Barefeats Says 12 GB Sweet Spot on octo-core

On their performance chart for rendering with After Effects, 12 GB of RAM beat 16. Is this likely to be true on all pro apps? When buying RAM for these machines, should we always think in multiples of 3?

BOBBOBKK wrote:
When buying RAM for these machines, should we always think in multiples of 3?
Absolutely. The new Mac Pros processors have a triple-channel memory interface, and each channel moves at about 8.5GB/sec. This means that if you toss in three same-sized memory modules, you'll get peak memory bandwidth of about 25GB/sec. Add a fourth module, and that module has to share a channel with another module since there are only three channels.
Depending on what kind of work you do, having more memory may provide a greater performance advantage than simply having -faster- memory, but as always, your mileage may vary.

Similar Messages

Re: RAM - Sweet Spot

Hey guys,
Does anyone know of any benchmarks out there that tests for the RAM sweet spot for Adobe Premiere Pro CS5?
Windows 7 64-bit Professional can support up to 192GB of RAM. When is it too much RAM?

Hey guys,
Thanks for the link to PPBM5, I will definitely check it out!
Also for the 'memory chips' or DIMM size as they say in the industry, there are actually 16GB DDR3 ECC Registered modules out there. The cheapest is the Hynix 16GB (DDR3 ECC Registered) at memorydepot.com for $500. All the new server/workstation boards support it (well actually the memory controller embedded on the die of the AMD and Intel CPUI's support it).
The upcoming AMD Interlagos and Xeon E7-xxxx chips will support 32GB Modules (Samsung is the first to provide the actual chips to ODM's).
I think the main thing for me (keep in mind I have yet to check out the PPBM5 site yet, so my opinion may change after having checked it) is to get a motherboard that has the most expandability so that later on I can add more RAM. Right now I really like the Asus KGPE board (this is an AMD Opteron Socket G34 chipset) as it has 16 DIMM slots with each of them supporting up to 16GB sized modules!
Yes I know that Windows 7 64-bit Profissional/Ultimate only supports up to 192GB, but again it is about future proofing as my current motherboard 'only' supports 16GB in total.
Also I like the AMD Opteron platform (Socket G34) because future AMD chips (at least for the next cycle of SKU's) will support the SAME motherboard without having to buy a new one unlike with Intel.
Althernatively there is the SUPERMICRO MBD-H8SGL-F-O motherboard which is also Socket G34 for AMD and is a SINGLE socket board with 8 x DIMMs with each DIMM supporting 16GB modules, this would be a good economical choice. The board is also half the price of the Asus KGPE.
Intel however doesn't seem to have the same value offering, although yes they do perform better with Premiere Pro CS5 so it may be worth the price premium.

Sweet spot MacPro line for CS?

Dear Group,
Since i got a suddenly dead G5 too, I'm suddenly wondering which MacPro
might be the sweet spot for CS4 performance, now, and CS5. I'm just a typical photoshop user ranging from web to layered 300 MB files. I've been out of the loop on improvements because i was content with my G5, tho it had its limitations of course. Any advice is welcome, thanks.
Steve Z

Dear Group,
Since i got a suddenly dead G5 too, I'm suddenly wondering which MacPro
might be the sweet spot for CS4 performance, now, and CS5. I'm just a typical photoshop user ranging from web to layered 300 MB files. I've been out of the loop on improvements because i was content with my G5, tho it had its limitations of course. Any advice is welcome, thanks.
Steve Z

"Octo-Core" Confusion!!

