Transcend's 32GB RAM modules for Apple's Mac Pro doubles max memory to 128GB [u]

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited March 2014
Memory manufacturer Transcend on Friday announced availability of high-density DDR3 RDIMM RAM modules that bring the Mac Pro's total memory up to 128GB, doubling the max configuration advertised on the Apple Store.

Mac Pro


With the all-new Mac Pro, Apple uses cutting-edge components and a unique design to net huge gains in performance. The additional speed on tap is especially apparent when editing 4K video in applications like Final Cut Pro.

While processing power has been boosted substantially, one gripe some professional users have with the new system is memory expandability. Currently, Apple lists maximum RAM at four 16GB sticks for 64GB, but Transcend recently released compatible 32GB modules that boost memory to 128GB.

"The new Mac Pro 2013 is advertised to support up to 64GB of memory, and we understand that pro users running applications that place high demands on RAM have a need to meet and most likely exceed this threshold," said Transcend's Director of Research and Development Angus Wu. "For this reason, we have developed and fully tested higher density modules to give users the option of raising their Mac Pro system memory to the advertised 64GB right up to 128GB."

For the its new 16GB DDR3-1866 and 32GB DDR3-1333 RDIMM modules, Transcend guarantees "100% compatibility" with Apple's new Mac Pro. The company also offers lifetime warranties for the products.

Pricing has yet to be announced, though registered DIMMs are usually more expensive than their unregistered counterparts.

Update: Transcend has released pricing information for its DIMM sets. The suggested retail price for the 64GB kit is $980 and the 128GB kit will cost $2480.

Meanwhile, MacMall let us know that they already have 32GB DDR3-1333 ECC RDIMMs for the new Mac Pro in stock from manufacturer Axiom. They currently retail for $619.99 a piece.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member

    I haven't been able to find any mention of price. But I'm glad to see such a product offering. I do a lot of work with The Foundry Modo which can benefit from multiple processors and lots of RAM, and I'm anxious to hear about its optimization for the new Mac Pro with its GPUs.

  • Reply 2 of 59
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

     

    I haven't been able to find any mention of price....


     

    I doubt you'd want to.

     

    Holy cow, 128 GB of RAM. I wonder how many years it will be before I look back on this comment and laugh.

     

    I've already had my laugh at some very very old 'wow' comments on 16 GB of RAM.

  • Reply 3 of 59
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     

     

    I doubt you'd want to.

     

    Holy cow, 128 GB of RAM. I wonder how many years it will be before I look back on this comment and laugh.

     

    I've already had my laugh at some very very old 'wow' comments on 16 GB of RAM.


    Of course I want to. I'm not a dilettante spectator. I've spent a lot of money on memory over the past three decades, making far more money with the resulting enhanced performance of my computers than the cost of the memory. Companies like this realize this value and will probably enjoy good sales to people like me.

  • Reply 4 of 59
    gtbuzzgtbuzz Posts: 129member
    Remember 128K Ram in a Mac ? Probably not, but it was large for the day.
  • Reply 5 of 59
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,382member
    gtbuzz wrote: »
    Remember 128K Ram in a Mac ? Probably not, but it was large for the day.

    Heck I felt spoiled with 128K and no need for a language card to add an additional 16k as with the Apple ][. :D

    I had to get a new Mac Pro in 2013 so had to settle for what was shipping early, a six core. I really would like more RAM that I was able to get stock so this is great news. Now I just want to see the same for the SSDs from third parties, larger and less expensive but 100% compatible ... (I hope)
  • Reply 6 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

     

    Of course I want to. I'm not a dilettante spectator like you. I've spent a lot of money on memory over the past three decades, making far more money with the resulting enhanced performance of my computers than the cost of the memory. Companies like this realize this value and will probably enjoy good sales to people like me.


     

    So I guess you've found a way to monetize that RAM that doesn't involve dealing with clients, huh? I can't imagine that kind of attitude going over very well in any setting other than belly-bumping on the internet.

     

    Besides, how much RAM can you cram into that iMac of yours anyway?

  • Reply 7 of 59

    "I'm not a dilettante spectator like you."… No, you're a complete ass-wipe

  • Reply 8 of 59
    In the UK we call people with this kind of boastful and off putting attitude a 'knob-head'. Which means the same as 'dick-head'.

