Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > They didn't forget the Pros today...

They didn't forget the Pros today... (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Well, I looked at the other ATI offering (Radeon HD 5870) and it's a lot faster then the 5770 (according to PassMark), but it was also released Oct 2009. I guess the GPU market has slowed a little.
You can have the 5870.

Apple - Mac Pro - Now with faster graphics processors from AMD.

It's a lot faster, but I suppose it's also a lot more expensive. I wonder who really needs such a high end card. Photoshop and Final Cut Pro should be great with the 5770 as well.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
If you want to be picky, I/O isn't integrated. By Intel's defintion, I/O is what is handled by the old ICH, what everyone else calls a southbridge, and those functions are not integrated in the CPU. What is integrated is the memory controller, most of the old northbridge. Integrating the MC is a HUGE improvement (and the reason I keep saying that a new Core i7 iMac will beat one of the old FSB-based Mac Pros on most things), but that improvement came with Nehalem in the last update. This update brought nothing new there. You can now get newer GPUs, the base GPU is no longer embarassing, and you can get 12 cores, that's it.
So this would mean if the 4-core Nehalem wouldn't have that ridiculously low RAM ceiling - it would be a viable choice and faster than even the i7 iMac?
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 07:38 PM
 
By the way: the better graphics cards now use DDR5.

The new Mac Pros will come out with DDR3. Is there a viable difference between the two standards, and why doesn't the new Mac Pro get the DDR5?
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Two sockets gives you more memory capacity and bandwidth, I'd take the dual quads.
Got it.

edit: Got it, the info, not: got it, the Mac Pro, unfortunately.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 07:44 PM
 
Not really slowed, but there are very clear generations and then levels inside them. This time ATi decided that it would be a good idea to drop all of their chips from one generation at more or less the same time, so barring minor fixes and modifications, we won't see any more launches from them for a while, and the next generation will be called 6000-something.

The 5800 series is ATi's top of the line, featuring a max of 1600 shader processors on a full 256bit GDDR5 memory bus. The 5700 series is half of a 5800 series, more or less: 800 shader processors on a 128bit bus. The 5600 series has 400 shader processors but still on a 128bit bus, and so on. They make one design and then they slice it small enough to fit in various budget segments, and Apple picked one that it felt was a reasonable starting point. This time I feel they made a decent pick - I could even see a slower model, to save money for those who don't care about graphics at all.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
So this would mean if the 4-core Nehalem wouldn't have that ridiculously low RAM ceiling - it would be a viable choice and faster than even the i7 iMac?
They're about even, right now. The i7 iMac has a clockspeed advantage and a faster turbo, while the MP had more memory bandwidth.

Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
By the way: the better graphics cards now use DDR5.
No, they use GDDR5. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
The new Mac Pros will come out with DDR3. Is there a viable difference between the two standards, and why doesn't the new Mac Pro get the DDR5?
They do use GDDR5 for the GPUs and DDR3 for main memory, just like everything else. I'm not sure I understand the question?

GDDR is a type of SGRAM, a special RAM made for graphics cards. Some cheaper graphics cards use plain old DDR RAM on occasion, but most use GDDR. The difference between the various types is how many bits of data can be transferred per pin per clockcycle. When we move from DDR2-800 to DDR3-1066, the memory bandwidth goes up as if we had increased the clockspeed from 800 to 1066 MHz. What we actually do is drop it from 200 MHz (on DDR2-800) to 133 MHz (on DDR3-1066). GDDR5 is based on DDR3 but with a bigger prefetch buffer (basically doubling memory bandwidth at the expense of latency), while GDDR3 is based on DDR2 in the same manner
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
You can have the 5870.

Apple - Mac Pro - Now with faster graphics processors from AMD.

It's a lot faster, but I suppose it's also a lot more expensive. I wonder who really needs such a high end card. Photoshop and Final Cut Pro should be great with the 5770 as well.
Gamers.
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 11:51 PM
 
Two years ago, I bought a 2.8GHz octocore 2008 Mac Pro for right around $2000. It's been a fantastic machine, a real earner, rock solid with FCP 6.0.6.

Curious about what people here would expect the performance difference to be for an octocore westmere system running at 2.4GHz compared to my machine. Noticeably faster render times in Compressor?