I was waiting for the MacPro update before buying my new rig and now that the update is announced, I'm debating weather or not it's worth the extra $700?
I was planning on getting the 3.0 Quad-core with 4GB RAM
What (if anything) will I really gain buy getting the "Octo-Core"?
Will it help with the multi-tasking that I do everyday like having multiple applications going at once?
Will it help gain speed in tasks like backing up my home folder, burning disks or startup time?
I won't be doing any high-end video editing, so will the Octo-core even effect me?
Thanks in advance for your time,
Tom
1Ghz TiBook Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Hi Tom,
I hope it's okay I write in between the lines to try to answer some of your questions.
What (if anything) will I really gain buy getting the
"Octo-Core"?
Okay, let's give you a simplified example what multi-core CPUs can and cannot do for you:
Assume you have a single core chip with, let's say 1.5 GHz. If you run a computer program on that chip it will take a certain time, e.g. 10 seconds.
If you have now the very same chip with twice the clock speed, i.e. 3.0 GHz, the same program will be twice as fast and take only 5 seconds.
Now, if you have a dual core chip with 2 times 1.5 GHz, will your program run as fast as on the 3.0 GHz chip? 2 x 1.5 GHz is after all 3.0GHz! The answer is unfortunately: No.
In the worst case, it will run 10 seconds, exactly the same time it took on the single core. This will happen if your program is sequential, that means every single computing step is totally dependent on the result of the previous computing step.
In the best case, it will run almost as fast as on the 3.0 GHz single core. This will happen, if your program is embarrassingly parallel, that means every single computing step is independent from any other computing step. It will take a little bit longer than on the 3.0 GHz single core, because of some overhead (the 2 cores have to "communicate" with each other, which adds some calculation time).
Unfortunately, not many programs in the real world are embarrassingly parallel, so if you run just one program on your computer, multi-cores are often not very useful.
Will it help with the multi-tasking that I do
everyday like having multiple applications going at
once?
Luckily, modern computers run more than just one program at a time (multi-tasking). However, as others have said in this thread before, if your everyday multi-tasking means mail, web-browser, word-processing, spread sheet and those types of programs, it won't help, because the multi-tasking capabilities of OS X are advanced enough to schedule those tasks on one or two processors without you even noticing if there is a task switch. One of the main reasons is that those programs spend more or less most of their time just waiting for user input. Even if you type really fast or click really fast with the mouse, today's CPUs are so fast that the programs have a lot of idle-time.
Some real life examples: I have the 2.66 quad and when I do this kind of work, my processors are usually at 0-2%. My use peaks under these conditions at may be 2 cores, if at all. If I start a program, I get a delay of half a second or so, but this is not because the CPUs have a lot to do, but because the program has to be loaded from the hard-disk to the RAM.
It is actually quite hard to feed these beasts. I only get all 4 cores saturated if I do some highly parallel bioinformatic calculations (my work). I guess video encoding could do the same.
Will it help gain speed in tasks like backing up my
home folder, burning disks or startup time?
I doubt it. Startup time is short anyways, maybe 20 seconds or so. Again, most of that time is not wasted because the CPUs are busy, but because stuff has to be moved from the hard-disk to RAM. The same with backup and burning, the bandwidth for the data transport and hard-disk/burner speed is the bottle-neck here. Even if processor speed limited burning or backup, 4 more cores would not help at all, because these are not tasks that can be easily split up in parallel tasks.
I won't be doing any high-end video editing, so will
the Octo-core even effect me?
I would say: No.
Spend the extra money for a nice monitor (or maybe even two nice monitors) or an iPod or an TV or something
Thanks in advance for your time,
Tom
Hope that helps, Lars
12" PowerBook G4 - 1.25 GB RAM - Mac Pro - 2 GB RAM - Mac OS X (10.4.9) - 40 GB iPod 4G

Question about Quad Core 2.93 and Octo-Core 2.66

OK, so forgive me cause I am asking a question that has been asked a zillion times. I have read and searched and read and searched, however, I still don't quite understand a few things.
I am a huge Aperture user. I shoot the Canon 1Ds Mark III and use photoshop a lot as well.
I am still confused. What is the difference in performance between a
loaded 8 GIGs ram Quad Core 2.93 or
a middle 8-Core 2.66 12 gigs RAM
I read benchmarks after benchmarks, but most use games for their stats and that does not help me. I read the boards, but it is all so confusing what people think. I went to the Apple store, and of course, they immediately said 8-core! hahaha.
I hear an 8-core can be slower at single core apps than a quad core and so on and on.
please help me!

