4 ms·
it is 2013. 64GB is not enough for many serious tasks. You present a few valid examples. But I can't see how that represents "many" tasks; it's a very, very sm
by mildtrepidation 13y ago
it is 2013. 64GB is not enough for many serious tasks.
You present a few valid examples. But I can't see how that represents "many" tasks; it's a very, very small subset of the fields in which people use computers for work.
If there were no hardware out there that supports the RAM requirements you're talking about, that'd be a great area for development. But if you're suggesting everything -- or even most things -- should support what to most of us is an over-the-top amount of memory, perhaps your niche is not quite as major as you think.
- sn0v 13y agoI agree that it's a niche application, but imho it's one of the target demographics of a 4k+ USD workstation. I'd like to know the reason (software/hardware) behind the 64 GB limitation as well.
- scottlinux 13y agoThere are only four ram slots. The largest ECC stick available now are single 16GB sticks. Just not enough room for slots on the board, is my guess.
- melling 13y agoIt's a $4000 workstation. You buy it to run big jobs. Your department buys 10 or 20. In 3 or 4 years, the amount of "big data" grows and now you need more RAM. Do you simply spend another $100k to buy all new machines? You are just thinking about today's needs but a few years out memory needs always grow.
- bilbo0s 13y agoNot disagreeing with the memory point... just pointing out that a 12 core processor would, most likely, not be sufficient to the cause in 3 or 4 years if your memory needs grew that much. So wouldn't you buy new machines anyway every 4 years if your department were doing that sort of work???
- makomk 13y agoThe Mac Pro itself is a niche machine and priced as such, though. I mean, it uses a Xeon workstation/server-class CPU - how many computer users need Xeon and wouldn't be just as happy with a much cheaper high-end desktop CPU?