Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What I'd be interested in seeing is on the last test, where the dual 2ghz took 2 seconds to rotate an image when the RAM was bumped up to 2gb--how does the 1.8ghz compare when you bump up the RAM?
 
Yeah- did they add the extra rsam to all the machines (probably not) - the graphs aren't comparing "apples to apples".:)
 
Originally posted by Genie
Yeah- did they add the extra rsam to all the machines (probably not) - the graphs aren't comparing "apples to apples".:)
No they didn't add the RAM to all of the machines. I don't understand the point of that last test. How can you compare four computers when one of them has 4x the RAM the others do??
 
Originally posted by MattG
No they didn't add the RAM to all of the machines. I don't understand the point of that last test. How can you compare four computers when one of them has 4x the RAM the others do??

I'd say it's for fun! It's like when Road and Track does comparisons between the Corvette and the Viper...then fly an F/18 fighter jet to compare it to...it's just for ****s and giggles. After comparing all these computers, I would be excited to just stuff all the RAM I could and tweak it out and unleash the system to see its full capability. Besides, I am sure there are more than a few out there who have ordered a dual G5 with 4+ gigs of RAM who would love to see that extreme side test of what the system can do when virtual memory and disk swapping isn't a factor.
 
Yeah I reckon it's still an interesting (and somewhat relevant) test to jack up the RAM.

I for one would never have imagined a performance jump like that - I have doubled the RAM in my 17 inch PB and saw barely noticeable incremental performance whereas you would have to notice that sort of performance jump!

I would have been keen to see what the RAM did for the QT Pro tests as well as some FCP 4.0 Render-offs!:p
 
Originally posted by Kiwi-Todd
Yeah I reckon it's still an interesting (and somewhat relevant) test to jack up the RAM.

I for one would never have imagined a performance jump like that - I have doubled the RAM in my 17 inch PB and saw barely noticeable incremental performance whereas you would have to notice that sort of performance jump!
p

You are probably dealing with small files, try getting a hundred meg file, then benchmarking, with your average digital photo you won't notice much of a difference from RAM, but BIG resolution photos thrive on more RAM
 
Man...back in 1999 when I tripped my RAM to 192 megs I used to think how amazing it was that I had so much RAM in my laptop...now it seems like if you don't have at least a half a gig of RAM you might as well use a typewriter.
 
Originally posted by Vlade
You are probably dealing with small files, try getting a hundred meg file, then benchmarking, with your average digital photo you won't notice much of a difference from RAM, but BIG resolution photos thrive on more RAM

Yeah, you're right there - I mainly do video stuff though on FCP so do you know if performance (renders and Real Time ) is enhanced significantly by copious quantities of RAM?
 
I'm sure that extra RAM cannot hurt. :) I'm not sure how much you do or how many programs you keep open, but having more RAM than you need will help ensure that you are in the fast lane so you don't get stuck lagging when OS X starts swapping HD pages to keep up with your work.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.