Hi-
this question si about what the ** is the difference between a Quad 2.93 and a Octo 2.66.
The question is pretty vague.
Maybe asking "What benefit do I get from an octo core as opposed to a quad core?" would be better.
To understand the main difference, and the main benefit of an octo core over a quad core, understanding the concept of multithreading is necessary.
Basically, Multithreading is the ability of a system to break tasks up into portions (threads), and assign these portions across multiple CPU cores, enabling the calculation, thus the process, to be be completed faster than if the entire process were to be done on a single core.
Because of this, more cores allows for faster completion of system functions. Yes, it's faster.
Currently, some software isn't quite up to snuff in supporting/utilizing multithreading abilities of multi core systems.
But, that is changing, and changing rapidly.
Soon, all software will be able to utilize the multithreading ability of a multi core system, and greater increases in system performance will be realized.
In the upcoming OS 10.6 release, further enhancement of multithreading operation will be seen.
What this all means to the end user, say in Photoshop, is, work will fly, complex enhancements will be almost instantaneous, and productivity can be increased.
Along with the multi core, multi channel memory will also allow for the use of larger amounts of RAM, with out the bottlenecking that occurs in singe channel systems.
Again, everything works faster.
The octo core allows for more physical RAM, which, even now, but more so in the near future, always helps with memory hungry applications like Photoshop.
Basically, the biggest difference between the two machines, is the octo core is more future proof- that is, it will support future software enhancements better than the quad core.
And, we are talking +near future+.
I believe the Quad is limited to 8 gigs RAM, not 16.
Both machines can use 4GB DIMMs, so the quad core can use 16GB and the octo core can use 32GB.
Buying RAM from a trusted third party vendor can reduce costs greatly, without affecting the Apple warranty.
Again, Apple employees are telling you what the book says, what they currently offer, not what can be done.
Apple store said SDD in a Mac Pro is not a good idea at all. Again, more conflicting suggestions.
The Apple store will not recommend anything that Apple is not officially selling.
SSDs work, and they work well.
Just ask Samsara, or some of the other hot rodders on these forums.
And because I don't understand scratch disk, SDD disks, raptor drives etc, this all is not getting me anywhere. thus, why i tried the Apple store.
Ask. Study. Use Wikipedia.
Educating oneself is paramount to improving decisions, questions, work and life........
SSD - The future, now. Fast, expensive (but coming down in price), no moving parts (reliable)Solid State Drive
*Raptor Drives* - A family of 10,000 RPM SATA drives from Western Digital. These drives are high performance. They make systems run faster.
*Scratch Disks* - These are additional hard drives (in addition to the system drive) that allow for greater utilization of virtual memory- the writing of files, temporarily, to hard drive, to free up physical memory and allow faster calculations of processes.
Anyone who does work with video or photography software, must have a working knowledge of the benefits of a scratch drive.
Photoshop runs +way faster+ with a fast scratch disk.
When seeking advice on any forum, the more specific the question, the easier it will be for contributors to provide advice that is pleasing to your senses.
I've given you my take on what I feel may be your questions intent.
Hopefully, it wasn't a waste of time.....

HT1338 I'm trying to upgrade to the OS X lion, and it says I need to have a Intel Core 2 duo. I currently have a 2 GHz Intel Core Duo. How do I go about making the change? Any help would be appreciated, Thanks Kevin

I'm trying to upgrade to the OS X lion, and it says I need to have a Intel Core 2 duo. I currently have a 2 GHz Intel Core duo. How do I go about making the change? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Kevin

I was afraid of that.... Thanks for helping!

HT1459 Unable to charge now that iPod Touch 1st gen unless I find the 'sweet spot'. Some times battery drains while charging. Help, please!

