64GB RAM in a Early 2008 Intel Mac?

[Renaissance Man]

The new Mac Studio is out, but for the kind of money Apple is commanding I'm biding my time until they upgrade the Mac Pro and leapfrog over the Mac Studio performance wise. Not good because I'm stuck in El Captain and unable to update any of my software. But for now I just have to live with it. In the meantime I'm limping along with my Early 2008 Intel Mac configured as outlined below in my profile.

My questions? Would I stand to gain anything by upgrading my RAM from 16GB to 32GB or even 64GB? Is there a way to allocate more memory to DP? The Mac is showing I'm using Under 1GB of processor. DP's been displaying sluggish behavior and processing overloads on the Audio Performance meter. I don't know if it's the processors or if increasing the RAM would help.
As an example, recording a five minute passage with 16 tracks recording simultaneously (no VI's and little to no plug-ins instantiated), after stopping it might take 30 to 60 seconds to complete the background processing and allow playback. Many times the Audio Performance meter will flash red on the Processing and then there is no audio. In which case I have to reboot DP to get it back. I have found a work around to get the audio playing again by changing back and forth between 1024 and 512. Either way it's a drag and bogs down the session. Additionally, many times DP crashes if I don't first close the current project before opening the next one.
The activity Monitor is showing DP as using average 240% of CPU and less than 900MB of RAM.

[James Steele]

I don't know. I would *think* going to 32GB might be worthwhile. 64GB would be a waste. I'm using a 12-core MacPro 5,1 which used to be an 8-core MacPro4,1 that I upgraded to a 12-core and I have 48GB and don't come too close to using it all. Right now I have the Mail app open, the browser I'm using open, EuControl for my MC Control and MC Mix surfaces and LiquidMixManager (yes, I still am using the old Focusrite LiquidMix thanks to 32 Lives), and other various processes in the background. Activity Monitor says I'm using about 14.77GB memory for apps, etc. and 12G.31 for cached files... so I'm using about 27GB... leaving me 21GB for breathing room. I'm not sure thought that more RAM would speed you up... but it might. Take a look at activity monitor. If the OS is having to swap files to disk then maybe it would help?

As far as "leapfrogging" the Mac Studio performance wise, you should know that the Mac Studio M1 Ultra significantly outperforms the current MacPro at about 1/3 the price. Even the M1 Max is going to absolutely blow away your 8-core machine and my 12-core... so I'm not sure what you're hoping to use your machine for where you think you need to "leapfrog" over a Mac Studio M1 Ultra? The thing is an absolute beast for music production. One of the users on this board, HC Markus, I believe has ordered an Mac Studio M1 Ultra and he's predicting it may be the last machine he will ever need. Who knows. Just saying the Mac Studio will still be a quantum leap from what you and I are both driving right now.

[mikehalloran]

What James is saying.

Open Activity Monitor at the end of a work day, look at the bottom and see if you are swapping RAM (to disk). If you are, even a tiny amount, you should add more. A reboot clears that so checking immediately after will give you an unrealistically low number or none.

The 5.1 MP RAM is most efficient in threes — 24GB (3 x 8GB), 48GB (3 x 16GB) or 96 (3 x 32GB). If you have a pair of 8s, get one more and see if you notice the difference; if a single 16, you might want to try another pair of the same.

If you didn't have enough RAM, you will notice a difference. If you do have enough, adding more will not be noticeable as system performance will remain the same. GeekBench scores will increase a little if your RAM is a matched trio, however.

For music production, the Studio is overkill. A 10 core iMac Pro or an M1 Mini can handle a thousand instances of VIs without breaking a sweat. I like the thought of overkill, frankly.

For AV, the 128 Ultra almost blows away the $53k version of the current Mac Pro — those $14,000 worth of ultra high-end GPU + Afterburner pay for themselves when doing the kind of rendering that film and animation studios require. If you don't have that need on the AV side, you don't need the current Mac Pro either now that the Studio is here.

BTW, if looking at a new MP to run MOTU PCIe cards, that will not happen. The 424e firmware is incompatible and there is no known workaround.

I, too, am looking at the Ultra thinking that it's the last Mac I will ever buy. Frankly, I was hoping for a new 27" or larger iMac Pro but the Studio presses all my buttons. Since I won't have the down time I want to do a clean install till the summer, I may hold off till then — or I might pull the trigger once my taxes are done. Time will tell.

[HCMarkus]

Renaissance Man: I'd hazard a guess that my current 12-core 5,1 would leapfrog over your 2008 Mac Pro. Not saying this just to be a crank, just to put in perspective how far these machines have come since 2008. I've been hankering for a new Mac Pro for awhile, but when I saw the horsepower the Mac Studios offer along with enough ports to make adapting one to my studio gear a not too challenging a proposal, I realized that there are three reasons I am not going to wait for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro:

1. It will have more power than I'll ever need, and

2. It will cost a frickin' arm and leg plus another random body part of Apple's choosing, and

3. The Studio is available now (well, really soon).

The only people in audio that might have an issue with the Studio are those who run massive orchestral templates and never disable anything. And their concerns aren't with CPU (the Mac Studio is breaking 300 tracks of glitch-free playback in the Logic test), but with RAM. I'm thinking a lot of those concerns will be vaporized when people figure out they can use tiny RAM pre-loads due to the speed of the the storage in these machines.

James and Mike are right on as far as your current situation goes. Do the Activity Monitor review and see what you see. Then make a decision re: RAM.

[wylie1]

I'm in the same boat at the moment my 2008 Mac Pro is still faster that most off the shelf PCs you can buy now.
But being stuck in the out of date software world has come to an end I can wait to get using functionality from some of the new software.
I couldn't afford the 2008 when It came out but to get 14 years out of this box,it was worth it in the end.
Really I can't afford the Mac Studio but I couldn't resist the 0% financing.
Personally I wouldn't mess with or spend any money on the 2008.