RAM = Speed

[Beamtracer]

There are reports coming in from many sources that indicate the G5 computers must be loaded with lots of RAM to achieve maximum performance.

A recent test was done by MacAddict:

http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html

On the graph below, smaller is better (faster)
http://www.macaddict.com/images/2GB.jpg

What's interesting here is that the same dual 2GHZ G5 was tested twice, with different RAM configurations.

The black bars represent the G5 with 2000MB (2gig) of RAM. The yellow bars represent the same G5 with only 500MB of RAM. Look at the difference.

In the Gaussian Blur (1 pixel) test, the machine with 2GB of RAM was more than 3 times faster than when it only had 500MB of RAM.

In the Rotate test the machine with 2GB of RAM was around 7 times faster than the same machine with only 500MB of RAM. 7 times faster!!!!


So... if you're in the market for a new G5, think about loading it with more RAM than you otherwise would have.

RAM = Speed

If you're posting G5 benchmarks, take into consideration how your RAM will effect the results. 512MB of RAM is clearly not adequate, and will make the machine run much slower.

A couple of other things to remember for benchmarkers:
•Restart your machine before every test
•Go to the energy saving preferences and make sure your processor is running on "high" to avoid processor "throttling" or "bus slewing" (see earlier thread http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10681 )

[js33]

I wonder why the ram makes that much difference in speed?
If the file in question would fit in 512 mb the speed difference due to ram doesn't make sense.

I would think this would be more an issue with Lightwave than with Photoshop.

Go find some LW benchies.

Cheers,
JS

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by js33
I wonder why the ram makes that much difference in speed?Hi JS, I've got no idea why the extra RAM would make the G5 go faster. Even when there are no huge images loaded up the extra RAM seems to provide a substantial speed boost.

So, if you're reading benchmarks, check out how much RAM they used.

Also, there's no point buying a G5 if you only run 512MB of RAM. You invest all that money in your new machine, but don't get your money's worth unless you install more RAM.

[Red_Oddity]

What kind of tit does a benchmark with 512 MB memory anyway?

Shall i go and make one aswell?
Lets see, a dual MDD G4 with 128 MB RAM against a dual MDD G4 with 2048MB RAM...
Then i'll go screw around a bit with a 8K CMYK TIFF...Gee whiz...I wonder what the results will be...

The benchmark does show though that the standard G5 setups Apple deliver are useless hunks of junk...
It does mean you have to shelve out another $250 on the dual 2GHz and 1.8GHz machines and another $400 on the 1.6GHz machine...
Then again, for workstations these machines aren't too expensive anyway with 1GB on memory (but you want 2GB or more offcourse, so add another $1000)


Oh and another small question, does anyone know if these machines are equiped with a SCSI card (prefably a Ultra 320), since those HDs are still way more stable and faster than SATA HDs... (it's also funny to note that the Apple store gives the SATA HD speeds in Gbps rather than MBps (it looks so much faster that way... 1.5Gbps or 150MBps...marketing anyone?))

[Ade]

G5's a hunk of junk?
Someone left the pc forum gate open again....




Beam think the huge ammount of ram needed has something to do with how altivec worked on the G4's to optimise thoroughput when they didnt have huge buses.

Its like Altivec on the G4 compensated for the lack of bandwidth, the new G5's have the bandwidth but the altivec code in PS is optimised to compensate for a slower bus.

[Johnny]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
There are reports coming in from many sources that indicate the G5 computers must be loaded with lots of RAM to achieve maximum performance.

A recent test was done by MacAddict:
http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html

What's interesting here is that the same dual 2GHZ G5 was tested twice, with different RAM configurations.

I read that article, too...but doesn't it bug you that in the second test, the other Macs weren't also given more RAM? Early in that article, they come out and SAY something like "RAM is the best photoshop accelerator." Seems like that's precisely what the MacAddict test shows, yet the article's title is: "MacAddict's PowerMac G5 Tests."

To me, it isn't a very scientific test, if the goal is to demonstrate how fast the G5 itself is, because it leaves you wondering about the RAM variable in the other test Macs.

