More RAM to ur comp = more processing power = more plugins???
- Thread starter Cdacoron
- Start date
sonnylarsen
New member
Yes. RAM will definitely help. Effects plugins are generally RAM and CPU heavy, so more RAM is always a good thing. I sometimes use my iBook G4 for recording and after I added 1 gig of RAM (1.25 total) I was able to really load up on plugins.
something cool
New member
To counter the above poster, back when I ran Pro Tools on my PC (2.4GHz, 512MB RAM [2x256]) via MBox, I ran into my 'plug-in ceiling' too quickly, and figured adding more RAM would help. I added an extra gig [2x512] for a total of 1.5 gigs, but was disappointed to see that it didn't help at all.
Similarly, my friend who runs Pro Tools on his PowerMac (Dual 2.5GHz, 1GB RAM [2x512]) via Digi002 decided he wanted some more power for plug-ins. He went and doubled his RAM to 2GB and, like me, was dismayed to find that it didn't help whatsoever.
So, it didn't help for my friend and me, but it helped for the above poster. My guess would be that it depends on what your bottleneck really is in your particular setup (CPU/RAM/hard drive/bus speed/interface/etc.). More RAM is always a good thing, but buy from a place with a good return policy if it doesn't end up helping you out.
Similarly, my friend who runs Pro Tools on his PowerMac (Dual 2.5GHz, 1GB RAM [2x512]) via Digi002 decided he wanted some more power for plug-ins. He went and doubled his RAM to 2GB and, like me, was dismayed to find that it didn't help whatsoever.
So, it didn't help for my friend and me, but it helped for the above poster. My guess would be that it depends on what your bottleneck really is in your particular setup (CPU/RAM/hard drive/bus speed/interface/etc.). More RAM is always a good thing, but buy from a place with a good return policy if it doesn't end up helping you out.
EDIT - OK, I'm an idiot! I saw that he already had 2 512MBs, and was adding a 3rd 512MB. 
So I have a BS in Computer Science, minor in mathematics, MS in Software Engineering, but all are useless until I finish my morning coffee
And I still generally suck at addition/subtraction, even if I've had my coffee!
-----------------------------------------------------
Not to nitpick, but isn't 512x2=1024 ? So 2 512MB sticks of RAM would give you 1024MB, which is 1GB, NOT 1.5GB.
Be easy on me, my minor was in Mathematics, major was Computer Science. I'm usually terrible at arithmetic (think adding up the tip to the bill at a restaurant) and my wife gives me a hard time. I reply "but honey, I only minored, not majored, in math"
So I have a BS in Computer Science, minor in mathematics, MS in Software Engineering, but all are useless until I finish my morning coffee
And I still generally suck at addition/subtraction, even if I've had my coffee!
-----------------------------------------------------
Not to nitpick, but isn't 512x2=1024 ? So 2 512MB sticks of RAM would give you 1024MB, which is 1GB, NOT 1.5GB.
Be easy on me, my minor was in Mathematics, major was Computer Science. I'm usually terrible at arithmetic (think adding up the tip to the bill at a restaurant) and my wife gives me a hard time. I reply "but honey, I only minored, not majored, in math"
Halion
New member
sonnylarsen said:
I don't know where you got that wisdom either. Aside from Impulse Response reverbs, I can't think of a processing plugin that needs lots of ram.
This is what I take as a general rule for stuff:
Processing (plugins, midi data etc.) = CPU
Source files (audio tracks, samples etc.) = RAM
LeeRosario
New member
Halion said:
I hear that new "PimpMix-ina-Plugin" uses like all 500% of the CPU power.
It's pretty much a matter of MIPS, which is pretty much a matter of CPU speed and architecture. It doesn't take a lot of RAM to hold the instructions, just a lot of CPU to crunch the numbers. One thing you might consider is looking at the DSP card solutions like TC Powercore and UAD-1. I have a Powercore card, and can run several of their excellent reverbs, some comps, EQ's, Chorus, etc. with hardly a bump in my CPU usage. That card has the equivalent MIPs of 4 G4 macs! There's a bunch of happy UAD card owners too, which runs emulations of classic hardware. Not as good on reverbs, but excellent on compressors and EQs.
-RD
-RD
TuoKaerf
New member
For the people who updated RAM and saw very little performance increase in other apps, check the speed of your frontside bus. If it is slower, more RAM will not help. The faster your frontside bus is, the more information it can pass without bottlenecking.
As for more plug-in power, check out a dual-core processor. Again, you need a faster board so the two can communicate properly without a bottleneck.
As for more plug-in power, check out a dual-core processor. Again, you need a faster board so the two can communicate properly without a bottleneck.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
Cdacoron said:
It would not be surprising to run into performance problems due to lack of RAM if you only have 512 megs and are running a recent version of Mac OS X. 512 megs is enough to run Word or other non-performance-sensitive apps in Mac OS X, but it really isn't enough for a DAW. You'll probably want to bump it up to a gig at least.
Whether this will help your plug-in issues or just smooth out other performance issues is another question, though, to which my answer is "It depends." Specifically, it depends on why you're hitting a limit.
If the limit is being caused by the disk not responding quickly enough to fulfill the request, adding more RAM may improve things because it will be used as additional disk cache (at least in Mac OS X).
If you are seeing performance problems because your machine is paging, adding more RAM will help. To find out, the easiest way is to run "top" from the command line and watch the pagein/pageout numbers. If the pageout value is growing, there may be a problem that RAM could help with.
Bus speed and bandwidth is where the work gets done.
A high performance processor waits faster. The idle time waiting for bus transfers is the same, no matter how fast or slow the processor.
The 800 FSB is a real performance boost over 400 and 533 FSB and is much more noticeable than a 2.8 to 3.2 GHz processor upgrade.
Note that 64-bit data busses move twice the data of a 32-bit bus, per clock cycle. The real appeal of the 64-bit architecture is large memory addressing, 64-bit register calculations and wider data busses. It still gets throttled back when data moves to the PCI bus, but the memory/processor paths benefit significantly from a wider bus.
I've not seen the code for plugins, but suspect they are processor/memory intensive, and would benefit greatly from a faster/wider memory bus.
A high performance processor waits faster. The idle time waiting for bus transfers is the same, no matter how fast or slow the processor.
The 800 FSB is a real performance boost over 400 and 533 FSB and is much more noticeable than a 2.8 to 3.2 GHz processor upgrade.
Note that 64-bit data busses move twice the data of a 32-bit bus, per clock cycle. The real appeal of the 64-bit architecture is large memory addressing, 64-bit register calculations and wider data busses. It still gets throttled back when data moves to the PCI bus, but the memory/processor paths benefit significantly from a wider bus.
I've not seen the code for plugins, but suspect they are processor/memory intensive, and would benefit greatly from a faster/wider memory bus.