Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 18, 2008 2:47 AM
in response to: Dukee101
|
|
|
I wouldn't get so fixated on ifixit, either dude, though they may be quite handy with a screwdriver in their Mac take-aparts; I'd just web search for some specs, e.g.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3432
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
24
From:
Pullman, WA
Registered:
Jul 11, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 18, 2008 5:54 AM
in response to: Ewen
|
|
|
Where are you getting this information?
A larger heap means more applications can be allocated memory at once. If the OS can address memory, surely it can allocate this memory to applications, 64bit or not.
Obviously, this does not imply that applications can be allocated more than the 32bit limit: I suppose this could be your main concern... On the other hand, I would gladly take more than 4GB of memory just to be able to run more applications at blistering speeds concurrently.
One problem would be if the applications have static memory locations built in - clearly this would be a problem. However, you would have to be working at an extremely low level for this to even be brought up as a concern.
On another note: I remember there being some individuals interested in this same type of question with the early 2008 MBP and found that a specific brand/model stick of ram physically worked in conjunction with more sticks of ram. I'll see if I can pull that up somehow.
|
|
Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 18, 2008 6:05 AM
in response to: mcbrided
|
|
|
A larger heap means more applications can be allocated memory at once. If the OS can address memory, surely it can allocate this memory to applications, 64bit or not.
It's part of the power user mindset, they always want to pack more RAM under the hood, in the belief that >4GB means better performance. At the moment on Mac, for the reasons I have mentioned above, there's very little advantage having more than 4GB. Sadly, some users, I reckon, would spend hundreds of dollars stuffing Macs with extra RAM, when in reality they usually gain next to nothing.
On another note: I remember there being some individuals interested in this same type of question with the early 2008 MBP and found that a specific brand/model stick of ram physically worked in conjunction with more sticks of ram. I'll see if I can pull that up somehow.
I haven't seen a third party report of this yet, though as you can see from my link above in theory the motherboard can address this.
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
24
From:
Pullman, WA
Registered:
Jul 11, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 18, 2008 7:34 AM
in response to: Ewen
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll still trying to find this link. There was a ton of question as to what was actually being utilized as what was being reported was not what was being used in some cases. I'll post back when I can find it - it was an interesting find nonetheless.
iPhone 3G
|
|
Posts:
36
From:
UK
Registered:
Oct 30, 2007
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 7:40 AM
in response to: Dukee101
|
|
|
Yeah, I kind of take back what I said about them knowing what they're talking about. They used to... but even on the MBP disassembly they say you need to take out some T6 screws to take the drive out. Wrong - it's just one size 0 philips. Then there are some T6 adaptors on the sides of the drive, which hold it in the bay.
By making it sound like you have to take a Torx driver to get the HDD out, people might end up taking the lid off the drive (which would ruin it).
iMac 20" 2.4
Mac OS X (10.5)
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
chicago
Registered:
Oct 19, 2008
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 8:04 AM
in response to: Cloudane
|
|
|
On the link supplied above, in the Memory Controller row, under the 9400 it says:
2 x 64-bit DDR2/DDR3 channels
Does this mean that the chipset is 64bit? Cause it sure looks that way to me... (not being a hardware geek or anything)
macbook pro
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 9:55 AM
in response to: Cloudane
|
|
|
They used to... but even on the MBP disassembly they say you need to take out some T6 screws to take the drive out. Wrong - it's just one size 0 philips. Then there are some T6 adaptors on the sides of the drive, which hold it in the bay.
I've never used this third-party site/company myself, they have a non-Mac aspect to their work e.g. http://www.ifixit.com/info/why .
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
3,092
Registered:
Dec 4, 2002
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 11:10 AM
in response to: ImmersiveGamez
|
|
|
Can the 32bit OSX make use of more than 4GB of ram? (Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm more of a Windows user which has such a software limitation, but I'm thinking this applies to software in general or more the processor itself, which is the same in either case.)
As mentioned above Leopard is 64-bit, many Mac users such as myself have a lot more than 4GB installed in their Mac Pros since OS X can address a very high amount of RAM. While it is true that 32-bit applications can't use more than 4GB, having more than 4GB really helps if you want to run multiple applications. In fact if I wanted to run one application at 4GB plus OS X I would need more than 4GB to make room for the OS RAM footprint. If I want to run Photoshop and a virtualized Windows at the same time I think I would want 6GB minimum.
In addition, some 32-bit applications like Photoshop are smart enough to leverage OS X memory management to buffer their virtual memory swap files to the high RAM beyond 4GB instead of putting them on the slower disk, therefore taking advantage of 4+GB for speed.
So even with 32-bit apps having more than 4GB has its definite uses.