But actually, more to the point, my wife needs a new machine, so I'm going to be hooking her up with one of these new towers, and I'm wondering which one makes sense. She works in FCPStudio, too, so I know she'll appreciate the extra kick, but the diminishing returns for much higher costs have me taking a serious look at the single six core westmere at 3.33GHz vs the dual octocore at 2.4. The $5000 rig is not an option.
Liberty lover since birth. Mac devotee since 1986.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The difference between the various types is how many bits of data can be transferred per pin per clockcycle. When we move from DDR2-800 to DDR3-1066, the memory bandwidth goes up as if we had increased the clockspeed from 800 to 1066 MHz. What we actually do is drop it from 200 MHz (on DDR2-800) to 133 MHz (on DDR3-1066).
DDR3, as the name implies, runs the data transfers at twice the rate of the clock, just like DDR and DDR2 did. DDR3 is not QDR. DDR3-1333 does 1333 MT/s on the rising and falling edges of a 667Mhz I/O bus clock. DDR3 just refers to the bus, not the actual memory chips.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
DDR3, as the name implies, runs the data transfers at twice the rate of the clock, just like DDR and DDR2 did. DDR3 is not QDR. DDR3-1333 does 1333 MT/s on the rising and falling edges of a 667Mhz I/O bus clock. DDR3 just refers to the bus, not the actual memory chips.
Yes, I know, and I knew when I wrote that that someone would comment on it. The clock of the memory bus is different from that of the actual memory chips. In your example above, we have a 667 MHz bus between the DIMM and the memory controller, and multiple 166 MHz transfers between the memory chips and the prefetch buffer. The memory chips stay between 133 and 200 MHz on the JEDEC-approved models, and have done so since the the first DDR
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 06:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by awcopus View Post
Two years ago, I bought a 2.8GHz octocore 2008 Mac Pro for right around $2000. It's been a fantastic machine, a real earner, rock solid with FCP 6.0.6.

Curious about what people here would expect the performance difference to be for an octocore westmere system running at 2.4GHz compared to my machine. Noticeably faster render times in Compressor?
Yes. The thing I keep on about with Nehalem is how it drops memory latency, thereby becoming more efficient at many tasks - such as encoding - so yes, you would see noticeably faster render times.

Originally Posted by awcopus View Post
But actually, more to the point, my wife needs a new machine, so I'm going to be hooking her up with one of these new towers, and I'm wondering which one makes sense. She works in FCPStudio, too, so I know she'll appreciate the extra kick, but the diminishing returns for much higher costs have me taking a serious look at the single six core westmere at 3.33GHz vs the dual octocore at 2.4. The $5000 rig is not an option.
Is there anywhere we can see the prices of the BTO models? The sixcore ought to be the best bang for buck model, but without knowing the prices, that's sort of hard to guess. Of course being limited to 16 GB is not fun at all.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Gamers.
Also anyone who wants to do double precision floating point on the GPU.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The clock of the memory bus is different from that of the actual memory chips. In your example above, we have a 667 MHz bus between the DIMM and the memory controller, and multiple 166 MHz transfers between the memory chips and the prefetch buffer. The memory chips stay between 133 and 200 MHz on the JEDEC-approved models, and have done so since the the first DDR
I don't disagree, but you're talking about the memory chips rather than the DDR3 memory interface. The original question was about the difference between DDR3 and GDDR5 interfaces.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
I don't disagree, but you're talking about the memory chips rather than the DDR3 memory interface. The original question was about the difference between DDR3 and GDDR5 interfaces.
Which is the prefetch buffer, if I understand correctly, but I'll readily admit that I'm not entirely up to date on the specific details of the GDDR versions and how they differ from regular DDR.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by awcopus View Post
Two years ago, I bought a 2.8GHz octocore 2008 Mac Pro for right around $2000. It's been a fantastic machine, a real earner, rock solid with FCP 6.0.6.
That's a nice deal you got there. I suppose it was a used workstation from a friend, not a refurb from Apple (which would have been more expensive).
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 08:21 PM
 
Both DDR3 and GDDR5 have 8n prefetch buffers.