    I bet your big RAM makes you millions, you complete idiot.
    danielsw wrote: »
    Of course I want to. I'm not a dilettante spectator like you. I've spent a lot of money on memory over the past three decades, making far more money with the resulting enhanced performance of my computers than the cost of the memory. Companies like this realize this value and will probably enjoy good sales to people like me.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    adhiradhir Posts: 50member
    I want a new Mac Pro so I can need these new RAM modules.
  • Reply 10 of 59
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    danielsw wrote: »
    Of course I want to. I'm not a dilettante spectator like you. I've spent a lot of money on memory over the past three decades, making far more money with the resulting enhanced performance of my computers than the cost of the memory. Companies like this realize this value and will probably enjoy good sales to people like me.

    Cool it! He's not attacking you but noting that even those that need 64GiB are very few and far between. If you need 128GiB then so be it and it's certainly possible, but I'm curious as to what you need that much RAM; especially considering that the RAM is slower. I implore you paint for us a picture of your usage needs.
  • Reply 11 of 59
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,382member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Cool it! He's not attacking you but noting that even those that need 64GiB are very few and far between. If you need 128GiB then so be it and it's certainly possible, but I'm curious as to what you need that much RAM; especially RAM that is slower. I implore you paint for us a picture of your usage needs.

    To be fair he is correct if not too tactful although not if the RAM is slower, I missed that part! While working full time I had very Mac. I ever owned maxed out, such as the II fx which had 8 MB LOL, that thing loaded cost more than the current 12 core Mac Pro! One of the companies I ran was in high end scanner software and always needed as much RAM as possible. Today some one editing 4K might seriously benefit from tons of RAM and no doubt 8K is on the horizon. It's horses for courses, most folks don't need much. These days I'd be happy with 32 Gs but since my nMP came with 16 I have to think how to upgrade, I suspect I'm painted into a corner damn it!
  • Reply 12 of 59
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    To be fair he is correct if not too tactful although not if the RAM is slower, I missed that part! While working full time I had very Mac. I ever owned maxed out, such as the II fx which had 8 MB LOL, that thing loaded cost more than the current 12 core Mac Pro! One of the companies I ran was in high end scanner software and always needed as much RAM as possible. Today some one editing 4K might seriously benefit from tons of RAM and no doubt 8K is on the horizon. It's horses for courses, most folks don't need much. These days I'd be happy with 32 Gs but since my nMP came with 16 I have to think how to upgrade, I suspect I'm painted into a corner damn it!

    As a general rule "more RAM is better" but there are many factors to consider here, especially when talking about a production machine. If I was editing 4K video for my Pixar-funded project I would first see if I would need more than 64GiB, then see if the apps I use can handle 128GiB and, finally, I'd want to do testing to see if this slower (as well as brand new, untested, 3rd-party) RAM helps me be more productive than the opting for 64GiB RAM from Apple.

    On the surface I'd say that slightly slower RAM is worth getting double the capacity but at these capacities and speeds we're not talking about basic users so empirical testing is needed to see if this really is a benefit for production.
  • Reply 13 of 59
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,502member

    Irony, since Intel doesn't implement the DD3 spec correctly, the Mac Pro has to house 4 additional RAM slots just to get to 64GB, when if intel did it to spec the 8 slot could theoretically house 256GB of DDR3 RAM.

     

    AMD designs to spec and its the reason there are only 4 slots for DDR3 DIMMS for 32/64GB AMD FM2+ and AM3+ boards.

     

    I would love to see Intel be forced to license Thunderbolt to AMD.

     

    It would give Apple the option for Excavator APUs : the future of CPU designs.

     

    March 26th AMD is announcing the next generation AMD FirePro GPGPUs. I hope the D Series gets an upgrade for Mac Pros.

  • Reply 14 of 59
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Cool it! He's not attacking you but noting that even those that need 64GiB are very few and far between. If you need 128GiB then so be it and it's certainly possible, but I'm curious as to what you need that much RAM; especially RAM that is slower. I implore you paint for us a picture of your usage needs.

