I'm wondering if anyone has, or knows anybody with 16GB of RAM in their Mac Pro/PowerMac.
If so what apps do you run?
If so what apps do you run?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
16GB of RAM? Anyone? Anyone?
- Thread starter Unorthodox
- Start date
i doubt there an app or apps that can even challenge 16 gigs. The person that uses 16 gigs probably runs their own airport lol. In 6 years 16 gigs might actually be a normal amount.
I routinely do computational work that requires operations on arrays that are >100MBs. That might not sounds like much, but it is pretty easy to hit 2GB memory limits with array operations that require multiple copies to be in memory simultaneously. I had to do a lot of programming to even solve the system of linear equations that I was working with and the performance is sub-par. That is, with more memory I could obtain a more accurate result. So while I don't have 16GB of memory and I'm not sure that the software we currently use would properly address it, I do look forward to the day when I have this as an option.
So...does anyone have a fully loaded system they want to brag about?
So...does anyone have a fully loaded system they want to brag about?
Not yet but wait awhile....new complicated apps that will run your house will require at least 10gigs to run...its coming.
Bless
Bless
I was talking with someone in class about someone who ordered one. So I will ask around see if i can talk to this guy and see what he uses it for.
Someone should go for this. It is pretty low right now.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=007&item=170031971501&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEBI:IT&rd=1
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=007&item=170031971501&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEBI:IT&rd=1
My three gigs shed tears in this post.
I think one dude on this forum had 4 gigs installed and had ordered 4 gigs at the time of his post..so I think we may have one poster with 8.
I think one dude on this forum had 4 gigs installed and had ordered 4 gigs at the time of his post..so I think we may have one poster with 8.
The photographer I intern for has two dual G5s with 8gb each, as well as two G4s at 6GB each...technicolor said:
16gb would be insane. I don't think I could use that if I wanted to.
Agreed. My buddy showed me an article about how Intel is promising an 80-core processor in five years. Yes, I meant to type 80. Eighty. Not eight, but eighty.thugpoet22 said:
Daniel.
I don't know. Tech is speeding up rapidly; I bet high end users will likely find benefits in 16gigs within two years.
About 6 weeks ago I built a G% QUad Core with 8 Gigs for a customer. He was using FInal Cut Pro and Aperture mainly. Or atleast would be using it once he got it from me. I had done everything to setting up the machine, installing ram, installing all softare (FInal Cut, Aperture, MS Office and others) to actually running all software updates. I remember after running the first slew of software updates ( like security, OS and other assorted software updates) I did the usually reboot. The first screen came up (the white with apple and spinning pinwheel) then it went straight to OS Main Screen. It completely bypassed the loading OS Screen with blue progress bar. This surprised me and I was even more surprised when I thought that it normally would even take longer because it just got done installing all those updates. Fastest machine I ever put my hands on. He is in the store all the time and says he is still impressed with it everytime he uses it.
Kevin
Kevin
We have one at work with 16 gig (G5). But no one uses it cuase its just silly. But i suspect some people would use it for science applications.
I will have one as soon as I get the memory modules in. I'm allergic to XP so whenever I need to do some testing, I use Parallels. With every instance of Parallels @ 1.5 GB, I can run several instances in // and as such can simulate a complex environment all in 1 box.
Other then that, nothing wrong with a massive amount of ram when you do photo editing of 40 MP pictures (raw) (equals 600 MB in tiff)
I'll let you know when I get the memory in (and no, it's not from Apple. To expensive)
Other then that, nothing wrong with a massive amount of ram when you do photo editing of 40 MP pictures (raw) (equals 600 MB in tiff)
I'll let you know when I get the memory in (and no, it's not from Apple. To expensive)
I can only assume that there are some scientific simulation, rendering and other similar types of apps that would use that much.
The only time I ever come close to using all of mine is when I have 10-15 apps open and I am crunching a huge Photoshop batch shile using Aperture.
And then I still have 2 gigs left.
The only time I ever come close to using all of mine is when I have 10-15 apps open and I am crunching a huge Photoshop batch shile using Aperture.
And then I still have 2 gigs left.
You mean this little thing...BurtonCCC said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/27/idf_fall_2006/page2.html#80_fpu_cores_on_a_chip_for_teraflop_performance
Edit: the old 1100 PowerMac G5 supercomputer was around 10 Teraflops...
My Dual 1.8 G5 with 2GB shows the loading screen for about 2 seconds. Oddly enough my MacBook does too and thats only got 1GB. The MB gets to the desktop and is ready to go much quicker than the G5. But to be fair the MacBook has hardly any software on it. I use it for email and web.point665 said:
dear god... I bet with 16gb you could accidentally cure caner.
Although, I can't find the link anymore, I seem to remember a link that said with todays applications there really isn't a speed improvement past 2gb. Although being prepared for the future, editing high quality RAW pictures and HD video editing is a totally different story that the test did not take into account.
For an electronic imaging project, I remember using ALL of the available space in the 2gb of memory in my custom built system (note: not OSX) in Photoshop CS2.
Although, I can't find the link anymore, I seem to remember a link that said with todays applications there really isn't a speed improvement past 2gb. Although being prepared for the future, editing high quality RAW pictures and HD video editing is a totally different story that the test did not take into account.
For an electronic imaging project, I remember using ALL of the available space in the 2gb of memory in my custom built system (note: not OSX) in Photoshop CS2.