I don't know about DDR3 vs GDDR5 in particular, but in general graphics RAM (SGRAM):
is unidirectionally strobed and single-ended (although you can sometimes open two pages at once to simulate dual-porting)
supports a hardware reset to flush everything
has lower voltage requirements/higher clockrates
supports bit masking and block writing
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2010, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by awcopus View Post
...my wife needs a new machine, so I'm going to be hooking her up with one of these new towers, and I'm wondering which one makes sense. She works in FCPStudio...
IMO we clearly must wait to see the actual production model BTO choices, prices, RAM availability, etc. Let's wish the bottom end tower is not again made ridiculous by limiting the RAM slots to 4x4 GB as indicated in the current specs.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Aug 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM. )
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 01:14 AM
 
16 GB of ram isn't really ridiculously low is it? Besides they unofficially support 32 GB.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:21 AM
 
There are 8GB DIMMs? That's what it would take to get the single CPU model to 32 GB, and I have never seen any.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 11:10 PM
 
Yeah but they're more than $500 per stick.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by macaddict0001 View Post
16 GB of ram isn't really ridiculously low is it? Besides they unofficially support 32 GB.
Thanks for that. I wondered if 8 GB (currently ~$380 at OWC) DIMMs worked in that box.

Yes IMO 16 GB (which currently is what Apple specs as max for the bottom tower) is ridiculously low for a new Mac tower. The reason being that the raison d'etre of owning a tower is to run heavy apps, and looking at the 2011-2015+ life of a new tower I forecast that usage of large amounts of cheap RAM will be a very cost effective part of 2011-2015 heavy app operation. I.e. buyers limited to 4x4 GB RAM will be limited in their ability to take advantage of future cheap-RAM-related performance increases, shortening the life cycle.

On the MBP I am typing this on I paid more than US$400 to go from 2 GB to 3 GB just a few years ago - and it was worth it at the time for the improvement in Aperture's operation. Even today that RAM increase allows this 17" C2d MBP to remain fully useable in an aggressive pro workflow.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Aug 7, 2010 at 11:59 AM. )
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Yes IMO 16 GB (which currently is what Apple specs as max for the bottom tower) is ridiculously low for a new Mac tower. The reason being that the raison d'etre of owning a tower is to run heavy apps, and looking at the 2011-2015+ life of a new tower I forecast that usage of large amounts of cheap RAM will be a very cost effective part of 2011-2015 heavy app operation...
-Allen
Hey Allen, I'd say that 16GB is a decent baseline for what I do AND simultaneously agree with you that Apple shouldn't limit any of its towers' memory capabilities.

I'm cutting 5dMarkii HD footage on a tower with 18gb of RAM and it's just awesome. No delays, no issues, feels responsive. I love it. Now, OWC is offering very affordable RAM updates for my machine, but I feel no pressing need. If anything, the most useful speed boost will come as SSDs become as affordable as current HDs. But I digress...

When Apple posts details, I'll scopelock on the single Westmere 6-core processor machine's price. If it's decent and barefeats reveals performance gains over my current rig for video editing, compositing, and transcoding, I'll be all over it. Dual chips with 4 or 6 cores would be ideal, but at Apple's prices... unless the performance difference is genuinely dramatic (great than 40% faster)... I'd rather pocket the difference and invest it in Canon glass, which will last (theoretically) forever than dump it into hardware for a modest performance gain. YMMV. Hell, everybody's mileage varies.

My biggest gripe with the towers is the exclusion of eSata and a bluray burner (honestly, I just want it/need it bad for data archiving). I know both are easily added using third parties, but it just annoys me. Apple seems to not be taking the bull by the horns in this arena. However, I love how solid my Mac Pro has been and I love FCPStudio, so for at least the near-term, I'm sticking with Apple.
Liberty lover since birth. Mac devotee since 1986.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2010, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by awcopus View Post
Hey Allen, I'd say that 16GB is a decent baseline for what I do AND simultaneously agree with you that Apple shouldn't limit any of its towers' memory capabilities.

I'm cutting 5dMarkii HD footage on a tower with 18gb of RAM and it's just awesome. No delays, no issues, feels responsive. I love it. Now, OWC is offering very affordable RAM updates for my machine, but I feel no pressing need. If anything, the most useful speed boost will come as SSDs become as affordable as current HDs. But I digress...

When Apple posts details, I'll scopelock on the single Westmere 6-core processor machine's price. If it's decent and barefeats reveals performance gains over my current rig for video editing, compositing, and transcoding, I'll be all over it. Dual chips with 4 or 6 cores would be ideal, but at Apple's prices... unless the performance difference is genuinely dramatic (great than 40% faster)... I'd rather pocket the difference and invest it in Canon glass, which will last (theoretically) forever than dump it into hardware for a modest performance gain. YMMV. Hell, everybody's mileage varies.

