Honestly not common at all, however it can happen, and I really appreciate OS X in my lab, so I hope the hardware will grow with our needs
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Going above 64GB of RAM in new MP
- Thread starter Foxdog175
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Honestly not common at all, however it can happen, and I really appreciate OS X in my lab, so I hope the hardware will grow with our needs
K, you said "maps and images" tho not topos...
Honestly not common at all, however it can happen, and I really appreciate OS X in my lab, so I hope the hardware will grow with our needs
Thanks! Yeah, I've worked on MRI and CT conversion code which produced 3D results and the market at the time was uber-tiny.
Me too! I like OS X. Almost as much Amiga OS but more than Linux and a lot more than Windows. Although I have to say that Windows and OS X are growing closer to each other in look&feel and in functionality as well.
With all due respect you two are way off the mark.
Why don't you let the other folks who are trying to share
helpful information with fellow forum members based on real world use
and experience do so, instead of insulting everyone
with your condescending comments on how we should set up our machines.
It's obvious neither one of you don't work with large layered files in Photoshop on a day to day basis.
Clever theoreticals and pithy quotes mean nothing in the real world.
Like I said before, 16GB may be more than fine for many folks,
but some of us need as much ram as we can get into out workstations,
not to prove how manly we are, but to increase productivity and workflow.
These are actual screen grabs of an an actual working file.
And it's only a 5GB file that I'm working on today.
(Screens taken during a simple re-size).
Note ram allotment/usage by photoshop in activity monitor...
Attachments
Last edited:
i was mirroring you in my response.. look around at my other posts and see how much time i spend insulting others.. re-read your post and see that it was actually you who were insulting/down-talking the guy over 16GB.. you were not giving anybody any sort of helpful information other than your own ego.
(and yeah, i don't use large photoshop files.. ever.. maybe 1GB at the absolute most (which, btw, is sluggish for me and my computers).. but guess what.. photoshop isn't the only app out there and %wise, very few people actually need the amount of ram you're deeming necessary)
Last edited:
Nobody does edit in 1080p anymore. So, can we agree that the new Mac "Pro" RAM ceiling is not enough, at least not for everybody?
The whole thing with all these "is enough" talk is that it is always a very subjective matter that only considers the personal view of the issuer, the current way of thinking and of course the current technological situation at that time. I remind of "640k is enough"
Is there any reason not to use Superbiiz for RAM? I have always used Micron memory but there is a significant price difference.
K, you said "maps and images" tho not topos...
Thanks! Yeah, I've worked on MRI and CT conversion code which produced 3D results and the market at the time was uber-tiny.
Me too! I like OS X. Almost as much Amiga OS but more than Linux and a lot more than Windows. Although I have to say that Windows and OS X are growing closer to each other in look&feel and in functionality as well.
Are you always that pedantic? Topographical maps are MAPS. Images can be anything graphical not just a photography...
Hey Guys? Feel free to hijack this thread, but before my questions are buried underneath several pages of other posts, any chance I could get a few questions answered? I feel like the guy in the middle of the room with my hand raised with 15 other people talking around me.
I'm having a hard time finding 16g modules. Nothing came up on NewEgg when I specifically looked for that capacity. Do you guys have any recommendations? Also, how valuable would 1866 be vs the lower speeds we have now? How is that speed comparable to something like 1333 or my very-aged 800MHz DDR2? Would you recommend that New-MP-owners opt for 1866 or is the price not worth it as compared to lower speeds?
Thanks in advance
I'm having a hard time finding 16g modules. Nothing came up on NewEgg when I specifically looked for that capacity. Do you guys have any recommendations? Also, how valuable would 1866 be vs the lower speeds we have now? How is that speed comparable to something like 1333 or my very-aged 800MHz DDR2? Would you recommend that New-MP-owners opt for 1866 or is the price not worth it as compared to lower speeds?
Thanks in advance
50%
And since the Mac Pro only has one CPU, it will always be limited to a MAXIMUM of 50% compared to what you could have with a more capable architecture. That not only means CPU power (apparently) but also RAM size (half the slots) and I assume also GPU power if you do not want to limit your bandwith with thunderbolt (that you could use anyway in addition).
In regard to this topic:
It will be possible to go above 64GB and maybe even more using the latest and greatest (= very expensive EDIT: and hard to find) sticks, but total RAM size will always be at BEST half of what you could get otherwise.
----------
Maybe he simply wants to cover his superficial knowledge?
