Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 30, 2009, 06:21 PM   #1
Loa
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
2009MP: 6GB Vs 8GB; triple Vs dual channels: PS4 tests

Hello,

I ran some tests on my 2009 Quad Nehalem to try and determine what was up with the triple Vs dual memory "brouhaha".

I posted the results as a new thread because I think it will be useful information for a lot of quad owners, but it was originally going to be a reply to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845

Here we go. Tesselator suggested 3 tests that could show the differences in speed between triple and dual channel bandwidth.

Quote:
As one idea I would maybe try creating a few very large images (16-bit, blank white, blank black, gradient fill) and then duplicating and deleting that layer repeatedly a few hundred times.
So I did them, 10 times each. I could have gone on, but the results were very very stable after the first 2 attempts.

Set-up: a 40Mpx, 16bit image (8000*5000). First test it was simply filled white; second test: black; and third test a black to white gradient. I added a fourth test, using a real (photo) 12Mpx RAW image from my Nikon D300.

I created (took a while!) an action with 350 repetitions of "duplicate layer" and "delete layer", followed by a red fill to let me know the action was done. The same action was used in all four tests.

The computer was restarted before each of the four tests, which may explain the irregularities on the first 1-2 attempts. Nothing else but PS4 was launched.

The results are interesting:



We can clearly see that the simple white and black fills show a speed difference of around 10%.

We can also clearly see that this difference disappears when a more complex image is used. The use of more complex images represents a much more realistical use of PS.

_________________________________________

To make things even more realistic, I also tested RetouchActions's speed test on my own 12Mpx image. I use nearly all of the operations of that action on a daily basis, so it's a lot more representative of the work I do on PS.

Here are the results:



The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.

Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).

For me the results are definitive: unless I plan on working only with full black or full white images (not even black and white!), having 8GB is better, even when working on smallish 12Mpx files. I imagine the differences would have been even greater using bigger file sizes of actual complex images.

_______________________________________

What would now be interesting: someone with a 2009MP Octo doing the same tests at 12GB and 16GB.

I'm waiting for reasons why my tests were not good! :-D

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 07:03 PM   #2
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
Hello,

The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.

Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).

For me the results are definitive:
Good work.

But you were getting pageouts during the tests? If so that would seem to nullify all your efforts.
I have 12GB RAM and I have to try real hard and do crazy shirt to get any to happen at all.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 07:14 PM   #3
MacVidCards
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hollywood, CA
 
Could this be due to the 4 Gig RAM limit on CS4?

Or is that limit imaginary?
MacVidCards is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 07:17 PM   #4
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
But you were getting pageouts during the tests? If so that would seem to nullify all your efforts.
Yes and no: it shows that even if PS has to use a HDD as scratch, you're still a winner by having 8GB.

Also, most quad users won't be willing to pay the very steep price for 12GB of ram.

And finally, if a 12Mpx image forces some pageouts on a 8GB system, let alone a 6GB, any thought that a 6GB would be faster in PS is ridiculous. In other words: if 8GB is not enough to handle a 12Mpx image in PS, a 6GB system won't be able to handle any useful or practical size of an image at all.

Now as I said, I'd be very curious to see, on a 2009 octo, how a 12GB (three 2GB chips on each CPU) Vs 16GB (four 2GB chips on each CPU) would turn out. Maybe that much ram would prevent page-outs.

But in the end, if you use PS a lot on a quad 2009, 8GB is better than 6GB.

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2009, 07:21 PM   #5
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rominator View Post
Could this be due to the 4 Gig RAM limit on CS4?

Or is that limit imaginary?
The limit is actually 3GB, but anything over that will be used (handled by the OS) before PS is forced to the hard drive as scratch disk.

So having lots of ram is very useful even if PS4 cannot use more than 3GB itself: Mac OS X handles the extra ram to give PS4 maximal perfomance.

As it's been said in other threads: it's always better to use extra ram, regardless of its speed, instead of going to your HDD with anything extra that PS4 might need.