My biggest gripe with the towers is the exclusion of eSata and a bluray burner (honestly, I just want it/need it bad for data archiving). I know both are easily added using third parties, but it just annoys me. Apple seems to not be taking the bull by the horns in this arena. However, I love how solid my Mac Pro has been and I love FCPStudio, so for at least the near-term, I'm sticking with Apple.
When Final Cut Pro goes 64-bit... I guess this would increase the RAM hunger as well.
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 12:08 PM
 
$3699 for a single 6-core 3.33GHz Westmere MP with a RAM ceiling of 16gb.
$3899 with the 5870 gpu.

vs.

$3499 for a dual quad-core 2.4GHz Westmere with RAM expandable to 32GB.
$3699 with the 5870 gpu.

Of course, it's reasonable to expect RAM prices to fall and the advent of 8GB modules, which would double the RAM capacities of both machines during their lifetimes.

Will the single 3.33GHz machine blow the dual 2.4 out of the water in scenarios involving computer processing in a single app? It's nearly 1 GHZ faster after all, and it ramps up to 3.6GHz. When you've got Compressor running in the background and you're editing in FCP or compositing in Motion, how much of a performance hit do you take with one processor vs. two? Probably a big hit. But you're also dual processing at a lowly max of 2.6GHz. with 8 cores vs. 3.6GHz with 6 cores.

The 3.33GHz machine is looking good. Expensive, but good.
Liberty lover since birth. Mac devotee since 1986.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 01:03 PM
 
Which means the true entry level into the Mac Pro is at $3500 - the price for a dual 4-core.

The single 4-core is again a joke - totally overpriced with a low RAM ceiling of 16 Gb. Even worse is the single 6-core, which has the same, low RAM ceiling.

Is it technically not possible to give us a single processor tower with 32 Gb RAM capacity?

The solid state drives are great, but they cost $1400. What are these drives going for on the "open market"?
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 01:16 PM
 
The ATI Radeon HD 5870 is now available as a separate purchase for anyone (like me) that got a Mac Pro last year.
$404 education pricing. Which seems quite reasonable, considering that the PC versions are around there if not more expensive. Of course, the PC drivers are infinitely better, but let's hope 10.6.5 fixes that.
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
The solid state drives are great, but they cost $1400. What are these drives going for on the "open market"?
Newegg.com - 512gb ssd

OWC sells a 480 GB SSD for $1600.

Apple's price is actually pretty competitive.
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
The single 4-core is again a joke - totally overpriced with a low RAM ceiling of 16 Gb. Even worse is the single 6-core, which has the same, low RAM ceiling.
Why? It has the same amount of RAM per CPU as the dual!

Each Mac Pro has one RAM daughtercard per CPU which has 4 slots.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2010, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Which means the true entry level into the Mac Pro is at $3500 - the price for a dual 4-core.

The single 4-core is again a joke - totally overpriced with a low RAM ceiling of 16 Gb. Even worse is the single 6-core, which has the same, low RAM ceiling.

Is it technically not possible to give us a single processor tower with 32 Gb RAM capacity
The current Xeons support six 16GB memory modules per socket. 16GB modules started shipping over a year ago and retail around $1250.

The major OEMs are happy to ship you a modern workstation with expansive memory capabilities (192GB for dual socket models).
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 04:14 PM
 
The thing is space. The design Apple selected puts the CPUs and RAM slots on a smaller daugthercard. This means that it only fits 4 slots per CPU, instead of 6 (which is what the CPUs in question support). In the octo this is understandable, but in the quad Apple could certainly make a version that connects six slots to one CPU.

I was hoping for an evolved design with some slots on the bottom of that daugthercard, but apparently that wasn't considered a priority.

That 8GB and even 16GB DIMMs work is good - I did not know that. That makes the problem less acute, in my opinion. Every Mac I ever owned has ended up with RAM at or above the stated max, and in each case the price of that RAM would have been more than the entire computer if I had bought it when the computer was new. Prices come down, the only issue is if the addressing lines are there (B&W G3, anyone?). It seems they are.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 04:58 PM
 
Thanks for the explanation "P". It's appreciated. We can now understand your issue.