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
PowerBook G4 15" Al, PowerBook G3 FireWire, PowerCenter Pro, PowerBook 160
|
|
Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 3:50 PM
in response to: Network 23
|
|
|
As mentioned above Leopard is 64-bit, many Mac users such as myself have a lot more than 4GB installed in their Mac Pros since OS X can address a very high amount of RAM. While it is true that 32-bit applications can't use more than 4GB...
sigh network23, it's more correct to say that 10.5 supports 64-bit hardware and applications that it is in fact 64-bit, a lot of its code (including kernel and apps are 32-bit binaries in fact), you'll have to wait for SL for goodies such as 64-bit kernel...etc to arrive (this will allow Mac, in theory, to be stuffed with huge amounts of RAM), state of play at them moment is little gained above 4GB, though it can be physically incorporated into many Macs with 64-bit hardware.
In addition, some 32-bit applications like Photoshop are smart enough to leverage OS X memory...
The linked article is very old (cs2) and non-adobe in origin, it also deals with PCs and that is probably more where you might possibly see advantage. If you actually read the Mac CS4 specs adobe recommend a mere 1GB RAM for running the app, it's a bit of a power user fantasy to think that in reality they gain a huge amount going beyond the stated recommended limit from adobe in most cases.
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
3,092
Registered:
Dec 4, 2002
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 5:13 PM
in response to: Ewen
|
|
|
In addition, some 32-bit applications like Photoshop are smart enough to leverage OS X memory...
The linked article is very old (cs2) and non-adobe in origin, it also deals with PCs and that is probably more where you might possibly see advantage. If you actually read the Mac CS4 specs adobe recommend a mere 1GB RAM for running the app, it's a bit of a power user fantasy to think that in reality they gain a huge amount going beyond the stated recommended limit from adobe in most cases.
So you're not talking from experience? Because I am. I have measured VM usage while editing large files on a Mac Pro with a lot of RAM beyond 4GB.
While the article may be "non-Adobe in origin" you will notice that its author is tightly involved with Adobe and the article includes direct interviews and quotes with Photoshop engineers.
You will also notice that the article directly references Mac OS X and its buffering behavior. You can read more about it in an Adobe authored document which is not very old at all (CS3) and describes the high RAM buffering I talked about.
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
PowerBook G4 15" Al, PowerBook G3 FireWire, PowerCenter Pro, PowerBook 160
|
|
Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 5:30 PM
in response to: Network 23
|
|
|
So you're not talking from experience?
Yep. Very little to be gained generally as Ps can directly access up to about 3.5GB RAM. VM buffering, can in fact actually slow Ps down by causing pauses when in operation on Mac running OSX. I find no real advantage having more than 4GB in Mac with Ps.
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
3,092
Registered:
Dec 4, 2002
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 6:54 PM
in response to: Ewen
|
|
|
Yep. Very little to be gained generally as Ps can directly access up to about 3.5GB RAM. VM buffering, can in fact actually slow Ps down by causing pauses when in operation on Mac running OSX. I find no real advantage having more than 4GB in Mac with Ps.
I wouldn't make it a blanket statement. If you read carefully and think about what is happening, some users will experience far larger (or smaller) performance gains than others.
If your concern is operations that need a lot of RAM, then the buffering will not help much.
If you are painting, then the pauses may annoy you and you may have to turn it off.
But if your operations can fit in 3.5GB RAM and you are drawing upon history states and other things stored in the scratch disk, and the majority of your edits are other than painting (Curves, filters, etc), then it will have a significant effect on your performance because the scratch data will be read and written much faster out of RAM, and since you aren't painting the pauses will not occur, making the additional RAM worth it.
But the bottom line, to clarify the earlier question, is that Photoshop is indeed an app that can make use of that extra RAM.
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
PowerBook G4 15" Al, PowerBook G3 FireWire, PowerCenter Pro, PowerBook 160
|
|
Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 19, 2008 11:27 PM
in response to: Network 23
|
|
|
I wouldn't make it a blanket statement. If you read carefully and think about what is happening, some users will experience far larger (or smaller) performance gains than others.
