| Author
|
RAM: how much does it matter, really?
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 17:14:47
|
RAM is cheap nowadays, unless you want to buy the super high-speed stuff, or massive amounts of it.
In planning for my next DAW, I am assuming 8GB is not only enough RAM, but this is way overkill. It's not only enough to make sure the OS/sequencer will rarely call on the HDD (making for a quieter working environment, faster response, less electricity used, and less heat in the computer case), but also to make sure that as a PC, it's rather future-proof.
But as to the speed of the RAM, does it really matter? I don't know enough about the software bottlenecks, but 8GB of DDR2-667 is a lot cheaper than 8GB of DDR3-1600, and as far as we're concerned - so the real question is this: is that money better spent on a CPU? Is there a speed limit beyond which software gains are negligible (it's worth upgrading to DDR2-800, but not to 1066)?
Did someone actually try and benchmark this in a studio environment?
  http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 17:20
|
Well i assume you already know that you can't use more than 2.5GB ram with Windows XP.
Even if you're on Vista i think 8GB is overkill, 4GB should be more than enough. As for the speed i would rather get the slower ram & spend the extra bucks on a faster CPU.
http://www.soundcloud.com/getafixmusic |
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 17:20
|
remember that XP cannot really use more than 3Gb RAM (32bit)
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 17:21
|
getafix... you were faster within seconds 
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 17:21
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 17:23
|
This I know... I'm talking about what may very well run on OSX, which handles 8GB of RAM nicely. It's more about future-proofing the system. Stick to the speed issues people  http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 19:28
|
It depends on the motherboard/CPU you are using.
Unless you plan to overclock there is no need to have RAM that has a faster speed than what is needed to keep up with the FSB.
To have RAM that is not capable of running at 1:1 (dual data rate, so that is double the FSB speed) will of course result in a performance loss. Not only because the slower speed of the RAM but because of latency introduced when not running in sync.
I would go for low latency RAM though, but I'm not aware of any audio benchmarks showing how much of a difference that will make. I just like to stick with high quality parts and many times a lower latency is actually the same chips but but that managed to pass more stringent tests.
And as long as you stay away from extreme performance RAM actually meant for overclocking or really cheap no-name RAM the price difference is not that big to get the lower latency.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
realtime
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
350
Posted : Sep 7, 2008 23:47
|
massive amounts are not recommend, would adjust that by requirement ...
but definitely would recommend good brands like Kingston Hyper-X or Corsair XMS.
just stay away from cheap or unbranded modules!
http://www.myspace.com/realtimeproject |
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Sep 8, 2008 01:22
|
hahaha
i only now need upgrade from 1GB to 2GB
and because i started play with photoshop , for music its working allright even with 1! not crazy speed just usual 667 or 800 or something...
8 gig as far i know is useless like working with quadcore on programs that still cant hande dual-core hehe |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Sep 8, 2008 10:20
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-07 17:23, Kaz wrote:
This I know... I'm talking about what may very well run on OSX, which handles 8GB of RAM nicely.
|
|
So you plan to buy a mac? Or will you hackintosh?
Quote:
|
It's more about future-proofing the system. Stick to the speed issues people
|
|
I did some benchmarking with different Ram speeds and overclocking ram when I still was a PC user. It was around DDR533 or 800 and overclocking those. I found out that DDR2-533 Ram with the latency 4-4-4-1 was faster than DDR-800 with a latency of 5-5-5-1. Furthermore I was able to overclock a DDR533 4-4-4-1 to similar speed to DDR800 4-4-4-1.
After all I checked if the improved speeds help me with my daw. It didn't.
My daw cared really little or nothing.
CPU speed however was felt immediately.
Having 8gigs of RAM in a PC system makes no sense imho.
To use it you need winxp 64 or vista 64. for 64 bit versions you don't get most of the drivers... for instance virus ti and many more, all maudio etc. etc. in the pc world 64 bit simply doesn't make it to the race...
it wont imho. 8gigs on a pc system isn't future proof, because if the 64bit drivers are coming, they are coming for vista. and vista sucks for music, since it eats CPU for nothing and sucks anyway.
thats why i changed to mac.. its future proof.
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Sep 8, 2008 16:01
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Sep 8, 2008 17:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-08 10:20, subconsciousmind wrote:
So you plan to buy a mac? Or will you hackintosh?
|
|
After checking retail prices - the base form of a mac is pretty much a very competative price - it's upgrades that kill you there. As Israel sucks in mac support (new Apple shop opening soon, so who knows), a Hackintosh is tempting but I would *never* do something illegal.
Quote:
|
I did some benchmarking with different Ram speeds and overclocking ram when I still was a PC user. It was around DDR533 or 800 and overclocking those. I found out that DDR2-533 Ram with the latency 4-4-4-1 was faster than DDR-800 with a latency of 5-5-5-1. Furthermore I was able to overclock a DDR533 4-4-4-1 to similar speed to DDR800 4-4-4-1.
After all I checked if the improved speeds help me with my daw. It didn't.
My daw cared really little or nothing.
CPU speed however was felt immediately.
Having 8gigs of RAM in a PC system makes no sense imho.
...
thats why i changed to mac.. its future proof.
|
|
Thank you, this is EXACTLY the information I was looking for, and as I suspected, since RAM bandwidth is more than enough, latencies are the main limitation, hence making the low speed RAM not only cheaper, but faster (OCZ and Kingston offerings are looking tempting).
As someone who thinks Logic 5.5 still has a better workflow than SX3, you can assume OSX is in mind.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
ohshit
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
45
Posts :
605
Posted : Sep 8, 2008 21:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-08 16:01, Medea wrote:
dual-core cpu + 2 gb RAM is enough for 100% midi+vst working without bouncing tracks. In most cases.
|
|
With an AMD 4200 coreduo and 2 gb I cant'use more than 10 VstI and their Vst FX.
Is my XP pc bad tweaked or are you happy with those limits? (i hope the 1st so i can improve it)
i want more CPU power and more RAM, is like a drug i need more and more... I don't want to have limits for albino instances! LOL
http://soundcloud.com/alphadelphi |
|
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Sep 8, 2008 22:36
|
Hm, I'm on intel core 2 duo 1.8 GHz and in my tracks there are usually from 20 to 30 channels, of course they never play at the same time, but every has a VSTi and fx. The cpu load is usually around 80%, the RAM load is around 50-70%. Seems like you are unlucky or AMD sucks or don't know...
http://soundcloud.com/aedem |
|
|
|
Dharma Lab
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
342
Posted : Sep 9, 2008 20:14
|
Previously, getting more than 4Gb for any 32-bit OS didn't make much sense (unless you were running MS advanced server editions, but who the heck runs server OS for their workstation)
Apparently the very latest version of RAM Disk Plus software (for PC only) is able to use memory outside of the OS limitation. So, if you leave 4GB for windows, & you could have another 4 GB as a RAM disk (or more if your mobo supports more than 8GB, most don't these days). I'm considering doing this & putting my pagefile & some app's temp files on the RAM disk.
http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php
Keep The Faith,
Christian K. |
|
|
|