I have a 1st gen iPod Touch and I am unable to charge unless I find the right spot when moving the connector head a bit. When I was able to charge, it would some times drain my battery. Now that it's completely dead, I can't find that right spot. Help??

is there someway i can test this.
Not that I know of.
is the logic board responsible for calibrating the battery and charging ,
It keeps track of the power and displays it in the upper right of screen.
could it drain the battery say by not switching the drive off i use to remember when shutting down after you swipe the red bar it would give you an icon animation of what looked like a wheel spinning and then a faint whirr and clicking like the drive is shutting down .
There is no moving drive. It's all solid state. What you were hearing is electronic sounds being generated from the logic board.
i still get the the icon and animation but i dont hear the click or whirring anymore suggesting that the drive isnt shutting off which may cause the drain but not the battery indication .
This even leads be to believe more that the problem is on the logic board.
do you think its worth pursuing this ?
If you could find a used logic board on eBay, it might be worth fixing, if you could get it cheap enough.
Check out the new remodeled MacOSG website! 24-hour Apple-related news & support.
 MacOSG: An Apple User Group  iTunes: MacOSG Podcast  Follow us on Twitter: MacOSG

I can't open illustrator files as an error message says 'file contains conflicting spot colour information...' then closes, how do I resolve this?

The full message reads 'The file contains conflicting spot color information. Spot and process colors cannot share the same name. Please resolve the spot color conflict and try reopening this file.'
The problem is the file just closes after that. If anyone has had this problem before and managed to resolve it, please please help!

This turned out to be a links issue. One of the psd's had corrupted. In the end we found out by making sure the file couldn't connect to the links in the illustrator document allowing it to open in the basic vector format. We disconnected from the network, another way would be to move the links folder. Once the file was open the links could be deleted/replaced seems it didn't close the file straight away.
I hope this helps anyone else that has this problem, there really wasn't much information on it, especially not up to date information.
Vicky

Whats the sweet spot for the count of Photos per Library?

1) How many photos should be there in a Library at max. to have iPhoto perform efficiently?
2) Does the iPhoto Library database performance depend on the size of the photo or the count of photo?
I have a collection of some 7000+ photos of 2.5MB on average.
Should i put all of them in a library or different library?
Also if i have to set up different library i want to have backup of them in a DVD for each library. So, technically my library should not exceed 4.5GB
Now my confusion is:
If i have say 3GB of original photos in the library then technically i'll have around 3-6GB of photos in both Original and Modified folders.
Going through the forum I have found that there are 2 ways of backing up photos:
1) Through "Export" to a Folder and writing the folder the a media.
2) By Copying the Library Folder completely to backup media.
If my assumption is right then,
1) in case of "Export" method, i'll be having a collection of the total number of photos i have. i.e. if i have 3000 photos then the exported folder will contain 3000 photos.
2) in case of "Copying" then i'll be copying the OriginalModified+Datadatabase, and i could restore them as a library when needed.
Please let me know if my assumption is right or wrong.
Thanks,
Sapam
Message was edited by: sapam

sapam
1) How many photos should be there in a Library at max. to have iPhoto perform efficiently?
iPhoto is rated to 250,000 pics. After that there is no right answer based on iPhoto. What you need to take into account after that is Hardware. The max for an efficiently perfoming iPhoto will be very different for a Mini with 512MB of RAM and a MacPro with 8 Gigs of RAM. Other factors include the size of the disk and the amount of free space on it.
2) Does the iPhoto Library database performance depend on the size of the photo or the count of photo?
The count of the photos - and then some. The files are stored in the Finder. So a 1 MB file takes the same amount of space in the iPhoto database as a 10MB file. However, what does impact on the size of the library file are things like the number of albums, books, slideshows etc., Smart albums, in particular, can slow down the app launching. So, it's not just the number of photos but the organisation as well.
So, what's your Hardware and what do you mean by efficiently? I have a 15k image library that's some 40gigs in size on my iMac with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm very happy with it's performance.
Going through the forum I have found that there are 2 ways of backing up photos:
1) Through "Export" to a Folder and writing the folder the a media.
2) By Copying the Library Folder completely to backup media.
Close.
Think of it this way:
Want to save the current versions of your pics only? Select the pics in the iPhoto Window and go File -> Export. Export them to a folder on the desktop. Burn that with the finder. Now you have the up-to-date versions of your pics. pop that disk in any computer and there they are.
Want to save your Library - that is Originals, Modifieds, database files etc?
1. Copy the iPhoto Library Folder to an external HD or burn it to DVD
or
2. Use the Share -> Burn command. This will burn a disc that will mount into another iPhoto, and pics can be dragged to the new iPhoto from it. You can burn your entire library, or break it into albums and burn in groups of albums if your DVD isn't big enough.
Regards
TD
Message was edited by: Terence Devlin