And since the Mac Pro only has one CPU, it will always be limited to a MAXIMUM of 50% compared to what you could have with a more capable architecture. That not only means CPU power (apparently) but also RAM size (half the slots) and I assume also GPU power if you do not want to limit your bandwith with thunderbolt (that you could use anyway in addition).
In regard to this topic:
It will be possible to go above 64GB and maybe even more using the latest and greatest (= very expensive EDIT: and hard to find) sticks, but total RAM size will always be at BEST half of what you could get otherwise.
----------
Maybe he simply wants to cover his superficial knowledge?
Last edited:
Hey Guys? Feel free to hijack this thread, but before my questions are buried underneath several pages of other posts, any chance I could get a few questions answered? I feel like the guy in the middle of the room with my hand raised with 15 other people talking around me.
I'm having a hard time finding 16g modules. Nothing came up on NewEgg when I specifically looked for that capacity. Do you guys have any recommendations? Also, how valuable would 1866 be vs the lower speeds we have now? How is that speed comparable to something like 1333 or my very-aged 800MHz DDR2? Would you recommend that New-MP-owners opt for 1866 or is the price not worth it as compared to lower speeds?
Thanks in advance
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...952 600213071&IsNodeId=1&name=48GB (3 x 16GB)
48GB 3x16
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...952 600336949&IsNodeId=1&name=64GB (4 x 16GB)
64GB 4x16
Hey Guys? Feel free to hijack this thread, but before my questions are buried underneath several pages of other posts, any chance I could get a few questions answered? I feel like the guy in the middle of the room with my hand raised with 15 other people talking around me.
I'm having a hard time finding 16g modules. Nothing came up on NewEgg when I specifically looked for that capacity. Do you guys have any recommendations? Also, how valuable would 1866 be vs the lower speeds we have now? How is that speed comparable to something like 1333 or my very-aged 800MHz DDR2? Would you recommend that New-MP-owners opt for 1866 or is the price not worth it as compared to lower speeds?
Thanks in advance
Try OWC. Mac sales. They aren't the cheapest, but the customer service is the best and they stand behind what they sell. (No affiliation, just a very satisfied customer for 6 years...)
Not quite sure what machine you are running, but here's link to main memory section...
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/
Yeah, it's starting to look that way.
The whole thing with all these "is enough" talk is that it is always a very subjective matter that only considers the personal view of the issuer, the current way of thinking and of course the current technological situation at that time. I remind of "640k is enough"
Good points. I was trying to think across most conceivable situations when I made my comments. If people are trying to edit uncompressed 4K vids in real-time on their macs now and attempting to interact with or edit 4-meter sampled texture-mapped topos of all of North America I have to reconsider my considerations tho.
And I don't mean that sarcastically either. It's definitely true that one can never have enough RAM. But at what point does it go from "everything works at the speed of RAM except in rare and exceptional cases" to "Neat, I never have to think again - I can fit all 5 applications with all of their project data and two operating systems all in memory - all at once"?
As the thinking and expectations move toward the later it becomes more and more useless to recommend or suggest any amount. Again none of this is meant sarcastically but in the later case I want 2 or 3 terabytes or memory. Even with that much I still couldn't load up all the texture mapped topo data for the Earth - and Earth from space zoom-ins are popular in video and film effects. I did that effect for the first time in 1988 (for a movie released in '89 I think) on a stack of Amiga 2000s and I can't remember how much RAM was installed on each but it was less than 1GB per machine I think - probably like 128MB or something <shrug>. At the time I had the topo files for the entire Earth and most of the texture maps too. It would have been nice to just load the whole set, toss in some HV cloud layers and press the render button. I had to use my skill-set instead though.
I guess you can see the point I'm trying to make? Anyway I was thinking based on my skill sets and my application base that 32GB was enough for just about anything and 64GB was moving toward the silly side. If that's outdated already I'll have to go back and reconsider things. Still, I would think those numbers are close for all but the one-percenters out there.
Last edited:
Sorry if I misunderstood you. But yes, I like pedantic! Be as accurate as I can be. Use words which mean precisely what I wish to communicate. Especially here where everyone takes everything out of context anyway.
Hehe, wrong on all counts.
Count 1) Since 4-way system aren't uncommon you would actually have to say this about duals and the new Macs would a quarter of potential. Or heck let's just go Enterprise and say MacPro6,1 is 1/10000th the capability.
