Will 12gb triple channel be beneficial over 16gb dual channel in 32-bit apps?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Username652719, Aug 21, 2010.

  1. Username652719 macrumors newbie

    Aug 4, 2010
    I know many say that the sheer volume of 16gb outweighs the speed difference between the two channel settings, but I'm wondering how 32-bit programs (mostly audio applications) will address the RAM best?

    Basically, I'm looking to go with either 16gb TransIntl or 12gb OWC, given the price difference.

  2. alphaod macrumors Core


    Feb 9, 2008
    If you need more than 12GB of RAM, you will get a performance boost with 16GB of RAM (even if you lose a channel), but if you don't need more than 12GB of RAM, there is not point in buying more RAM than you really need.
  3. Username652719 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Aug 4, 2010
    Sure there is, when the prices between the two companies are practically on par. I'm deciding whether to stick the extra 4gb stick you get with transitl in. Some apps, like a 64 bit sampler I'm using, can adress more. Logic can go 64 bit, but I also use live and that will only be 32 for the prolonged future.

    Will my 32 bit apps address my memory in triple channel so efficiently that te performance increase will be better than the sacrifice I would take using 16gb dual channel, but for all apps across the board. I'm asking for personal opinions.
  4. Giuly macrumors 68040


    Then get 12GB of RAM from the 16GB company for 3/4 of the money.
  5. Ryan P macrumors regular

    Aug 6, 2010
    Keep in mind that (for the most part) 32bit apps can't use more than 2GB's of RAM so make sure you really need 16GB.
  6. Username652719 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Aug 4, 2010
    I thought 32 bit apps can address up to 4gb? Also I'm running multiple instances/plugins, also multiple applications set up to talk through midi, so much programs will be addressing much memory at will.

    Would if I could: http://www.transintl.com/store/category.cfm?Category=2860&RequestTimeOut=500

    EDIT: Well hey now I can! Wasn't an option just a few days ago. Still would prefer some more personal opinions on the matter; I'm very subject to peer pressure.
  7. trankdart macrumors member

    Jul 28, 2010
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Within the next week somebody will run geekbench on a new MP with and without a fourth stick and post the results here, and then everybody will draw an unwarranted conclusion.

    The real answer IMHO is that the "how much memory will my sample libraries take up" is the only question that matters. The 12 vs 16 memory interleave performance question does not matter for your Logic work in the least unless you have so many tracks and plugins that you're bringing your brand new Nehalem/Westmere to its knees. Is that how it is? If not, forget it. If so...get more memory anyway.
  8. cutterman macrumors regular

    Apr 27, 2010
    FWIW I ran Geekbench 64 on my new MP (12 core 2.93) with 8GB (4 sticks of 2GB) then with 24 GB (all slots filled 4 x 4GB, 4 x 2GB).

    The memory scores were 3% higher with all slots filled.
  9. milo macrumors 604

    Sep 23, 2003
    I haven't seen official confirmation of this from apple, but I've read in a number of places that when the number of ram slots used isn't 3 (or 6) it doesn't drop down to dual channel memory but single.

    Which does benchmark a little slower than triple channel but supposedly for the vast majority of real world use the memory isn't the bottleneck so little if any difference would be noticed by the user.
  10. cutterman macrumors regular

    Apr 27, 2010
    Interesting, though a bit of apples to oranges comparison. What is really needed to settle this question of memory performance vs configuration is a test using the same memory modules filling 1, 2, 3, and 4 slots in the same 2010 machine. I would have done 1,2, and 3 modules but didn't have 6 sticks of the same capacity.

    I suspect like others that the real world difference will be negligible.

Share This Page