Sweet spot for used or refurbished Air?

i have a 2009 MBP and i was digging the idea of a 12" macbook to get myself portable with a netbook or quickbooks or website editing, social media worthy machine that i can throw into my bag b/c right now the 2009 13" is too much of a beast and basically doesn't do much for me. also, if i get a 15" MBP to replace the 2009 it is going to be way to heavy to take around on a regular basis. basically i am using the mac pros for work but would like a portable daily machine to get things done with.
is there such a thing as a high powered, sturdy AIR that i could pick up either used or refurbished?
i have two Mac Pro's that are just awesome machines and i'd like to start feeling that way about my laptops.
THANKS in advance

tech specs are not what i am looking for. i have no practical baseline and i'm not that tech/spec oriented.
here's what i'm hoping for: "i have a 2013/2014 11" air and i absolutely love it. i run some CAD, MS, pages, we site editing, quickbooks and some adobe programs. it's my daily use computer and goes everywhere in my bag. battery life is great. i also have a 15" MBP and if i have to get heavy work done i brimg that".

Explaination of Octo Core RAM and Hard Drive differences

From Macintouch
For those of you wondering about the Apple Knowledge Base Article #305352:
After some research this is what I have discovered:
Memory: The difference in the memory is that all memory modules have a little program embedded in them. Apple changed the program in the 8 core memory modules to make them play nicely with the new 8 core processor. Also, the new 8 core memory module has a larger heat sink.
Hard Drives: Notice that Apple uses the word "Kit" in the Knowledge Base Article. A "Kit" consists of a hard drive mounting sled and a Sata II hard drive. The sleds from the quad core Mac Pro are larger than the sleds in the 8 core Mac Pro. The smaller 8 core Mac Pro sled allows for greater air circulation, hence better cooling. The smaller 8 core Mac Pro sled can be used in the quad core Mac Pro but the larger quad core Mac Pro sled is too large to fit in the 8 core Mac Pro. Any Sata II hard drive will work in the new 8 core Mac Pro, with those having the 3gb transfer and 16 mb cache specs being the favored ones. BTW, Apple does not make hard drives, buys Sata II hard drives in the third party market, and at last check was using Seagate's.

Hmmm… interesting. While I'm not saying it's wrong as I simply don't know I do find the reasonings, or parts of them, odd for both.
the new 8 core memory module has a larger heat sink.
The new memory is still compatible with with the quad-core MP and if you look at the space between the DIMMs when mounted in the risers you'll not there's not a lot of space between them to begin with. So Ned scratches his head and wonders how they can be any larger without reducing the space between them such that it results in a net loss in available heat dissipation.
The sleds from the quad core Mac Pro are larger than the sleds in the 8 core Mac Pro.
How large are the sleds in the quad-core MPs in the first place?! They're barely larger than the drive with the same width, a recess to allow the sliding in of the sled as well as allowing a bevel for the screws and a small space at the end to get your fingers in to pull it out. It's barely more than a piece of metal bent in a L shape with a chunk cut out in the middle above the bottom of the drive. Ned is now using his other hand to scratch his head in confusion.

ATI HD 4870 vs 5770 vs 5870 on Mac Pro (3,1) 2.8 Octo Core

Im sorry if I'm asking a noob question but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out which Video Card I should get. To me it appears the higher the Model number the better the card.
What throws me off is the face that the 4870 cost more than the 5770 which appears to have better specs. I don't think I can afford the 5870 at this time so depending on the replies I might not even consider the 5870.
I want a Video Card to run in Windows 7 under BootCamp for gaming. I also want to just plug in the New 27" Apple LED with no issues - unlike my current ATI HD 2600 card.
These are the questions I have...
(1) Is there a HUGE gaming performance difference between the 5870 and the 5770?
(2) Why does the older 4870 cost more than the 5770?
(3) Why do some recommend using a DVI to Mini Display Port adapter ($200) when you can get a New Video Card for $249.00?
I would also appreciate any links to read up on if you have any.
I plan to sell my 30" Apple Cinema Display to pay for a New 27" Apple LED and a New Video Card.
PS - Any other alternatives to the 27" Apple LED? Any of the competition have a similar product?
Thanks for your time.

The 4870 is a better card than the 5770; more bandwidth.
It just saves a test cycle when one card is already known to be slower than another.
More results:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g.html
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40254
The only way a 5770 comes close to or beats a 5870 is in a crossfire vs single card situation:
http://www.overclock.net/ati/644665-radeon-5770-cf-vs-5870-vs.html
The 3 cards are on this page:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14
Get the 5870.

I am running Lion and trying to reinstall iLife06. I get a message "You can't open the application iLife06.mpkg because PowerPC apps are no longer supported." But my disk says it requires an PPC OR intel Core processor?

I spent ages digging out the disc as it was installed on my old iMac and it clearly states that it does not require a Power PC.
I also tried upgrading to imovie 11 but all my old movies won't import.
I've heard from others in these forums that iMovie 6 is the only way to resolve this and people have described how they are running it on Lion.
So how can I get iMovie 6 to run?

Office 2004 Applications Won't Work in Lion
You must have Office 2004 which is a PPC-only suite and will not work in Lion. You need to upgrade to Office 2011 - Mactopia - or you can try the freeware suite, Libre Office, that is functionally similar to Office 2007 for Windows except it works on Lion.
You may want to consider as well:
These two suites are similar to Libre Office but not as current or as well-supported:
NeoOffice
Open Office
And, then there is Apple's iWork suite:
Pages - word processing and layout
Keynote - presentation
Numbers - spreadsheet
Each can open and save Office compatible files. They may be purchased separately via the Mac App Store for $19.99 each.
(Access to the Mac App Store requires Snow Leopard 10.6.6 or higher and an Apple ID.)
You will find that the above applies to any PPC-only software including old iLife. You can purchase the new iLife versions on the App Store.

A little white "spot"

Hi,
I've got a 15 inch macbook pro that I purchased in late 2007. As I was looking to the left of my screen I see what can only be described as a little white "spot". I wiped the screen and it's still there. What is this? What can I do about it?

You don't say how big the "spot" is but it sounds like a dead pixel. What can you do about it? Not much other then have your display replaced. Luck of the draw I guess as I've owned many a MacBook and never had a dead pixel on any of them. I do have two 30" Cinema Displays and on one of them I have a dead black pixel but it is so tiny it is of little annoyance.

Sweet Vocoder?

Hi
As stated in this forum many times:
The Evoc is able to produce the vocoder effect.
But more robotic, than sweet.
So what´s the alternative.
I´ve tried the Orange Vocoder with Cubase a long time ago.
That was hard work too. (But maybe?)
And Reason is cumbersome as it is really not an audio app.
Auto Tune is not a vocoder, so I´ll count that out.
I know it´s a matter of skill and experience, finding the right balance between
the carrier (a synth) and the modulator (the voice)....And finding the right carrier,
the right pad sound, or whatever.
But so far I have only been 87% satisfied with my results.
Is there a hardware solution?
BTW. I seem to remember, from reading an interview, that the "Cher" effect
was originally made in Cubase, with the aid of hardware. And not Auto Tune.
JanD

BTW. I seem to remember, from reading an interview, that the "Cher" effect
was originally made in Cubase, with the aid of hardware. And not Auto Tune.
Oh god, not again. It was Autotune, get over it. Not only was this clearly obvious to anybody who had Autotune, and who knew about how vocoders work and sound, but the producers in that original interview even admitted after the fact that they lied, and it was in fact Autotune.
That over with - vocoders, more than anything, are extremely sensitive to the carrier and modulator. Select those sounds carefully, and compress both to hit the sweet spot, and you may be surprised at how good the EVOC can be. But it's a complex and not entirely intuitive plugin, for sure...

Barefeats Says 12 GB Sweet Spot on octo-core

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for