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 10:44 AM   #6
parakiet
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
how wel does your quad & 8gig ram handles a 1 too 3 gig file in PS? can you try one?


i'm working with largeformat scans here and really getting stuck with my imac 24" & 4gig ram
(working with a 8000 * 10000 px image)


want a MP now.. but can't pick one: quad with 8gig ram or octo 2,26 with 12gig ram

my mind is going crazy.. or more ram or more cpu speed
parakiet is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 10:55 AM   #7
Shawny D
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Hahaha, I saw "PS4" and actually thought you meant "PlayStation 4" for all of 2 seconds.

As you were.
__________________
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children."
Shawny D is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 11:14 AM   #8
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
The limit is actually 3GB, but anything over that will be used (handled by
the OS) before PS is forced to the hard drive as scratch disk.

So having lots of ram is very useful even if PS4 cannot use more than 3GB
itself: Mac OS X handles the extra ram to give PS4 maximal perfomance.

As it's been said in other threads: it's always better to use extra ram,
regardless of its speed, instead of going to your HDD with anything
extra that PS4 might need.

Loa
I don't think this is correct. But maybe you could explain it to me (us).

AFAIK Adobe hasn't told us how it works or how it's supposed to work.
So without extensive testing which I'll assume no one has ever done
and published, everyone is just guessing at how it works.

I had envisioned two separate systems of what we might commonly
refer to as VM. One was the scratch file PS uses after the 3GB limit.
I had assumed it would ALWAYS go to the drive after the 3GB was
used up and also that it was 3GB per image document. Then the
second system that the OS handles as you put it, is the Undos,
History States, and Cache Levels which may not all fit into RAM
- especially with multiple documents opened and being worked on.

Since the later are parts of the application environment the OS can
deal with those. This would also seem to imply that one must tune
the PS settings for the amount of RAM they have
. The former 3GB
limit, is a hard-wired limit so to speak and when it's used up would
imply the PS has no other choice but to go to disk - the OS can't
magically extend this limit.

All of this seems to be supported by my testing so far. Could you clarify?


A few interesting observational "facts" I've discovered about PS CS3/4:
  • I can edit in PS for days with 14 ~ 24 MPx images and never see any
    significant pageouts - always far less than 1MB total. I have 12GB RAM.

  • When PS writes to it's scratch disk no pageout activity is recorded.

  • PS itself is slower than any scratch disk you're likely use. PS's peak
    usage of the scratch drive is about 40 MB/s Write and 28 MB/s read.
    It's average is MUCH less - about 7 MB/s write and 3 MB/s read.
    This is due to PS's display code and not the storage device I/O speed.
    I have a 2006 MP octad 2.66 with a 7300GT card.

  • In typical use PS never EVER uses it's scratch disk. You have to do
    something crazy to get it to happen. You have to create a single
    document larger than 3GB.


.

Last edited by Tesselator; Jul 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 01:06 PM   #9
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
I don't think this is correct. But maybe you could explain it to me (us).
Well I won't be able to explain it to you at an architectural or procedural level, but I'll do it on a pragmatic level: when dealing with a complex image (not a simple fill), a number of different and complex layers and a varied series of operations on those layers, PS4 works faster with 8GB than with 6GB. (As my graph shows.)

Others have done the same tests, including your very best friend Diglloyd. ;-)

So if the OS is not preventing disk usage by "directing" all that over-3GB data to excess ram, how can we explain that performance increase?

I understand your 4 facts, but we still need to explain the significant performance gain from going from 6GB to 8GB, using a 12Mpx image.

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 01:08 PM   #10
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by parakiet View Post
how wel does your quad & 8gig ram handles a 1 too 3 gig file in PS? can you try one?
I'm willing to try it, but you'll have to be more specific than "handle". What operations do you usually use, and would you want me to time how long it takes? (Also, do you use 8, 16 or 32 bits images?)

Quote:
my mind is going crazy.. or more ram or more cpu speed
Well as it stand right now, PS4 is not programmed to handle a lot of cores. There's a very good chance, though, that PS5 (coming out when???) will.