Count 2) http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products/xl/130957/asus_p9x79_pro.jpg What's this?
Count 3) The MP6,1 comes with two super-fast workstation grade GPUs with 6GB (?) in each. They are not limited by TB speeds. No one sane would add a 3rd or 4th GPU for display and so any additional cards would normally be for compute. There is no slow-down for GPU compute (GPGPU) over TB1 let alone TB2.
Count 4) Currently 16GB server DIMMs are approximately the same price per gig as 8GB DIMMs. Not "very expensive" and I guess not hard to find either. At 1333MHz 2x16GB ECC kits are about $350 to $400 and sometimes even cheaper. 4x8GB ECC kits are $375 to $425. Neither are difficult to find.
Count 5) Because I misunderstood someone's wording now all my knowledge is superficial? That doesn't even make sense.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Ah, yes
You sure? Lets see.
So it is even worse than I said. And that makes me wrong?
A Motherboard with apparently 8 RAM slots. And how does that prove me wrong? As I said, you can get double of the max RAM elsewhere, or is this the new Mac "Pro" Motherboard? Again, as you show it is even worse. Therefore I changed my post above to "up to 50%".
Ahhh man, I seems that you really do not know what you are talking about. Your little imagination forms some serious mental barriers in your brain. So, "No one sane" ... well, really? For the start, ever heard of Bitcoin mining?
And didn't you say just some posts ago that "no one sane" will use >32GB?
There is less bandwith with TB. But wait, now you say: "No one sane is using this bandwidth. Ever."
At 1333 MHz, lol OK .... Frankly, I do not know what to say. You seem to apologize for the new Mac "Pro" at all costs, even if it makes you look like a moron.
"Misunderstood wording" - yeah, sure. You didn't lack very very basic knowledge of how images and video are processed, nonono. You didn't prove that 2 times (in a row). Noooooo! It's the wording of someone else. Yeah, sure.
Deep denial mode?
Now, it makes even more sense.
Last edited:
Not that I have seen. They just appear to be a low margin retailer with a good selection of OEM parts.
True, but if that were the case, OP would be consulting with Apple directly and not a internet forum.
As per RAM, I meant NewEgg didn't have at the time of my search.
Exactly. People tend to forget that the MP is an excellent server of VMs. I run Windows 7 + Windows 8 (ugh) and Linux on my MP 5,1. Lots of memory is a boon.
Yup, I'm sure. You can use personal attacks, twisted meanings, proven incorrect assumptions, and words out of context to support a ridiculous argument but it won't change the absurdity of it nor the atypical points it proposes.
Last edited:
Haha, you're funny and it's almost entertaining watching you trying to sell the new Mac Pro to everyone, but I do not think a discussion is very fruitful in this case, especially now that you have gone from denial mode to hyperventilating mode, spitting out a lot of hot air without any substance. Also, self reflection does not seem to be one of your strong points, and you have already written so much nonsense (not only in this thread) it makes it almost impossible for me to still take you seriously. So I am sorry, I do not have _that_ much time on my hands, have a nice day
I disagree. And that is fine. We each have our uses and needs for our Mac's and each case is unique.
For me, I like to have my only system run my personal life as well as my professional life. I do training on VM's for specific certifications and proof of concepts and appreciate the ability to have these run on on Mac Pro. I cycle through several types of VM's regularly as I work on different projects and this capability to have a dozen VM's running is appreciated. A few of my friends enjoy this as they can get on a test VM and run it through its paces to get an idea of how a particular piece of software works.
The other things preventing it from being an excellent virtual machine host server is the lack hardware overall that is required for it to even be considered an acceptable virtual machine host server. If it was an excellent virtual machine host server I would be able to throw 512GB+ of RAM in it to run several hundred virtual machines on. If it was an excellent virtual machine host server it would have a minimum of two hot swap power supplies. If it was an excellent virtual machine host server it would have hot swap hard drives.
I have a Mac Pro 3,1 that I run several virtual machines on each day and consider it an adequate virtual machine host. To label it as excellent virtual machine host server seems like a stretch to me.
Like you said though we each have different needs.
I have a Mac Pro 3,1 that I run several virtual machines on each day and consider it an adequate virtual machine host. To label it as excellent virtual machine host server seems like a stretch to me.
Like you said though we each have different needs.
I'm sure some people would want rack-mountable, I don't need it.
----------
Point made, brand - it's excellent for ME.