Johnny

[Johnny]

Originally posted by Red_Oddity
The benchmark does show though that the standard G5 setups Apple deliver are useless hunks of junk...
It does mean you have to shelve out another $250 on the dual 2GHz and 1.8GHz machines and another $400 on the 1.6GHz machine...
Then again, for workstations these machines aren't too expensive anyway with 1GB on memory (but you want 2GB or more offcourse, so add another $1000)

No, that's not what it shows. It doesn't show that G5s are hunks of junk, that Steve Jobs is controlling our minds or that mac users are pus-heads.

However, your post is yet another example of platform flame-baiting which has recently been demonstrated by the board moderators to be unacceptable to the point of being banned.

Are you going for Panini II?

J

[Zarathustra]

I saw on Apple's site how damn expensive the RAM is. Geez. You can cheap out and get 8 250mbs, but then if you ever do want to upgrade, out the window goes at least 2 of them. If you're planning for the future and buy 2 1gigs then OUCH!

It's nice that you CAN have 8gigs of RAM, just like I CAN be President....both are possible with enough $$$.

[Johnny]

Originally posted by Zarathustra
I saw on Apple's site how damn expensive the RAM is. Geez. You can cheap out and get 8 250mbs, but then if you ever do want to upgrade, out the window goes at least 2 of them. If you're planning for the future and buy 2 1gigs then OUCH!

yeah..I about choked when I saw their RAM prices...I have 2GB of G5 RAM from the Chip Merchant waiting for my new machine...we'll see how it goes..but their price was about $400 US.

J

[mlinde]

Originally posted by Johnny
"RAM is the best photoshop accelerator."

This is an issue specific with Photoshop, and always has been. PS is designed to utilize so much memory it has it's own scratch disk features built in. If you take the application overhead (I think the base RAM is somewhere around 256 just to run Mac OS X and Photoshop without a scratch disk). Basically, each layer in PS requires 3x it's size in RAM. So if you have a 30 MB PS file, it requires 90 MB of scratch disk (RAM or HD) just to open it. Then whenever you do an action with history on, it adds 30 MB memory, so open a file, do two things, and that file now needs 150 MB of memory. Add that to the OS/App needs (I estimated 256 before) you've utilized 406 MB of memory. If you have only 512 MB you are approaching scratch disk use. Oh, and NOTHING else is running in this guesstimation. Any application (even backgrounded) that is doing something will utilize some RAM. See how it adds up quick?

[Johnny]

Originally posted by mlinde
This is an issue specific with Photoshop, and always has been.

precisely my point. but within the larger context of that particular article and bench test, the adding of RAM only to the G5 doesn't prove how fast the G5 is, merely that adding RAM to the G5 speeds performance in Photoshop...and not necessarily relative to those other Macs, whose RAM complement was apparently NOT increased as well.

J

[js33]

Originally posted by Johnny
yeah..I about choked when I saw their RAM prices...I have 2GB of G5 RAM from the Chip Merchant waiting for my new machine...we'll see how it goes..but their price was about $400 US.

J

Yeah its like Apple is really discouraging anyone buying RAM from them. I bet they don't sell much of it considering it's about 10 times cheaper anywhere else.

Cheers,
JS

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by Red_Oddity
the standard G5 setups Apple deliver are useless hunks of junk... I don't think Red_Oddity was trying to have a go at Mac users. I think he meant that they are "heaps of junk" if they don't have enough RAM installed, but run better with lots of RAM.

Originally posted by mlinde
This is an issue specific with Photoshop, and always has been. PS is designed to utilize so much memory it has it's own scratch disk features built in.This may be so, but I thought Photoshop's history functions were saved to hard disk. Would this affect the speed of a render? Would it need to recall that data during a render? I would have thought it would only recall that data if you 'stepped backward' through the history menu.


In other threads people have asked why anyone would need 8 gigs of RAM (which you can get as an option with your G5). We're starting to see our RAM needs increase anyway, and the G5 RAM/speed issue is a good example.

It'll make the purchase of a G5 more expensive if you have to factor in more RAM. Then again, if it goes much faster it would be worth it.

[Johnny]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
I don't think Red_Oddity was trying to have a go at Mac users. I think he meant that they are "heaps of junk" if they don't have enough RAM installed, but run better with lots of RAM.

maybe more careful wording would be in order next time...something along the lines of: "By selling machines with such small amounts of RAM, Apple isn't providing as good a value as they could."