I'd have to take a look at a Mac Pro, it certainly would be nice having 6 memory slots on the daughtercard, if that's how many the CPU could handle.

The 6 slots would even be good for a single 6-core 3.33 Mac Pro which is the one I was pricing out.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 05:20 PM
 
If the motherboard header has the proper addressing lines, there's nothing to stop a 3rd party from releasing a 6-DIMM riser for the Mac Pros.

1. Release 6-DIMM replacement riser.
2. Meet the heavy demand.
3. PROFIT!!!

Just a thought.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That 8GB and even 16GB DIMMs work is good - I did not know that.
That's what the CPUs support. Apple may limit it further in firmware. I haven't seen anyone advertising Mac Pro compatibility selling larger than 8GB.

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If the motherboard header has the proper addressing lines
Memory controller is on the CPU.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The thing is space. The design Apple selected puts the CPUs and RAM slots on a smaller daugthercard. This means that it only fits 4 slots per CPU, instead of 6 (which is what the CPUs in question support). In the octo this is understandable, but in the quad Apple could certainly make a version that connects six slots to one CPU.

I was hoping for an evolved design with some slots on the bottom of that daugthercard, but apparently that wasn't considered a priority.

That 8GB and even 16GB DIMMs work is good - I did not know that. That makes the problem less acute, in my opinion. Every Mac I ever owned has ended up with RAM at or above the stated max, and in each case the price of that RAM would have been more than the entire computer if I had bought it when the computer was new. Prices come down, the only issue is if the addressing lines are there (B&W G3, anyone?). It seems they are.
A space problem?

Should the Mac Pro get an even bigger casing now? How large are the cases for those PCs that can pack up to 192 Gb RAM?

I wouldn't invest so much money into a workstation with such a low RAM ceiling. The higher price of the 8 GB modules would make it more reasonable to buy a dual processor tower right away.

The advent of 64-bit everywhere raises RAM hunger. 16 Gb RAM may seem OK just now. But what about in two years?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Should the Mac Pro get an even bigger casing now? How large are the cases for those PCs that can pack up to 192 Gb RAM?
Dell T7500 is 8.5" x 22.3" x 22.3" or 4220 cubic inches.
Mac Pro is 8.1" x 18.7" x 20.1" or 3045 cubic inches.

Of course the Dell also has more bays/ports/slots, but it's definitely chubbier.
     
tears2040
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
A space problem?

Should the Mac Pro get an even bigger casing now? How large are the cases for those PCs that can pack up to 192 Gb RAM?

I wouldn't invest so much money into a workstation with such a low RAM ceiling. The higher price of the 8 GB modules would make it more reasonable to buy a dual processor tower right away.

The advent of 64-bit everywhere raises RAM hunger. 16 Gb RAM may seem OK just now. But what about in two years?

16gb of ram is a low ceiling? Please show me 1 program or even 2 programs you use at the same time that would eat up 16gb of ram in a real world example. I am more than 99.9% sure no one in the world would need that kind of ram working on any project.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:49 AM
 
Apparently that 0.1% of uncertainty is a pretty wide horizon.

A large Logic or MainStage session with lots of virtual instruments and complex effects plug-ins should be able to max out 16 GB with a little work, especially when you're running Ableton or Reason in parallel.

Also, a $3000 machine is going to be budgeted for three or four years or longer.

Now that 64-bit computing is becoming the norm, plug-in and software developers no longer need to work within the constraints of 4 GB limits, so you can bet that there will be ever more compelling reasons to want as much RAM as you can possibly install over the next few years.

I'm also *fairly* sure that high-end video editing/rendering work gains pretty massive benefits from having massive amounts of RAM thrown at it - not strictly "necessary", perhaps, but you know, we used to to audio editing on 400 MHz G3 machines.

Nobody "needs" more than three-track analog mono, anyways.
     
tears2040
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Apparently that 0.1% of uncertainty is a pretty wide horizon.

A large Logic or MainStage session with lots of virtual instruments and complex effects plug-ins should be able to max out 16 GB with a little work, especially when you're running Ableton or Reason in parallel.

Also, a $3000 machine is going to be budgeted for three or four years or longer.

Now that 64-bit computing is becoming the norm, plug-in and software developers no longer need to work within the constraints of 4 GB limits, so you can bet that there will be ever more compelling reasons to want as much RAM as you can possibly install over the next few years.

