Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

monitorpop · Apr 12, 2007, 01:00 PM

I'm configuring a new MacPro and need advice on RAM vs. processing power. I mainly work with tons of RAW format photographs in Lightroom and Photoshop. I also do some work in Flash, Dreamweaver and Illustrator in addition to basic functions such as web and email.

Where do you think I will get the biggest payoff? More RAM or more processing power?

2.66Ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon w/ 8GB of RAM
or
3.0Ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon w/ 4GB of RAM

Thanks!

Gossamer · Apr 12, 2007, 01:43 PM

Definitely RAM. If you ever feel the need for more processing power, just swap in a couple quad core chips.

Sherman Homan · Apr 12, 2007, 02:38 PM

Ram.
A slower processor with plenty of ram beats a fast processor crippled by too little ram.
Usually!

serphium · Apr 12, 2007, 02:46 PM

^ Thirce for RAM.

mduell · Apr 12, 2007, 02:55 PM

2.66Ghz + 8GB

Don Pickett · Apr 12, 2007, 05:21 PM

More RAM.

I have a G5 at home. I just upped the RAM from 1.25 GB to 3 GB, and the difference is amazing: the machine starts up in about fifteen seconds, and all my apps run at lightening speed.

You can never have too much memory.

Glenn Wolsey · Apr 12, 2007, 05:46 PM

2.66Ghz + 8GB RAM.

monitorpop · Apr 12, 2007, 06:02 PM

Wow, I'm glad i posted the question. I was about to go with the faster processor, thinking that I could easily upgrade the RAM cheaper in the future. Is it really that easy to change out the processor in the future?

Thanks to everyone for the help.

CatOne · Apr 12, 2007, 07:15 PM

Here's the thing. There is such a thing as "enough RAM." If you have "enough," then more will not make the machine any faster. The thing you have to avoid is paging -- if the OS has to write things to disk because you've run out of RAM, this slows it down a LOT (as writing to disk is about 10,000 times slower than writing to RAM). But, for example, unless you're running LOTS of stuff at once, having 16 GB of RAM is NO faster than having 8. It all depends on how you've configured it.

It is true that "you can never have too much memory," but that's not to say that more RAM is necessarily faster. It is not, UNLESS you page to disk.

For most stuff, a 3 GHz with 4 GB of RAM will be faster than a 2.66 with 8 GB of RAM. Only if you're running, say, Aperture, Photoshop, Safari, and iTunes at the same time and doing editing of big files will a machine with 4 GB of RAM start to slow down.

Personally, I just bought an 8-core with 4 GB of RAM. I have Menumeters running. If I *ever* see my free RAM start repeatedly dropping a lot, I'll buy 4 GB more of RAM. You can also go to Activity Monitor and watch your pageins/pageouts. You want to keep the Pageouts number low. I've only had this 8 core Mac Pro running for 3 1/2 hours (woot!) but my number of page outs is currently 0. I did spend some time futzing in Aperture but not heavy, heavy work. But personally I think 8 GB is overkill unless you are doing tons of work in Final Cut Studio (i.e. FCP, Motion, Soundtrack Pro and Logic all running at the same time).

mduell · Apr 12, 2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by monitorpop

Is it really that easy to change out the processor in the future?

Yes, Anandtech did it about 6 months ago with quad core chips (which were at the time engineering samples).

SierraDragon · Apr 12, 2007, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by monitorpop

Wow, I'm glad i posted the question. I was about to go with the faster processor, thinking that I could easily upgrade the RAM cheaper in the future. Is it really that easy to change out the processor in the future?

Actually everyone is right. Your original question was
Where do you think I will get the biggest payoff? More RAM or more processing power?

The simple answer is RAM for the apps you describe today. However when you consider getting 4 GB RAM now with the 3.0G Hz CPU and the ability to add more RAM in the future when (a) you need it more and (b) RAM is cheaper, the 3 GHz box is a wise purchase for the coming few years. Adding RAM is easy and relatively inexpensive compared to processor replacements.

-Allen Wicks

Don Pickett · Apr 12, 2007, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by CatOne

Here's the thing. There is such a thing as "enough RAM." If you have "enough," then more will not make the machine any faster. The thing you have to avoid is paging -- if the OS has to write things to disk because you've run out of RAM, this slows it down a LOT (as writing to disk is about 10,000 times slower than writing to RAM). But, for example, unless you're running LOTS of stuff at once, having 16 GB of RAM is NO faster than having 8. It all depends on how you've configured it.

