To 32GB of RAM...and beyond?

[NintendoFan]

The hardware is capable of supporting it, but the software, regular OS X 10.5, is limited at 32GB. Vista is currently limited to a more generous 128GB.

I'm assuming you're talking about Vista 64-bit?

 

[AquaMethod]

I'm assuming you're talking about Vista 64-bit?

Right. Vista 32-bit can't quite address 4GB, because of the way the x86 memory map is broken down with memory-mapped devices. The nice thing about Leopard is that there's only one version, which can address all of the RAM most people will ever need. With Vista, you need the x64 version, which has its own set of incompatibilities due to the enforcement of ASLR, DEP, and so on.

 

[Salavat23]

Right. Vista 32-bit can't quite address 4GB, because of the way the x86 memory map is broken down with memory-mapped devices.

Not true.

Vista SP1 32-bit can fully address and utilize (usability is debatable) 4GB. Vista pre-SP1, however, can only see 2.75~3.6GB of ram.

 

[NotChemist]

Not true.

Vista SP1 32-bit can fully address and utilize (usability is debatable) 4GB. Vista pre-SP1, however, can only see 2.75~3.6GB of ram.

Vista SP1 32-bit will show 4GB of RAM in the system properties, but can not use any more of than RAM than it could before SP1. See here:

Microsoft KB 946003

 

[Salavat23]

Vista SP1 32-bit will show 4GB of RAM in the system properties, but can not use any more of than RAM than it could before SP1. See here:

Microsoft KB 946003

That article doesn't say anything specific as to the difference in memory addressing. It can still use 4GB, or almost 4GB of ram in most conditions.

 

[NotChemist]

That article doesn't say anything specific as to the difference in memory addressing. It can still use 4GB, or almost 4GB of ram in most conditions.

No.

This change occurs because Windows Vista with SP1 reports how much physical memory installed on your computer. All versions of Windows NT-based operating systems before Windows Vista Service SP1 report how much memory available to the operating system. This change in Windows Vista SP1 is a reporting change only.

Sorry, Vista SP1 32-bit doesn't actually use any more RAM than it did pre-SP1.

 

[Salavat23]

Vista SP1 32-bit doesn't actually use any more RAM than it did pre-SP1.

I've heard otherwise, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Lord Zedd]

Its true. Vista only reports installed ram, not usable ram.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ard_twice_the_ram_half_the_price_64_bits.html

 

[AquaMethod]

There's nothing a 32-bit operating system can do other than some ugly PAE hacks to get around the reserved portions of the x86 memory map. And those have been around long before Windows Vista SP1.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Just a response to ppl doubting the 8Gb ram stick, my dad's company has a few mac pros lying around (servers with linux) and they have 64GB of ram. they have 8 x 8GB sticks in there somehow. Running fedora linux and some simulation software. that monster defines raw power, top spec mac pro 3.2ghz variation with the two nVidia Quattro graphics an 62GB ram.

 

[Michael73]

Is SnowLeopard going to do more for utilization of the GPU (and GDDR), system RAM or both?

I'm just wondering where you get the best bang for your buck once SnowLeopard comes along? upgrade the graphics card or system RAM

Right now 2GB RAM (667/800MHz) is dirt cheap considering where prices started. However, once you go to 4GB sticks prices jump considerably. Price per GB on the 8GB sticks is astronomical - although they'll eventually drop too.

Just an aside...last night I was encoding a movie using Handbrake (0.9.2). I know HB doesn't use that much RAM but is optimized multi-cores. I watched it eat up ALL 8 CORES. My activity monitor showed between 93%-96% processor usage. That little graph was glued to the top for like 15 minutes. It will be interesting to redo that encode with SnowLeopard and see what happens.

 

[brn2ski00]

What in the heck would you need 32GBs RAM for? Does the CPU ever need to use that much?!

 

[Fast Shadow]

What in the heck would you need 32GBs RAM for? Does the CPU ever need to use that much?!

Did you not even read the thread? Several examples were given.

Try doing color correction on 1080p or 2K video.

 

[brn2ski00]

Did you not even read the thread? Several examples were given.

Try doing color correction on 1080p or 2K video.

Not really, thanks bud....

 

[eXan]

Just an aside...last night I was encoding a movie using Handbrake (0.9.2). I know HB doesn't use that much RAM but is optimized multi-cores. I watched it eat up ALL 8 CORES. My activity monitor showed between 93%-96% processor usage. That little graph was glued to the top for like 15 minutes. It will be interesting to redo that encode with SnowLeopard and see what happens.

To my understanding, Snow Leopard won't make your apps magically use all cores. It just provides instruments for developers to easier take advantage of having multiple cores. So it will take some time before apps speed up to "light speed".

I could be wrong though..

 

[Umbongo]

To my understanding, Snow Leopard won't make your apps magically use all cores. It just provides instruments for developers to easier take advantage of having multiple cores. So it will take some time before apps speed up to "light speed".

I could be wrong though..

No you're right. There are also two projects that have many of the big hardware manufacturers supporting them to do the same sort of thing. One at Stanford and the other at Illinois and Berkeley. Making it easier for and helping educate those creating software is the best we can hope for, there isn't a magic fix to utilize all those cores.

 

[nanofrog]

No you're right. There are also two projects that have many of the big hardware manufacturers supporting them to do the same sort of thing. One at Stanford and the other at Illinois and Berkeley. Making it easier for and helping educate those creating software is the best we can hope for, there isn't a magic fix to utilize all those cores.

Could you ellaborate?

For software, I'm only aware of:
Intel Threading Building Blocks (C++ extensions)
CILK++

On the hardware side:
Cmpware
QNX
NI LabView

Thanks.

 

[kabunaru]

Is there anything that could possibly slow down a 32GB RAM Mac Pro?

The only thing I could think of is Crysis.

 

[Umbongo]

Could you ellaborate?

Thanks.

Search for Pervasive Parallelism Laboratory and Universal Parallel Computing Research Center.

I was introduced to them via a Semi-Coherent Computing interview (podcast) with Kunle Olukotun who pioneered multiple cores.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/scc18_kunle_olukotun_ppl/

 

[nanofrog]

Search for Pervasive Parallelism Laboratory and Universal Parallel Computing Research Center.

I was introduced to them via a Semi-Coherent Computing interview (podcast) with Kunle Olukotun who pioneered multiple cores.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/scc18_kunle_olukotun_ppl/

Thanks!

 

[Salavat23]

The only thing I could think of is Crysis.

Crysis will slow anything down, and stop it right in its tracks.

 

[FF_productions]

What in the heck would you need 32GBs RAM for? Does the CPU ever need to use that much?!

Safari needs it. Especially when you have every single porn site imaginable open, it takes a toll.

 

[AquaMethod]

Safari needs it. Especially when you have every single porn site imaginable open, it takes a toll.

Or even one tab on any site. I mean, I have 4GB, and sometimes I feel like I have a DIMM just for any Webkit-based apps. Can't wait until I no longer need to run this script every hour:

 

[KítscheñÇinqµe]

as for what i'd do with the other 20GB, i'll have to find a particularly large photoshop file...

Christo? Is that you?

 

[opeter]

I think that the largest stick that is ever going to be available is the 4GB. If an 8GB is made it will probably change the design of the RAM and not work in the current Mac Pro but this is just speculation on my part. Another thing to consider is the max RAM recognized by OS X. Is it 32Gb or is it more?

Here you go: Samsung is in the process of making 16 GB DDR3 modules