Install fusion and try to setup a virtualization lab with multiple virtual hosts and VMs, you find that you wished you would have 256GB of Ram and lightning fast SSDs
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.
Transcend Debuts 128GB RAM Upgrades for 2013 Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Install fusion and try to setup a virtualization lab with multiple virtual hosts and VMs, you find that you wished you would have 256GB of Ram and lightning fast SSDs
orchestral mock ups.
to successfully render convincing sounding "fake orchestral" mock ups takes huge sample libraries that require the fastest SSD drives for streaming coupled with vast amounts of available RAM, .....most of us composers utilize " slave computers" to take care of streaming samples to a main computer that hosts the DAW ( digital audio workstation ....eg ProTools, Logic )
Being able to get rid of slaves and do everything on 1 computer is now becoming feasible.
Best,
SvK
LOL.... would be something to have more RAM than storage space.
Could be, eh?
64 GB SSD
128 GB RAM
You know what. I like your comment. It's not attacking anyone, it's a positive comment on someone else's idea and you're being polite. I wish there were more commenters like you in the Internet. Thank you, sir.
128 gigabytes on a computer just blows my mind. I've been with computers for about 30 years (god I feel old), and my first computer had 64 kilobytes of RAM. My first PC in the early 90's had 4 megabytes of RAM and 120 megabytes of disk space. How ridiculously small amount that would be nowadays. And still, development has not stopped.
We can handle massive amounts of data on our current computers in small amount of time - and yet, our computers are just as stupid as they were 30 years ago. Do we need faster calculators? Are we even utilizing this massive potential? Where is my smart computer? AI, where are you?
The NeXT cube came with a 100MB hard drive.
----------
I think people tend to choose "runs more slowly" over "runs slower" because they tend to use "runs slower" rather than "runs slow".
Both "slower" and "more slowly" are acceptable in this context. It's an adverb, modifying the word "runs", and while it's okay to use "slower" as an adverb, "slowly" actually sounds like an adverb.
----------
I think people tend to choose "runs more slowly" over "runs slower" because they tend to use "runs slower" rather than "runs slow".
Both "slower" and "more slowly" are acceptable in this context. It's an adverb, modifying the word "runs", and while it's okay to use "slower" as an adverb, "slowly" actually sounds like an adverb.
Technically the XEON's in the new Mac Pro officially support up to 768GB of RAM per chip. The memory controller is inside the CPU. Had Apple put 8 DIMM slots into the Mac Pro instead of 4 you could probably get it to 256GB. I think the chips limit is 32GB per DIMM slot.
I have a LGA 2011 system that is compatible with these XEON's (in-fact I have two) and they can take up to 512GB of RAM with the Core i7's (although it is only supported up to 192GB unless you put a XEON in).
It's good I think how much extra memory support Intel is building in. These are systems with a lot of longevity. You can take a Socket 2011 system from 4 Cores to 12 Cores and from 4GB to 768GB or RAM with the right motherboard, I think that's impressive.
----------
If you're doing stuff with a lot of virtual machines or working on a large video project with compositing and editing of multiple 4K streams or if you're doing computer generated imagery and want to render on the machine itself then you'll make good use of that RAM. You won't use all 128GB's of it but you'll be over the 100GB mark.
I have a LGA 2011 system that is compatible with these XEON's (in-fact I have two) and they can take up to 512GB of RAM with the Core i7's (although it is only supported up to 192GB unless you put a XEON in).
It's good I think how much extra memory support Intel is building in. These are systems with a lot of longevity. You can take a Socket 2011 system from 4 Cores to 12 Cores and from 4GB to 768GB or RAM with the right motherboard, I think that's impressive.
----------
If you're doing stuff with a lot of virtual machines or working on a large video project with compositing and editing of multiple 4K streams or if you're doing computer generated imagery and want to render on the machine itself then you'll make good use of that RAM. You won't use all 128GB's of it but you'll be over the 100GB mark.
Audio production i.e. Logic/Studio One. F' you Avid.
I wish we could use more than 16GB in the Mini's.
There are people still content using their DAWs in 32 bit mode, how are people possibly using 128 GB of RAM?
May I ask what you're doing? I'm curious...
How much footage would you need in a project to use that much RAM? Sounds insane.
Thanks.
----------
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
Nobody actually ever said that. :|
I shall disagree (unless your use of the word "nonsense" was for some other context, and not just your opinion). Printed sources that I checked (dictionaries, language guides, college textbook, and a book of advice on usage) all agree that "(more) slowly" is correct everywhere, and that "slow(er)" is correct (it has been for over four centuries) after verbs that denote movement or action.
That would be judgement call if the speed of a computer would show either movement or action.
That's absolutely insane. Does/will anyone even need that much? I thought 64 GBs was waaaaaaaaaaay over enough.
Because they want to use antiquated plugins that aren't 64bit ready or they are using pirated plugins only available in 32bit mode. People don't choose to run in 32bit. Most people I know in audio are running everything in 64bit. Apple needs to make it so Logic can allocate memory for each plugin.There are people still content using their DAWs in 32 bit mode, how are people possibly using 128 GB of RAM?
I remember my first system with 256MB of RAM thinkin' I was the ****. Hahah
It's neat to see how we progress over time.
----------
The high-end video, 3D, UHD guys will use up as much as they can get over time. My current 2010 Mac Pro has been awesome at 48GB. Only time I came close to using that much was a huge Photoshop project, and only then because I had tons of files open at once.
I'm good with 64GB on my new one, if it ever shows up. That's one helluva an upgrade for me.
I suppose you had to walk 5 miles in the snow without shoes to get it...lol
We had some servers well before 5 years ago with more than 128GB RAM. Wht's happened is now the price is reasonable.
Over on the Oracle web site, their entry level T4 is $54K with 16-cores and 128GB RAM. You can get 32-core and 2TB RAM for $200K
The large RAM common and available from several vendors. But what Apple has done is come up with a good design that is easy to build and priced for the desktop.
But by today's standards in high-end computing 128GB is not large at all. I used a computer with 1TB RAM 10 years ago.
Because we're all doing genetic sequencing and multiple 4K video edits and 1GPixel 32-layer photoshop jobs on our phones...?
Actually if you are talking about the new Xeons, each CPU supports that so you can garner a total of 4 TB in RAM (and 60 cores) with a 4 CPU configuration.
Currently we have last year's Xeons in HP blades running 512 GB RAM maxed out (1 TB if we had used new 32 GB DIMMS), so this is quite a 4x increase in memory channel.
I think we are always amazed at what consumer products reaching these levels but enterprise and government are always lightyears ahead (Intel's new 1.6Tb fiber is an example)
I for one, though wouldn't trust Transcend at this level of support (SDHC maybe) and I wouldn't take the memory speed hit.
Meant to add, 32 GB DIMMS are cheaper than 16 GB 1866 MHz at least from our HP resellers, so I'm sure it won't be long before someone gets Apple certified full speed RAM
Last edited:
it probably wasn't x86 based but yes I agree with you. BTW Oracle servers are overpriced dinosaurs compared to some other offerings, especially with mainstream HP offering Intel 60 cores, 4 TB RAM and 10 or 15k SAS RAID for 1/10 of that.