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 01:56 PM   #11
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
Well I won't be able to explain it to you at an architectural or procedural level, but I'll do it on a pragmatic level: when dealing with a complex image (not a simple fill), a number of different and complex layers and a varied series of operations on those layers, PS4 works faster with 8GB than with 6GB. (As my graph shows.)

Others have done the same tests, including your very best friend Diglloyd. ;-)

So if the OS is not preventing disk usage by "directing" all that over-3GB data to excess ram, how can we explain that performance increase?

I understand your 4 facts, but we still need to explain the significant performance gain from going from 6GB to 8GB, using a 12Mpx image.

Loa
Huh? No, no. You're misunderstanding the question. I already understand the performance gains. You were getting pageouts. That blows the entire test for me. But that's not my question. You said:

"The limit is actually 3GB, but anything over that will be used (handled by
the OS) before PS is forced to the hard drive as scratch disk.
"

This doesn't jive with what I think I know and it sounded like you might know more - so I thought I would ask. Again to be clear, my question isn't about your tests but rather memory management and PS.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 01:58 PM   #12
parakiet
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
I'm willing to try it, but you'll have to be more specific than "handle". What operations do you usually use, and would you want me to time how long it takes? (Also, do you use 8, 16 or 32 bits images?)
oh notting fancy really
this is my workflow:
PS&Bridge are open, sometimes flexcolor too
i start with a 460mb 16bit tiff
normaly i copy my background layer once
some selections copyed to a new layer ( lets say 3 selections of about 20% of the image and 1 selection of 40% of the image)
and the usual fine tuning adjustment layers (one color balance, 3 curves with a mask and 1 curve for the whole image)


so at the final stages my filee is about 2-3 gig

my imac just gets it hard when i pull those final 2 or 3 adjustment layers or when i need to adjust a certain area of my image


you see it's just normal postprocessing (not batching automatic filters ) and was wondering is those new MP kept up with it.
it's not really timing how much sec it takes to save a file but wether it keeps working smooth with a 2 gig tiff



however, if i read the above.. the problem should be the big file size + 3gb memory cap?!?!?
parakiet is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 02:31 PM   #13
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
Huh? No, no. You're misunderstanding the question.
No: I understood perfectly. I even said I couldn't give you a "technical" answer. Verifying the PS4 performance of a quad under triple or dual channel (6GB or 8GB) was my only intention.

As for the pageouts: I already explained why it's really not a problem, but also that it further validates the 8GB choice over the 6GB on a quad. If a "smallish" 12Mpx file forces page-outs with 8GB, there is no way to justify going to 6GB for PS4 on a quad. Period.

Quote:
Quote:
"The limit is actually 3GB, but anything over that will be used (handled by
the OS) before PS is forced to the hard drive as scratch disk.
"
This doesn't jive with what I think I know and it sounded like you might know more - so I thought I would ask. Again to be clear, my question isn't about your tests but rather memory management and PS.
My knowledge is purely pragmatic: I've seen it, even tested it. My only explanation is purely logical. I'll spell it out more clearly:
-PS4 cannot handle more than 3GB of ram.
-Adding more ram beyond that limit increases PS4's performance.
-Thus: something is using that extra memory to "help" PS4.

I can't imagine that "something" being anything else than the OS.

I too would like to know exactly why, with full details. But I'm a lot more interested in real-world results than explanations, so I'm not going to be the one that's going to google info until I get a complete picture!

However you or someone else might explain it, adding more ram (even at the cost of triple memory channel) means more performance in PS4. If it's not done by the OS preventing scratch/VM usage, I don't know how it could be done.

I'm also very curious to see someone with a 2009MP octo doing equivalent tests with triple/dual memory channels. Maybe those tests would shed more light on PS4's memory management.

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 02:56 PM   #14
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by parakiet View Post
oh notting fancy really
this is my workflow:
PS&Bridge are open, sometimes flexcolor too
i start with a 460mb 16bit tiff
normaly i copy my background layer once
some selections copyed to a new layer ( lets say 3 selections of about 20% of the image and 1 selection of 40% of the image)
and the usual fine tuning adjustment layers (one color balance, 3 curves with a mask and 1 curve for the whole image)


so at the final stages my filee is about 2-3 gig
Interesting results. I created the file by blowing up one of my images to your dimensions, then adding the layers and adjustment layers. Initial 16bit TIFF file size 460MB; final file size: 2.66GB.

