this is something i find annoying - what apple calls *technical specification* is mostly neither technical nor a specification.
you can find at least two models for the seagate ES series 750 GB and of course there are more details for RAM than MHz and capacity (eg. timing) - but hey: why can't we simply read about that that?
i'd wish to get that for chipset model, ethernet, firewire, onboard-sound ect. too, not to buy the pig in a poke ... anyway, fortunately in this price range you can't be up to too much mischief ...
christian

The thing with Macs is that unlike PC's at this end of the game you can be generally confident that you're "getting the best that there is".... I know even with my G5 dual 2.0 it has 1ghz bus which was crazy at the time, and generally very good specs as the price tag suggested at the time.

That notice about the interchangability is probably deserving of critisism towards the certification department more than anything else. More than likely, they're quite compatible, just not "certified" yet.

Miklos.

I contacted 5 different 3rd party suppliers of RAM and hard drives - - all of whom have very good reputations - - and have responses from 3 so far. One of the responses I discount because it said that, "unlike some," their RAM was of the very finest quality etc. and would, "therefore," run perfectly on 8 core machines. Maybe they are right, but it sounded more like hype than anything based on actual testing. The other two respondents were less enthusiastic about themselves and said that they are awaiting delivery of 8 core machines - - which they promised to test extensively before making any statements about compatibility.

Please post the responses as soon as you get them!

[:D]

Best,
Miklos.

No response yet from the 3rd party RAM suppliers. However I did find the following by an anonymous posting on the Macintouch.com website - but I can't vouch for its accuracy:

"MacInTouch Reader

For those of you wondering about the Apple Knowledge Base Article #305352:
After some research this is what I have discovered:

Memory: The difference in the memory is that all memory modules have a little program embedded in them. Apple changed the program in the 8 core memory modules to make them play nicely with the new 8 core processor. Also, the new 8 core memory module has a larger heat sink.

Hard Drives: Notice that Apple uses the word "Kit" in the Knowledge Base Article. A "Kit" consists of a hard drive mounting sled and a Sata II hard drive. The sleds from the quad core Mac Pro are larger than the sleds in the 8 core Mac Pro. The smaller 8 core Mac Pro sled allows for greater air circulation, hence better cooling. The smaller 8 core Mac Pro sled can be used in the quad core Mac Pro but the larger quad core Mac Pro sled is too large to fit in the 8 core Mac Pro. Any Sata II hard drive will work in the new 8 core Mac Pro, with those having the 3gb transfer and 16 mb cache specs being the favored ones."

makes all sense (except the term *little program* [:P]), especially the *bigger heat sink*
christian

@cm said:

makes all sense (except the term *little program* ), especially the *bigger heat sink*

But, that's the question, is there a "little program" and, if there is, will it be available to third party RAM suppliers? Apple's prices for RAM are far above market prices so it would be unfortunate if they were trying to force Mac Users to purchase their (IMO) exorbitantly priced RAM.

this was meant sarcastically ... on fully buffered RAM sticks there sits a chip which regulates the datflow and *buffers* data, it is responsible for timing and spreading addresses across the memory chips - there is nothing like a *firmware* or *program* on a memory stick, everything is pure hard silicium ... of course this Advanced Memory Buffer Chip comes in various models, but the term *little program* is pure nonsense
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/FBDIMM.gif">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Buffered_DIMM
christian

Christian:

Thanks very much for clarifying this.

In case anyone is interested, Crucial has 16GB RAM (the "correct" RAM, according to them) at about £1000 cheaper than Apple.

DG

@Another User said:

We have tested OWC and TransIntl memory on our 8 core. And those companies have confirmed that their memory is fully compatible with the 8 core.

NO, the heatsink has not been altered on Apple's factory "8 core compatible" memory. It's identical those shipped with the 4 core Mac Pro.

As for the reference to compatible drive kits, Apple's bulletin makes absolutely no sense. And, NO, the sled design has not been altered on the 8 core, as some have claimed.

I am waiting to hear from several other third party RAM suppliers - who promised to do actual testing. When I hear from them I will post an update.

Barefeats does have some benchmarks showing that while the 8 core machine is much faster than the Quad in purely computational tasks, but that real world applications like Adobe's CS3 seem to show only a modest increase in speed, if any. This, they attribute to a lack of sufficient bandwith in the memory bus and to the way in which OS10.4 addresses multiple processors. This latter problem was supposed to be solved in Leopard - - but, as we all now know, Leopard is now delayed "until October."

For more on this subject see: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

Given all this, I'm hoping, ever more fervently, that you guys at VSL will consider issuing a version of the Standalone that has assignable audio outputs - - which would make it much easier to exceed the RAM limits of 32bit operating systems. Although Nick Batzdorf seems to have had success with SoundFlower, it has never worked for me without introducing pops and clicks....