I think you're simply confusing yourself, Network 23, with the third-party website you linked above. Gains are very small (somewhat disappointingly small for 64-bit computing and large RAM with regards CS4 for example). Current state of PS CS4 is in fact this. Quote from adobe faq: "early testing of 64-bit support in Photoshop for Windows, overall performance gains ranged from 8% to 12%. Those who work with extremely large files may realize noticeably greater gains in performance, in some cases as dramatic as ten times the previous speed. This is because 64-bit applications can address larger amounts of memory and thus result in less file swapping — one of the biggest factors that can affect data processing speed" . Factor into this that these 8% (yes it is small performance gain, and these are adobe summary numbers) is for windows, since Mac version is 32-bit so won't have the supposed benefit, then conclusion can only be modest gains from 64-bit and stuffing a computer with vast amounts of RAM (the Vista 64-bit running PC will be able to properly address a very large amount of RAM for the application). Reality is at the moment for Mac not much point going above 4GB due to addressing limitations. VM can actually end up being slower (since its a computer trick to utilize extra RAM, even though it can't be directly addressed by the application). So imo, not worth it for most users of the products, and I am one btw;) Going back to CS we could theorize that given the small performance gains from going 64-bit and having that extra RAM, and the technical limitations with adobe adapting the code for Mac, they simply decided: not worth the effort for Mac cs4 64-bit binary. In fact I tend to find very little performance gains from cs increments, but tend to upgrade my applications to maximize cross-platform compatibility.
But if your operations can fit in 3.5GB RAM and you are drawing upon history states and other things stored in the scratch disk, and the majority of your edits are other than painting (Curves, filters, etc), then it will have a significant effect on your performance because the scratch data will be read and written much faster out of RAM, and since you aren't painting the pauses will not occur, making the additional RAM worth it.
See above, very small gains if any, but power users like to think, even if not really the case for the majority of users, extra ram means much more pace. So much easier, and cheaper, not to bother at all most of the time for many users of cs on Mac. When you factor into the fact that OSX and most applications are 32-bit not much ever gained, in most cases fact, so it doesn't surprise me that Apple laptop range still at 4gb, even though motherboard can probably address for more (though of course it can physically only take two sticks for laptop).
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
Posts:
3,092
Registered:
Dec 4, 2002
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 20, 2008 10:36 AM
in response to: Ewen
|
|
|
I may be confused if we're discussing the performance gains of 64-bit. But what I am talking about, and what this thread is talking about (sorry to the original poster for dragging this out), is use of RAM under 32-bit!
WIth all due respect Ewen, you may be the one confused. You are referring to 64-bit performance gains. We have to take that off the table because there is no 64-bit Photoshop for Mac. I am talking about whether you get a performance benefit above 4GB with 32-bit Photoshop, and I believe it is indisputable that if you read and write VM files to RAM, it will be faster than reading and writing off the disk. Which I do. That's all.
Also, you do not have to speculate about 64-bit and Mac Photoshop. It's all out there in the open. And again, the "third party" web site is by a guy who practically lives at Adobe and quotes their engineers directly - are you questioning that? And the 64-bit Mac discussion is very clearly laid out here by an Adobe manager. I agree that 64-bit is not the ultimate performance enhancer, not even close, but the evidence suggests they do feel it will be worth implementing 64-bits and will do so.
Again, apologies to the original poster since use above 4GB is irrelevant to this thread since the machine in question can't do it. I won't post again unless there is more confusion.
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
PowerBook G4 15" Al, PowerBook G3 FireWire, PowerCenter Pro, PowerBook 160
|
|
Posts:
3,646
Registered:
Sep 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 4GB RAM in the new MBP?
Posted:
Oct 20, 2008 11:21 AM
in response to: Network 23
|
|
|
Also, you do not have to speculate about 64-bit and Mac Photoshop. It's all out there in the open. And again, the "third party" web site is by a guy who practically lives at Adobe and quotes their engineers directly - are you questioning that? And the 64-bit Mac discussion is very clearly laid out here by an Adobe manager. I agree that 64-bit is not the ultimate performance enhancer, not even close, but the evidence suggests they do feel it will be worth implementing 64-bits and will do so.
From what I can read in the article linked in your last post (this is to a different site than the one you linked earlier, by the way) it more or less agrees with what I have been writing above that 64-bit and more RAM doesn't actually/necessarily mean performance gains, Network23, and quoting: "...applications don't magically get faster access to memory, or any of the other key things that would help most applications perform better"
Again, apologies to the original poster since use above 4GB is irrelevant to this thread since the machine in question can't do it. I won't post again unless there is more confusion.
I think you just looked through the discussion where we were chatting about the merits of >4GB for the 32-bit binary applications that most Mac users encounter. There's no need to apologize to us here either Network 23, I simply don't agree with you based on my experience with Ps on MBP that >4GB running CS4 on would give you any real benefits and might even give worse performance. MIght also interest you to perhaps research the Nvidia motherboard used in the new MBPs as it appears to have 64-bit chip set, which is what you'd expect as its a direct competitor to the centrino 2 mobile technology suggested earlier above from the iFixit site as a possible MBP component.
MacBook Pro, iMac, Powerbook and iPhone.
Mac OS X (10.5.5)
|
|
|