There has been way too much verbal toxicity being sprayed about in the past 2 months. 'Useless heaps of junk' is unambiguous, careless phrasing, and needs to be eliminated in favor of something more even-handed and thought through.

I don't agree with all the anti-Mac sentiments being expressed here, but at least some of the pro-PC people making comments are able to stick to a discussion of issues and avoid the hurling of inflammatories.

Johnny

[mlinde]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
I thought Photoshop's history functions were saved to hard disk. Would this affect the speed of a render? Would it need to recall that data during a render? I would have thought it would only recall that data if you 'stepped backward' through the history menu.

From what I remember (and I have been wrong so many times this is probably another), the history is saved in the PS Scratch file, which is stored in RAM as long as there is enough RAM, then switches to the virtual scratch disk when you run out.

[Red_Oddity]

Actually i did make my self clear...

the line does clearly read :

"The benchmark does show though that the standard G5 setups Apple deliver are useless hunks of junk"

see that word "standard"?
Now go to the apple web store and click on , say, the cheapest or second cheapest G5...(hell, here are the links G5 models (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?family=PowerMac) )
Then, if you have done that, come back crawling in here and apologise...i wasn't going for a flame bait...but should you have read my post clearly in the first place you might have noticed that...


on a lighter note...that new Powerbook looks really sweet...

[Beamtracer]

Well, I wouldn't say a G5 with only 500MB of RAM is a "heap of junk" (I wish there was one sitting on my desk now!) but I'd agree that if you're going to spend thousands of dollars on the G5 you may as well fill it with RAM so you can get the full performance out of it.

Originally posted by mlinde
From what I remember (and I have been wrong so many times this is probably another), the history is saved in the PS Scratch file, which is stored in RAM as long as there is enough RAM, then switches to the virtual scratch disk when you run out.
Hmmm. I've run Photoshop on a machine with lots of RAM and not much hard drive space and it always seems to want to do its scratching on the hard drive. Even then, the access time shouldn't be very long.

The G5 seems to use RAM differently to older machines. Am I right to say that the G5 has no L2 or L3 cache?

Instead, it's using the normal system RAM to shunt large amounts of data to and from the processors. This is very different to other machines. The super fast bus speed facilitates this.

Could this be why you need to feed the G5 lots of RAM to keep it happy?

[Johnny]

Originally posted by Red_Oddity
Actually i did make my self clear...

the line does clearly read :

"The benchmark does show though that the standard G5 setups Apple deliver are useless hunks of junk"

see that word "standard"?\

that doesn't help it..whether you say 'standard,' 'regular' or 'stock'

I believe that what you may have been trying to get at is that those machines would not perform to their potential, or that they aren't a good value without more RAM.

"useless hunks of junk" means that the object in question has no value at all and needs to be sent to the land fill.

check your words!

J

[fxnut]

Originally posted by Johnny
check your words!

Hehe! Maybe you should check yours:

Originally posted by Johnny
'Useless heaps of junk' is unambiguous, careless phrasing

I think you meant ambiguous. :D
(ducking) ;)

[Red_Oddity]

*sigh*...i'm not going to argue about this meaningless point....

But doing ANY post-production on any computer with modern day software with less than 1 Gig of memory is nearly impossible (i know, i have done that kind of work...when working like that you often wonder the choise of your profession, or where we went wrong since computers where created to make our jobs easier or at least help out, not struggle against everything you try to accomplish within a certain frame of time.)

Anyway, you get my point...

[Scott_NewTek]

While the extra RAM seems to help tremendously for THAT Photoshop benchmark, other benchmarks may or may not benefit from the RAM, of course.

I think it is more economical that we can purchase third party RAM at lower prices (hard drives too), rather than being forced into purchasing a proprietary version (a la SUN, SGI and other in the past). While Apple may seem to have a high markup of those components, realize it is not their main market and it is a commodity-type environment nowadays.

The fact is, many users will not need additional RAM, and others will. UNIX inherently tries to make the best use of RAM by utilizing Virtual Memory and swapping things out as they are not used, however, any application can manipulate that behavior (a la Photoshop) for its own reasons and that can turn into issues like we see here with the 7x increase. Oh well.

Bottom line is, to me, after the machines have been out a while and the various applications have been used, they will be tuned for better performance, RAM/CPU/HD, etc.

Unfortunately, it will take some time.