I'm also *fairly* sure that high-end video editing/rendering work gains pretty massive benefits from having massive amounts of RAM thrown at it - not strictly "necessary", perhaps, but you know, we used to to audio editing on 400 MHz G3 machines.

Nobody "needs" more than three-track analog mono, anyways.

While I understand it is possible, I just felt truly puzzled how someone can say that 16gbs of ram is a low ceiling implying that it was not enough.

Final Cut Pro to my understanding does not even utilize more than a certain amount of ram which is a lot less than 16, I believe it is around 4-8gbs. Now yes you are correct that you can run virtual instruments that hog up ram, but even then would you really run 20 different pianos in realtime eating up all of your memory with effects everywhere? The truth is I have never seen anyone use more than 8gbs of ram on any project. It is possible while maybe doing 3d modeling and then using other programs but I mean lets be honest 16gbs of ram is a lot and I mean a hell of a lot.

But yeah I am not derailing this thread just here to say that any person who actually had 16gbs of ram in their computer would be future proof for at least 2-3+ years


peace
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 01:48 PM
 
Final Cut is not 64-bit clean yet, which is the ONLY reason it doesn't utilize more than 4 GB.

It would LOVE to - that's exactly the point.

The reason you haven't ever seen anybody use more than 8 GB RAM on a project is because it wasn't POSSIBLE until apps started going 64-bit.

Also, I've met at least one musician/producer who always buys the fastest box available and maxes out its capacity within about six months. Complex arrangements, and extremely complex sounds - all in the box.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
. . .FireWire 1600/3200, Light Peak. . .
Yes, Apple should include technology which really only exists on paper. While they're at it, why didn't they include a dilithium crystal adapter?
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by tears2040 View Post
16gb of ram is a low ceiling? Please show me 1 program or even 2 programs you use at the same time that would eat up 16gb of ram in a real world example. I am more than 99.9% sure no one in the world would need that kind of ram working on any project.
I can do 16 GB with one Photoshop file.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
tears2040
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2010, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
I can do 16 GB with one Photoshop file.
I'm going to have to call your bluff on that one, take a screen shot and prove it. Show me an Activity Monitor using 16gbs inside of PhotoShop.
( Last edited by reader50; Aug 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason: civility is a plus)
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2010, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by tears2040 View Post
I'm going to have to call your bluff on that one, take a screen shot and prove it. Show me an Activity Monitor using 16gbs inside of PhotoShop.
Can't: the file's at work, I'm at home. But it's easy to use that much RAM. 30 inches by 40 inches by 300 dpi with multiple layers and effects. These file are 2 GB on disk. Open one of them and you're looking at 3 to 4 GB of scratch space before you've made a change. Start working on them and watch your RAM quickly disappear.

And those aren't the biggest files. You know the ads which appear on the side of 18 wheelers? Those are built at one-quarter scale, so those are 159 inches long. Those can take four or five minutes just to open.

Big print pieces are always pushing the boundaries of what Photoshop can do, and always will.

edit: And you don't want to look at the Activity Monitor unless you're using CS5, and maybe not even then. You want to look at the scratch size of the document you have open, as that will show you how much total RAM--active and paged memory--Photoshop is using to display the document.
( Last edited by Don Pickett; Aug 14, 2010 at 03:27 PM. Reason: More thots)
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2010, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
Can't: the file's at work, I'm at home. But it's easy to use that much RAM. 30 inches by 40 inches by 300 dpi with multiple layers and effects. These file are 2 GB on disk. Open one of them and you're looking at 3 to 4 GB of scratch space before you've made a change. Start working on them and watch your RAM quickly disappear.

And those aren't the biggest files. You know the ads which appear on the side of 18 wheelers? Those are built at one-quarter scale, so those are 159 inches long. Those can take four or five minutes just to open.

Big print pieces are always pushing the boundaries of what Photoshop can do, and always will.

edit: And you don't want to look at the Activity Monitor unless you're using CS5, and maybe not even then. You want to look at the scratch size of the document you have open, as that will show you how much total RAM--active and paged memory--Photoshop is using to display the document.
Where do you actually see the amount of scratch space used?

In my current settings I only see the actual document size (which is larger than the size of the document saved and closed).
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2010, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Where do you actually see the amount of scratch space used?

