Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Jeebs · Sep 13, 2003, 03:56 PM

I'd heard that the G5s run best with 1-2 G of RAM, then saw this: MacAddict G5 benchmarks showing that going from the standard 512MB to 2G of RAM made the G5 performance go exponentially higher. I ordered my G5 with the standard 512 and am getting an extra 1G separately to install. I wonder what the performance difference is between 1G, 1.5G, and 2G... It should be interesting to see more benchmarks as more people get their G5 orders.

Sinemacula · Sep 13, 2003, 04:09 PM

I'd be interested in this too!! I'm planning to order a Dual 2Ghz G5 sometime within the next month or so, and I'll definitely be getting at least an extra 1GB of RAM (not from Apple thought, of course)... I'd like to get more, but after laying out for the G5 itself, cash is going to be tight for a while!

So, it'd be really nice to see some figures on the performance differences from 1GB, 1.5GB, 2GB and higher... that way I can prioritize my savings/expenditures over the next several months! ;-)

Love Calm Quiet · Sep 13, 2003, 04:16 PM

It's a shame that they did not try the extra RAM in the SINGLE-processor units - those might have stayed close to the 2Ghz DP if also tested with 2Gig RAM.

And what about testing OTHER apps than photoshop. I've got a SUSPICION that Photoshop is not the only one to benefit.

Has anyone out there done any benchmarking with varied (512 vs 1G vs 2G) RAM of the 1.6G or 1.8G SPs? Of other applications?

Eug · Sep 13, 2003, 04:17 PM

It really depends on the app(s). Photoshop eats RAM for breakfast.

I'd recommend getting the stock 512 MB RAM, and then adding another 1 GB from the www.crucial.com store, or maybe more depending on what you do.

Kenneth · Sep 13, 2003, 04:52 PM

Interesting....
I wish MacAddict put all machines with 2GB of RAM and do a test again.

I am currently having 1280MB of DDR 333Mhz RAM inside my DP 1.25 FW 800.

redcalx · Sep 13, 2003, 06:51 PM

I ordered a Dual G5 with the 9600 and 512 megs of ram... I've got another gig of the exact same ram that apple uses to put into the machine when it gets here...

My question is... will I see a massive lack in preformance because of the 9600? I thought the 9800 was a monster when it came to 3d stuff... what gives?

freaktornado · Sep 13, 2003, 07:43 PM

Yes, they should have put equal RAM in each machine. But one thing we do know is that the increase in performance on the G4s would not have been as great (in relative terms) as the G5s, and especially the Dual since it has two independent memory channels.

But this graph is somewhat misleading given that the other machines didn't have the same amount of RAM:

Catfish_Man · Sep 13, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by redcalx:
I ordered a Dual G5 with the 9600 and 512 megs of ram... I've got another gig of the exact same ram that apple uses to put into the machine when it gets here...

My question is... will I see a massive lack in preformance because of the 9600? I thought the 9800 was a monster when it came to 3d stuff... what gives?

The 9600 is a decent chip, but nowhere close to the 9800. Still plenty fast though.

Shaktai · Sep 13, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by freaktornado:
[B]But this graph is somewhat misleading given that the other machines didn't have the same amount of RAM:

Very true. If they all had 2 gigs of RAM, the G5 1.8 would have been much faster and the problems of the G4's very slow 166mhz bus would have been all the more glaring.

blackwind · Sep 13, 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Jeebs:
I'd heard that the G5s run best with 1-2 G of RAM, then saw this: MacAddict G5 benchmarks showing that going from the standard 512MB to 2G of RAM made the G5 performance go exponentially higher. I ordered my G5 with the standard 512 and am getting an extra 1G separately to install. I wonder what the performance difference is between 1G, 1.5G, and 2G... It should be interesting to see more benchmarks as more people get their G5 orders.

While the G5's high-bandwidth frontside bus requires larger amounts of RAM to work effectively, the huge jump depicted by MacAddict is not a result of the G5 suddenly being fed more efficiently. It is a result of eliminating Photoshop's scratch disk usage.

MacAddict was testing a 115-MB file. Using the 5x rule of thumb, Photoshop needed about 575 MB of free RAM to avoid scratch disk access.

This is why the G5 has a huge jump from 2 GB of RAM. The processors are being fed more efficiently by the larger amount of RAM, but I can guarantee that at least 80% of the performance jump is due to eliminating scratch disk access rather than the better feeding of the processors.

Shaktai · Sep 14, 2003, 12:59 AM

blackwind,

That really sums it up well. How much performance benefit more RAM provides will depend on the app, and the actual file(s) being worked with. Very large file manipulation or multiple apps of any kind, will benefit from all the memory you can give it, but that has always been true. The beauty is that the G5 has lots of room for more RAM.

Just got to thinking, will the G4's even take 2 gigs of RAM? I was thinking they were limited to 1.5.

