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.
6 GB not cutting it w/ Nehalem Octad
- Thread starter steveoc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I have weighed the pros and cons of that. I may try 6 x 2 and 8 x 2 both, but I think that for my use--many separate apps, I will want more RAM. I probably could have gone with 6 x 2, but I wanted to make sure I had a matched set in the event that I need more RAM now or in the future. Perhaps I am over estimating the importance of a matched set of identical RAM, but the difference was only $70.
The sticks will arrive Monday. I look forward to much improved performance. Over the course of the next few months, I plan to set up Raid 0 with appropriate back up drives.
From what I hear, the real world decrease is pretty minimal. Since you're having to hit the hard drive to fill some of that RAM, anyway. I think Barefeats did a benchmark on that. Or maybe it was Digilloyd.
Our very own forum member, Loa did a test recently...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/736539/
Another good discussion/debate on memory performance here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/735845/
The truth is that due to the large cache sizes on current CPU's, increasing memory bandwidth beyond a certain point (eg. 10-12GB/s) does not have that much impact on overall application performance. You are better off having enough memory than faster memory... but if you already have enough, then you should shoot for faster.
You want it ALL?!?You are better off having enough memory than faster memory... but if you already have enough, then you should shoot for faster.
So do I.
Hmm...Maybe it's time to create some sort of support group. Waa!
Want All Anonymous
Hi, my name is Joe and I want all the RAM capacity and speed I can get!
(Although reading reviews of SSDs in Mac Pros (and MacBook Pros), I really get the impression that a small SSD RAID (2 or 3 small size SSDs striped) will do wonders for the speed of a Mac Pro. Much more than the fastest RAM ever will since the current bottlenecks are the HDs.
Would be interesting to see if Intel really introduces double capacity SSDs this month at current price points - and hopefully half-price their current size SSDs.)
Want All Anonymous
Hi, my name is Joe and I want all the RAM capacity and speed I can get!
(Although reading reviews of SSDs in Mac Pros (and MacBook Pros), I really get the impression that a small SSD RAID (2 or 3 small size SSDs striped) will do wonders for the speed of a Mac Pro. Much more than the fastest RAM ever will since the current bottlenecks are the HDs.
Would be interesting to see if Intel really introduces double capacity SSDs this month at current price points - and hopefully half-price their current size SSDs.)
Definitely can't forget RAID.Want All Anonymous
Hi, my name is Joe and I want all the RAM capacity and speed I can get!
(Although reading reviews of SSDs in Mac Pros (and MacBook Pros), I really get the impression that a small SSD RAID (2 or 3 small size SSDs striped) will do wonders for the speed of a Mac Pro. Much more than the fastest RAM ever will, as the current bottleneck are the HDs.
Would be interesting to see if Intel really comes out with double capacity SSDs this month - and hopefully half-price current size SSDs.)
Though 2x capacity at 1/2 the previous costs ($/GB), will likely only be a dream this time around.
But if it manages to happen, I and many others will take some serious interest at a minimum. 2x the capacity at 1/2 price would be fantastic, but that's not what I expect.
I expect 2x the capacity at current price levels.
And hopefully the current capacity at 1/2 price. I'd be happy with that.
Although in best WAA tradition I'd rather stripe three of the new 320GB Intel SSDs!
I expect 2x the capacity at current price levels.
And hopefully the current capacity at 1/2 price. I'd be happy with that.
Although in best WAA tradition I'd rather stripe three of the new 320GB Intel SSDs!
That would be more reasonable I'd expect.2x the capacity at 1/2 price would be fantastic, but that's not what I expect.
I expect 2x the capacity at current price levels.
And hopefully the current capacity at 1/2 price. I'd be happy with that.
Although in best WAA tradition I'd rather stripe three of the new 320GB Intel SSDs!
It's probably the full 33% in some circumstances. And probably more like 10% in most of the cases. It's just that "most of those cases" only show up in 10% of typical usage patterns. I get a good 80% increase when Lightwave 3D initializes 3D objects after a load and about 40% to 50% when it "moves" objects for frame by frame rendering. That's 1 channel vs. 2 channel on the 2006 Mac Pro tho. This initialization can take several minutes (as much as 10 or 15 in some uber-extreme cases) so nearly cutting that in half makes me very happy.
In the same breath Loa showed that it doesn't help at all for enlarging images to ridiculous and absurd sizes when the system starts using VM.
I also notice an increase when redisplaying a folder full of a few hundred or more image icons that have already been loaded into the system cache. This actually happens quite often for me. I don't remember having timed it but it's quite noticeable.
A few other places too.
In the spirit of WAA, I propose this instead...
http://www.acard.com/english/fb01-p...10&type1_title= Solid State Drive&idno_no=270
Up to 64GB of solid state storage via DDR2
BTW, it's not all that much better than an Intel SSD, but it certainly is in the spirit of WAA!
http://www.acard.com/english/fb01-p...10&type1_title= Solid State Drive&idno_no=270
Up to 64GB of solid state storage via DDR2
BTW, it's not all that much better than an Intel SSD, but it certainly is in the spirit of WAA!
In the spirit of WAA, I propose this instead...
http://www.acard.com/english/fb01-p...10&type1_title= Solid State Drive&idno_no=270
Up to 64GB of solid state storage via DDR2
BTW, it's not all that much better than an Intel SSD, but it certainly is in the spirit of WAA!
Now it turns out the bottleneck isn't the HDD, but the SATA bus. WAA demands a SAS port on the RAMdisc!
SATA & SAS have the same throughput for the port, so no advantage there.
If you want an available interface that's faster, you'd need to go PCIe. This is the route IO Drive took for their product line.
The next SATA spec is already beginning to see implementation though (not drives yet), and at 6.0Gb/s, will allow SSD to continue to improve throuputs. Most likely cheaper too.
PCIe would be for the truly high end, and priced to match.
I bought and installed 8 x 2 GB. I'm much happier with the performance. I can keep all my apps open and have plenty of processor and memory so I can do what I want without feeling constrained.
6 x 2 would have been adequate, but I am glad I got the extra 4 GB.
Over time I will work on faster drive access. Planning on 2 x 1TB drives with Raid 0 with 2 GB esata removable backup. Might consider SSD. We'll see how the prices go.
More RAM makes things much better. I'd hate to be constrained by the limited memory expansion on a quad.
I made the right purchase buying an octad.
6 x 2 would have been adequate, but I am glad I got the extra 4 GB.
Over time I will work on faster drive access. Planning on 2 x 1TB drives with Raid 0 with 2 GB esata removable backup. Might consider SSD. We'll see how the prices go.
More RAM makes things much better. I'd hate to be constrained by the limited memory expansion on a quad.
I made the right purchase buying an octad.