Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

RAM beyond 32 GIGs

I

IceMacMac

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 6, 2010
394
18
Curious if anyone here enjoys more RAM than 32 GIGs.

I find that AE requires up to 3 gig per CPU/thread, plus application RAM, and RAM reserved for the system and other apps.

I also often find myself with the following apps all open at once:
AE
c4d
PSD
Illustrator
iTunes
Safari

For this reason I'm considering jumping to 48 GIGs.

Anyone have experiences or expectations?
 
I don't know what you're expecting in terms of experiences... since it just works, you just put the RAM in and turn the computer on. It'd be no different from a person upgrading to 32GB of RAM after figuring out that it's how much they need.
 
Just to remind that IIRC you have to boot into 64-bit kernel to utilize more than 32GB of RAM. Absolutely not an issue but I'm only reminding.
 
Vylen said:
I don't know what you're expecting in terms of experiences... since it just works, you just put the RAM in and turn the computer on. It'd be no different from a person upgrading to 32GB of RAM after figuring out that it's how much they need.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't remotely that simple. If you were an After Effects user you'd appreciate what I'm saying. With AE's quirky 64 bit implementation the RAM requirements and how you set up your app's memory/CPU preferernces change in all kinds of unexpected ways as you scale up in the qty of CPUs.

There are many real world gotchas and certain sweet spots. In Friday's MacPerformance Guide the author makes a big point about how "16GB makes all the difference in big jobs" for Photo pros. There is a big jump from 4 to 8...and another big jump from 8 to 16.

And things don't scale evenly at all. PTGui for instance saw a 250% speed increase when going from 8GB to 16GB of RAM.

Contrastively, we've all seen how there are many times when specs don't translate to much real-world difference. So I'm not asking a simplistic or trivial question by any stretch of imagination.
 
Hellhammer said:
Just to remind that IIRC you have to boot into 64-bit kernel to utilize more than 32GB of RAM. Absolutely not an issue but I'm only reminding.
Click to expand...

That is something I did not know, and should consider. I do a lot of Flash work and don't believe it is 64 bit.

Would booting into 64 bit break my 32 apps...or would they run in some reduced or virtualized mode?

Hellhammer said:
Yeah, but OP has 2009 Mac Pro according to his sig.
Click to expand...

Correct. The 2009 Mac Pro is the machine I'm considering upgrading.

I'm also considering just setting the upgrade money aside towards a 2011 Mac Pro and it's related peripherals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IceMacMac said:
That is something I did not know, and should consider. I do a lot of Flash work and don't believe it is 64 bit.

Would booting into 64 bit break my 32 apps...or would they run in some reduced or virtualized mode?
Click to expand...

There is nothing to worry about. 64-bit kernel can run 32-bit apps fine, like your current 32-bit kernel can run 64-bit apps. I mainly said it because if you install +32GB of RAM without 64-bit kernel, the extra RAM wouldn't be utilized, so I just said it to avoid future confusion (OWC says this on their site too).
 
Hellhammer said:
There is nothing to worry about. 64-bit kernel can run 32-bit apps fine, like your current 32-bit kernel can run 64-bit apps. I mainly said it because if you install +32GB of RAM without 64-bit kernel, the extra RAM wouldn't be utilized, so I just said it to avoid future confusion (OWC says this on their site too).
Click to expand...

As I think about it...I've got to be running in 64 bit now. The majority of apps/processes in Activity Monitor are showing that they are running in 64 bit.
 
IceMacMac said:
As I think about it...I've got to be running in 64 bit now. The majority of apps/processes in Activity Monitor are showing that they are running in 64 bit.
Click to expand...

That's not how you find out if you're running a 64-bit kernel.

Running 64-bit applications in OS X is independent of running either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel.

To know for sure, from the Apple support page:
How do I tell if I'm using the 64-bit kernel?

Use the System Profiler to determine if you're running a 64-bit kernel.

From the Apple () menu, choose About this Mac, then click More Info.
In the Contents pane, select Software.
If 64-bit Kernel and Extensions is set to Yes, you are running a 64-bit kernel.
Click to expand...
 
Vylen said:
That's not how you find out if you're running a 64-bit kernel.

Running 64-bit applications in OS X is independent of running either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel.

To know for sure, from the Apple support page:
Click to expand...

Or if the kernel_task is 64-bit in Activity Monitor.
 
Vylen said:
That's not how you find out if you're running a 64-bit kernel.

Running 64-bit applications in OS X is independent of running either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel.

To know for sure, from the Apple support page:
Click to expand...


OK, thanks Vylen!

It looks like I'm booted in 32 bit.

This raises a whole new set of questions: Would I be better served running in 64 bit mode now? (Performance/Stability)

I'll have to try it out tomorrow.
 
Try it. If you get kernel panics that you weren't before, it means you have 32bit kexts. Find out which one is causing the kp and see if there is a 64bit version available.

Otherwise, there will be no difference (other than being able to install something like a few terabytes of RAM ;-))
 
I went for 64GB from OWC, with no regrets. My RAM usage has yet to surpass 50GB, but since the amount of used memory lies between 30 and 40GB I'm glad I didn't settle with 32. With that in mind the best would have been 48 for my use. Anyway, my rig is quite "future-proof", for some years at least.
 
Garamond said:
I went for 64GB from OWC, with no regrets. My RAM usage has yet to surpass 50GB, but since the amount of used memory lies between 30 and 40GB I'm glad I didn't settle with 32. With that in mind the best would have been 48 for my use. Anyway, my rig is quite "future-proof", for some years at least.
Click to expand...

Awesome...someone w/real world experience. Yes I'm thinking about 48. I don't think I'd use 64 yet.
 
Garamond said:
I went for 64GB from OWC, with no regrets. My RAM usage has yet to surpass 50GB, but since the amount of used memory lies between 30 and 40GB I'm glad I didn't settle with 32. With that in mind the best would have been 48 for my use. Anyway, my rig is quite "future-proof", for some years at least.
Click to expand...

i simply cannot fathom how you guys can use that much ram :p
 
mulo said:
i simply cannot fathom how you guys can use that much ram :p
Click to expand...

It's all a matter of the apps you use.

If you take a quick scan of Adobe's own Todd Kopriva's RAM recommendations you'll quickly realize that to utilize most of the MP's CPUs available you need considerably more than 32 gigs of RAM.

And if you often are bouncing in and out of AE into Photoshop and c4d...it gets intensive.
 
mulo said:
i simply cannot fathom how you guys can use that much ram :p
Click to expand...

Read the OP. If AE requires about 3GB of RAM per CPU thread, that is up to 48GB with 8 cores/16 threads. And that is just AE. Throw in some other apps and system and you will be using tens of GBs of RAM.
 
Hellhammer said:
Read the OP. If AE requires about 3GB of RAM per CPU thread, that is up to 48GB with 8 cores/16 threads. And that is just AE. Throw in some other apps and system and you will be using tens of GBs of RAM.
Click to expand...

I never understood this ram pr thread thing..
 
mulo said:
I never understood this ram pr thread thing..
Click to expand...

A thread, IIRC, is just another term for a CPU, but the term thread includes virtual CPUs.

Unlike 3d apps which seem to be far more efficient at multi-processor rendering, AE basically spawns clones of itself to handle rendering multiple frames at the same time. It's like having 4 or 8 or 12 (whatever) copies of the program open at the same time.
 
IceMacMac said:
A thread, IIRC, is just another term for a CPU, but the term thread includes virtual CPUs.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Sorry.
A thread is an execution unit. Kind of like an atom to a CPU. They are scheduled, then processed. Hyper threading gives the ability to schedule 2 threads per cpu core instead of the one.
They are not "part" of the cpu in any way. Nor does anyone call a cpu a thread or use thread to refer to virtual processors. For lack of a better analogy, a thread is digested by the cpu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back