In my current settings I only see the actual document size (which is larger than the size of the document saved and closed).
See the little triangle to the right of the document size? Click and hold and you can select from a number of things, scratch size included. That tells you how much RAM Photoshop is actually using.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Originally Posted by reader50
If the motherboard header has the proper addressing lines
Memory controller is on the CPU.
Yes, but there must still be a line from the relevant addressing pin on the CPU out to each DIMM, and the computer will work fine if that line isn't there - except for the RAM ceiling dropping, of course. I once had the distinct displeasure of upgrading the RAM in an old IBM Apitiva. That computer had a 440BX chipset. Great, I know that a 440BX supports 256MB per slot up to 4 slots, so I just buy a 256 MB DIMM. Unfortunately, that didn't work, because IBM had elected to save a cent or two by not running the extra addressing line to each slot. They each supported 128MB per slot, and it was not a BIOS lock (they also only had 3 slots, for some reason). I could reach 384MB RAM through three 128MB DIMMS, but not through one 128MB and one 256MB.

Apple pulled this stunt once in "recent" memory - the B&W G3s were similarly limited to 128MB DIMMs. We really don't have any reason to think that they did it again, but it's good to have some confirmation.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
A space problem?

Should the Mac Pro get an even bigger casing now? How large are the cases for those PCs that can pack up to 192 Gb RAM?
Bigger. An EATX board is 12*13", WATX 14"*16.75" and there are even bigger ones out there. High RAM ceilings is one of the few remaining reasons to get an MP, so yes the case should grow if required. The next gen Xeon CPUs (5700 series, probably) will support 4 channels of RAM per socket, for a total of 16 slots for a dual socket machine.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Yes, but there must still be a line from the relevant addressing pin on the CPU out to each DIMM, and the computer will work fine if that line isn't there - except for the RAM ceiling dropping, of course.
The CPUs and RAM slots are on the same daughterboard; no additional upstream connection to the logic board should be necessary to change the memory configuration. Your 440BX example is from the discrete northbridge days, irrelevant to Nehalem and successors.

Originally Posted by P View Post
The next gen Xeon CPUs (5700 series, probably) will support 4 channels of RAM per socket, for a total of 16 slots for a dual socket machine.
They're also expected to continue to support 3 DIMMs/channel, so 12 slots per socket.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
The CPUs and RAM slots are on the same daughterboard; no additional upstream connection to the logic board should be necessary to change the memory configuration. Your 440BX example is from the discrete northbridge days, irrelevant to Nehalem and successors.
I don't see how it is. I'm not talking about Northbridge <-> CPU, I'm talking about Northbridge <-> individual DIMM. The memory controller, wherever it is located, still needs to send the actual row address and column address to the DIMM. If either address is longer than the number of leads between memory controller and DIMM, the address won't get through.

Originally Posted by mduell View Post
They're also expected to continue to support 3 DIMMs/channel, so 12 slots per socket.
Fair enough, they do support 3 DIMMs at a lower clock. Have you heard anything about whether Sandy Bridge-EP will
support 3 sockets at full clock (DDR3-1600)?

BTW, your sig needs updating.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I don't see how it is. I'm not talking about Northbridge <-> CPU, I'm talking about Northbridge <-> individual DIMM. The memory controller, wherever it is located, still needs to send the actual row address and column address to the DIMM. If either address is longer than the number of leads between memory controller and DIMM, the address won't get through.
Recall this is what I was replying to:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post
I'd have to take a look at a Mac Pro, it certainly would be nice having 6 memory slots on the daughtercard, if that's how many the CPU could handle.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If the motherboard header has the proper addressing lines, there's nothing to stop a 3rd party from releasing a 6-DIMM riser for the Mac Pros.
The replacement daughtercard would have all the necessary pins from the CPU to each DIMM, but that would not change the number of pins needed to the main logic board for QPI.

Originally Posted by P View Post
Fair enough, they do support 3 DIMMs at a lower clock. Have you heard anything about whether Sandy Bridge-EP will support 3 sockets at full clock (DDR3-1600)?
Doubt it. I'd expect the official support to be 1600Mhz with 1 slot/channel populated, 1333 with 2, and 1067 with 3.

Originally Posted by P View Post
BTW, your sig needs updating.
Indeed!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,