, but so do most modern OS's including OS X. Harware faults on a chip are hardware faults on a chip, and if anything ECC increases the likelyhood of that becasue they run significantly hotter.
The fact you can detect an error without memtest etc. is useful, no doubt, but in an environment where you are on a budget, yet paying over double for that privilege and can comfortable swap out any RAM if you suspect them to be an issue, you are making a folly.
Mac Pro Mid 2012 DDR3 1066MHz RAM