    Remember the days when people would ask 'why do you need 8GB of RAM?!' This is the same thing. Musicians, graphic designers, photographers, 3D artists, all these guys would be happy with as much RAM as they can handle. Photoshop files that use 10GB of RAM each, software instruments that need to load up 10's of gigabytes of samples. No-one NEEDS that much ram, but it sure saves a shit load of time when you're on a deadline. No need to close After Effects to reopen Photoshop. Keep Logic Pro open with a bunch of sample-heavy AU instruments while you work in Final Cut with 4K uncompressed video. Comments like that are so closed minded. It's unbelievable you could still be 'curious' about why 128GB+ RAM is useful.
  • Reply 15 of 59
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    frxntier wrote: »
    Remember the days when people would ask 'why do you need 8GB of RAM?!' This is the same thing. Musicians, graphic designers, photographers, 3D artists, all these guys would be happy with as much RAM as they can handle. Photoshop files that use 10GB of RAM each, software instruments that need to load up 10's of gigabytes of samples. No-one NEEDS that much ram, but it sure saves a shit load of time when you're on a deadline. No need to close After Effects to reopen Photoshop. Keep Logic Pro open with a bunch of sample-heavy AU instruments while you work in Final Cut with 4K uncompressed video. Comments like that are so closed minded. It's unbelievable you could still be 'curious' about why 128GB+ RAM is useful.

    1) Someone saying they need more RAM is not a justification for actually needing more RAM or even having apps that can handle the additional RAM so wondering what progressional app(s) it is for is valid question.

    2) As previously noted, we're talking about professional level usage with a Mac Pro with 128GB of RAM so the question is doubly important when you consider someone wanting this RAM despite it having had zero testing in the market and being slower than the DDR4 RAM that that Mac Pro ships with. If you jumping in blindly because of the higher capacity without any considering for quality, support, or performance then you're not someone I want working for me.
  • Reply 16 of 59
    It's only this latest version of OS X that can use more than 96GB of RAM. I'm sure glad Apple finally lifted that cap!
  • Reply 17 of 59
    solipsismx wrote: »
    1) Someone saying they need more RAM is not a justification for actually needing more RAM or even having apps that can handle the additional RAM so wondering what progressional app(s) it is for is valid question.

    2) As previously noted, we're talking about professional level usage with a Mac Pro with 128GB of RAM so the question is doubly important when you consider someone wanting this RAM despite it having had zero testing in the market and being slower than the DDR4 RAM that that Mac Pro ships with. If you jumping in blindly because of the higher capacity without any considering for quality, support, or performance then you're not someone I want working for me.
    I was addressing the question 'why you need that much RAM.' The question was asked without any consideration for why people might need it. I wasn't saying that this setup is the way to go (it really probably isn't, but it's worth investigating.) I was just showing that there are always reasons to have more RAM, even RAM that is slower than DDR4. It's still faster than the PCIe SSDs. I didn't jump in blindly; I just tried to address the annoying 'why would you need this much RAM'. Just being a bit slower on paper is not any reason to immediately discount the idea.
  • Reply 18 of 59
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member

    Do professional OS X apps even allow for 128GB minus OS resources to be allocated by a single app?
  • Reply 19 of 59
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    frxntier wrote: »
    I was addressing the question 'why you need that much RAM.' The question was asked without any consideration for why people might need it. I wasn't saying that this setup is the way to go (it really probably isn't, but it's worth investigating.) I was just showing that there are always reasons to have more RAM, even RAM that is slower than DDR4. It's still faster than the PCIe SSDs. I didn't jump in blindly; I just tried to address the annoying 'why would you need this much RAM'. Just being a bit slower on paper is not any reason to immediately discount the idea.

    Why do you have a problem the question, "Why would you need this much RAM?"? It's not as if I made the statement, "No one needs that much RAM!"
  • Reply 20 of 59
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Why do you have a problem the question, "Why would you need this much RAM?"? It's not as if I made the statement, "No one needs that much RAM!"
    It's the implication that you know the answer, because you qualified it with 'especially ram that is slower'. I read the former statement with the implication of the latter. Apologies for that if it's not what you meant. Although you did ask to have a picture painted for you. And I attempted to do that.
Sign In or Register to comment.