He said he's using Adobe apps with large files: IMO he needs RAM.

olePigeon · Apr 12, 2007, 11:10 PM

Another way to look at it, is that RAM prices don't fluctuate so much because of all the price fixing going on. Intel CPUs regularly get cheaper. Sometimes Intel will discount processors to try and undercut AMD after they release a new processor.

So, sometime down the road your RAM will still be relatively expensive, but you'll be able to upgrade your CPU to a quad (eight?) core 3.5GHz or whatever's out by then.

ninahagen · Apr 13, 2007, 08:18 AM

I vote to stretch and get both. A little extra will go a long way. I am on a Power mac 2.5 quad with 8GB RAM using heavy photoshop files...we were working on a 1.97 Ghz image. Even with all that muscle, I still wish for more speed. 1 other bit you might consider is using the stock drive which comes with the machine for storage on finished images, movies & music and adding 2 x 10k rpm 150GB WD Raptor Hard drives, 1 for the system disk and 1 for the scratch disc. It will blaze.

osiris · Apr 13, 2007, 08:45 AM

It'll be easier to add RAM later than to add a new CPU.

So I'd go with the faster CPU.

mduell · Apr 13, 2007, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

Actually everyone is right. Your original question was
Where do you think I will get the biggest payoff? More RAM or more processing power?

The simple answer is RAM for the apps you describe today. However when you consider getting 4 GB RAM now with the 3.0G Hz CPU and the ability to add more RAM in the future when (a) you need it more and (b) RAM is cheaper, the 3 GHz box is a wise purchase for the coming few years. Adding RAM is easy and relatively inexpensive compared to processor replacements.

Using today's prices, adding 4GB RAM to a Mac Pro is $500-700. Upgrading from 2x3Ghz dual to 2x2.66Ghz quad is $600-800 (depends on resale value of the duals). Obviously the costs of each of those upgrades will be lower in a year or two, but I don't see memory prices dropping significantly faster than the CPU prices.
The processors aren't as easy to upgrade as the memory, but on the other hand they're not terribly difficult to upgrade.

I also think the 3Ghz quad upgrade is a poor value over the 2.66Ghz quad; 13% in clockrate means a <13% increase in performance, which isn't worth a ~20% increase in price. If your time is valuable enough to make that worth it, the 3Ghz octo is probably a better deal for you.

As you say, the RAM will give better performance today, and in the future upgrading one or the other doesn't make much of a difference in cost, so he may as well take the increased performance today.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Another way to look at it, is that RAM prices don't fluctuate so much because of all the price fixing going on. Intel CPUs regularly get cheaper. Sometimes Intel will discount processors to try and undercut AMD after they release a new processor.

RAM prices tend to trickle down a dollar or ten at a time with frequent (at least weekly) price changes. CPUs tend to see hundred+ dollar changes once per quarter.

highstakes · Apr 13, 2007, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by serphium

^ Thirce for RAM.

^ X 4

peeb · Apr 13, 2007, 11:41 AM

Ram Ftw.

monitorpop · Apr 13, 2007, 09:09 PM

thanks for the help everyone!

cgc · Apr 13, 2007, 09:45 PM

I have a 2.66GHz MacPro and 3GB RAM. Before I installed my RAM I ran some tests using PS2 and PS3 (beta). There was a negligible speed increase, nothing worth noting (>5%). Same thing in other operations.

The memory is useful, but don't expect it to make your system scream more than it already does. Enjoy your MacPro.

Peabo · Apr 14, 2007, 07:36 AM

I'd say go for the faster processor. I don't know what you'll be using that will need more than 4 gigs of ram anyway!

tinkered · Apr 14, 2007, 01:07 PM

In this sad time, AMD's and Intel's price/power war profits the consumer to buy RAM OEM. The RAM development curve is pathetic compared to the CPU. I would go with some mid-speed CPU's and plenty of RAM. In a year, upgrade you CPUs for a song. You may never have a machine that causes grown men to weep, but you will have a machine that will actually stay up-to-date for over 2 years. I nearly bought this, but, due to housing issue I went mobile, at a loss of computing awesomeness.