Everything went "silky smooth": all masks I added to the adjustment layers were instantaneous, no delays or slow downs. No delay while adjusting the adjustment layers either. Using brushes or dodge/burn tools was as fast as usual.

Then I thought about using the smear tool on the background layer. Lol. Not a good idea. Don't try it on your iMac! I used a 2500px soft (gradient) round brush size and pulled a large smear. That was X minutes ago: it's not done yet. hahaha (see P.S.)

All my 8 cores (4 cores with 2 "hyper"threads means 8 core % on your menu bar) are running between 30% to 50%. I'm not sure more cores would help, but maybe someone else can answer that.

Interesting part: during all those operations, I didn't get a single page-out despite the huge file size.

All in all, using the operations you stated, I didn't see anything different than usual: everything was instant.

So unless you want to SMEAR, a 2.66 quad with 8GB of ram will serve you well.

Loa

P.S. I force quit PS after 15 minutes of this smear not completing... I could see the smear itself, but it would not stop working. :-)

Last edited by Loa; Jul 1, 2009 at 03:17 PM. Reason: added PS
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 03:05 PM   #15
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
No: I understood perfectly. I even said I couldn't give you a "technical" answer. Verifying the PS4
performance of a quad under triple or dual channel (6GB or 8GB) was my only intention.
OK.

Quote:
As for the pageouts: I already explained why it's really not a problem, but also that it further
validates the 8GB choice over the 6GB on a quad. If a "smallish" 12Mpx file forces page-outs with
8GB, there is no way to justify going to 6GB for PS4 on a quad. Period.
Hehehe, Pageouts are always a problem. For me this would justify 12GB instead of 6 or 8. Probably
8 isn't going to make enough of a difference over 6 - only eliminate your ability to capitalize on triple
channel RAM accesses.


Quote:
My knowledge is purely pragmatic: I've seen it, even tested it. My only explanation is purely logical.
I'll spell it out more clearly:
-PS4 cannot handle more than 3GB of ram.
-Adding more ram beyond that limit increases PS4's performance.
-Thus: something is using that extra memory to "help" PS4.
OK. But let's be clear about one thing for this explanation. PS can't use more than 3GB for an image
ever. It immediately hits the scratch disk as soon as the image + layers hit over 3GB. Until we get PS 12
(PS 11 is still 32Bit) this will remain true unfortunately.


Quote:
I too would like to know exactly why, with full details. But I'm a lot more interested in real-world
results than explanations...
Me too. I wanna know. I wanna hear it from Adobe. I want the explanation because with that knowledge
I can get the best "real-world results" possible.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 03:16 PM   #16
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
Hehehe, Pageouts are always a problem. For me this would justify 12GB instead of 6 or 8.
While page-outs are a problem for performance, they're not a problem for my test. They not a problem precisely because going for 12GB is not an option. 8GB = 150$, 12GB = 500$.

Quote:
OK. But let's be clear about one thing for this explanation. PS can't use more than 3GB for an image ever.
I agree.

Quote:
It immediately hits the scratch disk as soon at the image + layers hit over 3GB. Until we get PS 12 (PS 11 is still
32Bit) this will remain true unfortunately.
I haven't checked myself.

But, the fact remains that more ram helps PS4, even beyond 3GB. Thus the OS has to help with memory management. Deduction at work!

Which was my point to begin with.

Quote:
I want the explanation because with that knowledge I can get
the best "real-world results" possible.
Not sure you need it for performance: it's not like we have a lot of options! We already know that 8GB is better than anything smaller. All we need now is a rich guy with 10-12-14-16GB of ram in a quad, running the same tests! Then we'll know when (if?) the performance gains peak.

Practical knowledge can sometimes be just as good as theoretical knowledge. Sometimes even better, especially when talking about complex systems like computers. If I had done nothing but read tech specs on the way Nehalem handles RAM, I would have gotten 6GB, not knowing that it would have slowed me down by 10% in PS4 (over the 8GB, oh-so-slow dual channel)...