Hydra · Sep 14, 2003, 02:04 AM

Blackwind is right but I find the QuickTime Pro 2GB DV->MPEG4 test interesting as well. The dual G5 was well ahead of all three other machines (the other three seem to be in a virtual dead heat). This test may be very drive limited and I wonder if that dual G5 had a nice fat 250GB drive which may have even helped things a bit more. They explained the result by saying that QT is dual aware but that flies in the face of the result showing the dual 1.42 and dual 1.25 almost with the same time. A test taking over 5 minutes long should show a big difference.

They only mentioned the 9800 and the 2GB RAM but maybe they forgot to mention the drive. I like MacAddict but frankly I wonder about their technical expertise sometimes. People on this board even have the critical logic to test the 1.8 with the 2 GB of RAM and compare the results.

The one thing these test show me is that the Dual G5 is a beast I can't wait to get my hands on.

-Jerry C.

axlepin · Sep 14, 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Love Calm Quiet:
It's a shame that they did not try the extra RAM in the SINGLE-processor units - those might have stayed close to the 2Ghz DP if also tested with 2Gig RAM.

hey, yeah..you're right...kind of makes the Macaddict test look kind of silly, doesn't it?

we ought to pester them to do it again, properly, giving equal RAM to all machines in the test.

a

Jeebs · Sep 14, 2003, 11:30 AM

I also have to wonder how much difference the video card makes for applications other than games. Although I did buy X-Plane, frame rate is less important to me than performance for the apps I use 99% of the time, that being Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.

I ordered my dual G5 with the standard 9600 card, thinking the extra $300 for the 9800 video card would be better spent on RAM. From what I've read here and elsewhere, I'm pretty encouraged that that was probably the better choice.

Spliffdaddy · Sep 14, 2003, 12:11 PM

If you're only using 500MB of RAM - having 2GB doesn't get you diddily.

Once you have enough RAM to avoid the necessity of 'virtual RAM' aka hard disk paging - that's as fast as you're gonna go. For those of you that equate more RAM to faster performance...you're gonna be disappointed.

Eug · Sep 14, 2003, 02:18 PM

If you're only using 500MB of RAM - having 2GB doesn't get you diddily.

Once you have enough RAM to avoid the necessity of 'virtual RAM' aka hard disk paging - that's as fast as you're gonna go. For those of you that equate more RAM to faster performance...you're gonna be disappointed.

Until you load up that extra image or that second app.

What you say is true for the light user, but it's VERY easy in OS X to use up 512 MB. Even for an average desktop user I usually recommend 768 MB just to be safe. For a Photoshopper, maybe 1.5 - 2 GB.

I ordered my dual G5 with the standard 9600 card, thinking the extra $300 for the 9800 video card would be better spent on RAM. From what I've read here and elsewhere, I'm pretty encouraged that that was probably the better choice.

I agree. The 9600 is a fine card. If you're a non-gamer the 9800 Pro is overkill. That said, I recommend to most people to go 9600 Pro over the 5200 on the 1.6 and 1.8 models. The 5200 is simply a slow card, and even for just Quartz Extreme performance a 9600 Pro would help. Considering it only costs $50 more than the 5200 it's a no-brainer.

Cadaver · Sep 14, 2003, 08:21 PM

I ordered my Dual 2G with the standard 512MB, and will add two 256MB PC3200 modules (I pulled 'em out of my PC) for a total of 1GB. Probably within 6 months, I'll add another 512MB for a 1.5GB total.

Can't see needing 2GB for what I do at the moment (though I do find myself hitting virtual memory periodically on the TiBook with 1GB RAM I'm using at the moment). Then again, if prices are good when I order for in a few months, I may just get a extra full 1GB instead of 512MB.

When you stop and think about it, 2GB in a home computer is amazing. My first Mac had a 40MB hard drive and a whopping 8MB of RAM (Quadra 605). Now I've got PowerPoint files (routinely) that are bigger than the Quadra's whole hard drive. With my current external FireWire HDs, I'll end up with 300GB of hard drive space on the G5. Geez. 0.3TB.

Eug · Sep 15, 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Cadaver:
My first Mac had a 40MB hard drive and a whopping 8MB of RAM (Quadra 605). Now I've got PowerPoint files (routinely) that are bigger than the Quadra's whole hard drive. With my current external FireWire HDs, I'll end up with 300GB of hard drive space on the G5. Geez. 0.3TB.

Oh a young'un. My first Apple had 48 KB of RAM and no hard drive at all.

fat mac moron · Sep 15, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
My first Apple had 48 KB of RAM and no hard drive at all.

And you were grateful, right?

osiris · Sep 15, 2003, 01:13 PM

heck, my first computer had 3K of ram. And that was enough for games/word processing too.

frownyfrank · Sep 15, 2003, 05:15 PM

3K?! What, were you one of the ten richest kings in Europe?