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 04:13 PM   #17
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
True, true. But I think we have too many options. That's why I want Adobe's explanation.

We have up to 1000 possible History States, 8 levels of Cache, From 90 to 3072 MB of document space, OpenGL offloading (somehow??), The Bigger Blocks plug-in, and then the (probably outdated or moot) Adobe policy to partition for the scratch area. UG! Hy head hurts just thinking of that list. I've gone insane (as you can probably tell!) trying to figure out the best combination of them.


PS: 12GB is only "not an option" if the user is stuck on a 2009 quad system. Apple blew chunks on this one IMO. The chipset on the 09's can support many MANY more DIMMs than that! I think it was up to 144 GB.

Last edited by Tesselator; Jul 1, 2009 at 04:58 PM.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 04:22 PM   #18
tobyg
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
We could do 12GB in dual and triple channel on a 8 core 2009 MP with 8 memory slots. 6 2GB in triple channel mode and then 4 2GB and 4 1GB which should give 12gb in dual channel mode.

I do have a 2009 8 core MP and I do have 8 2GB DIMMS and of course the 6 1GB's that came with it. So I could get 12GB in both dual and triple channel modes. I just don't own or have PS4 to do these tests (nor am I familiar with PS4, or any photoshop really). I guess I could probably download a demo, but not knowing the software would make it hard.
tobyg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 05:07 PM   #19
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Yeah. It might be fun tho! But for the original discussion PS was only one case in point. Tests could run on anything really. Here's the original thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845


I wanted Apple to offer '09 Mac Pros that configured more like this:




Last edited by Tesselator; Jul 1, 2009 at 05:31 PM.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 05:19 PM   #20
Loa
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Québec
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobyg View Post
I guess I could probably download a demo, but not knowing the software would make it hard.
Ya, it would probably be hard... Do you know anyone around you that is familiar with PS4??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
I wanted Apple to offer '09 Mac Pros that configured more like this
Hehe, hackintosh it!

Loa
Loa is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 05:44 PM   #21
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
Yeah. It might be fun tho! But for the original discussion PS was only one case in point. Tests could run on anything really. Here's the original thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845


I wanted Apple to offer '09 Mac Pros that configured more like this:
Dell?
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 05:48 PM   #22
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
I think that's an Intel board.

http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=3536
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 05:55 PM   #23
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
But keep in mind, Dell doesn't make their own boards these days. Custom design, maybe, but usually ODM'ed, not just OEM'ed.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2009, 06:17 PM   #24
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Oh, you were saying "Dell?" as a possibility not asking if that WAS a Dell board.... (?).

Yeah... True. Dell workstations and servers are nice. Their home PCs are total crap. The span of between 3 and 8 years ago their prices were pretty good too. This year I've seen some people showing that Dell is now as or more ridiculous than Apple tho - and that's baaaad.

So I think if I want a system with 18 RAM slots and dual procs I'm going to have to hit the parts shops. I don't feel like paying Dell $5000 extra to assemble and test it for me.


Here's the post that goes with that slide-show BTW: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=481

Last edited by Tesselator; Jul 1, 2009 at 06:32 PM.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2009, 02:33 AM   #25
Gonk42
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: near Cambridge
It is not a Dell board. Dell attach the second processor via a daughter board which also has the associated RAM slots (on the T7500 and T5500 at least). They, like Apple, like to have a bit of proprietaryness (if there is such a word).
Unless it is a Dell server - I don't know what they have in them.

Dell's dual processor machines are expensive, cheaper than Apple but still expensive versus building one yourself but they do negotiate on price and when they eventually hit Dell Outlet with 35% discount they will be almost cheap.
Gonk42 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barefeats tests Dual X5690 Maxed Out Mac Pro, with Dual D700s...check it out MacVidCards Mac Pro 4 Oct 30, 2013 03:48 PM
I have an 8GB iPod touch 4Gen, but in settings, it says it's capacity is about 6GB? LOLZpersonok iPod touch 12 Sep 26, 2012 09:27 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC