Anyone using 6 core Mac Pro?

[studio_651]

update:even after apple replaced my processor and processor tray, i still can't get 4 x 8 GB RAM sticks from DMS to all load into my 6-core 3.33 GHz mac pro. i can get 3 working, but when i load the fourth into slot 4, it still knocks out both slots 3 & 4, leaving me with just slots 1 & 2 working (16 GB of RAM). maybe DMS' sticks are too power hungry?

it could also be that there's a limit to what the processor can actually use. apple is claiming the limit is 16 GB. intel is claiming the limit for that processor is 24 GB: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/201 ... acpro.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

well, since my G5 is still working fine and i have some time between projects, i'm probably going to send back my memory to DMS and buy from OWC. they're claiming that their RAM is working up to 32 gigs in 6-core mac pros. i'll be calling them today. . .

[HCMarkus]

By my understanding, the Westmere processor works most efficiently with RAM sticks in multiples of three (3,6,9). The number of RAM slots provided by Apple does not correspond to this. You might ultimately find you are best served with 24 gigs of RAM.

[n2mpujack]

By my understanding, the Westmere processor works most efficiently with RAM sticks in multiples of three (3,6,9). The number of RAM slots provided by Apple does not correspond to this. You might ultimately find you are best served with 24 gigs of RAM.

Heard that as well - I think it has something to do with the memory being triple channel. But that still doesn't exactly explain the trouble studio651 is having.

[studio_651]

thanks for the guidance, HCMarkus and n2mpujack.

in the last couple of days i have stumbled upon some of the same info about 3 modules potentially being better than 4 in the 6-core mac pros. it might be a moot point if i can't even get my computer to load the 4th RAM stick, but i'd still like to compare the two configurations if i can. if i can get all 4 sticks to load, would the modules be running in double mode instead of triple mode?

so i just got my OWC 32 gig set this morning, but i'm letting it warm up for a while before i install it (we're only going to have a high temperature of 23 degrees here in columbus, oh today and the RAM sat on my front porch for an hour before i noticed it had been delivered - they didn't ring the doorbell for some reason).

also, there may be a delay with my 32 gigs of RAM vs. 24 gigs of RAM test as i'm still doing fresh installs of all my libraries and plugins (uad-2 quad card, ni komplete 7, ewqlso platinum plus play, broadway big band for kontakt, bfd 2, drumcore 3, ik multimedia total workstation, omnisphere, trillian, stylus rmx, motu ethno, motu symphonic instrument, ewql pianos, etc.).

another tricky step in my upgrade process is that once i upgrade the firmware in my rme fireface 800 to work with the snow leopard driver, it won't be backwards-compatible with the driver in my G5 running tiger. that's a problem because if i get a gig during this in-between period, i'll need to revert to my G5 to get the job done. so basically, once i switch the fireface over to the new machine, there's no turning back - kind of scary! so i don't think i'll be able to truly test audio performance until i'm using a quality interface with a low-latency driver (instead of using the built-in audio), will i? i suppose i could do a quick-and-dirty test once komplete is installed by simply loading it to the gills with instruments and noting when the system chokes or when i get note drop-outs.

my main question is, assuming i can even get the 4th stick to load, which of these would be better as far as system performance / being able to load more instruments?

1) maximizing memory amount (32 gigs of RAM = 4 x 8 GB modules running in double(?) mode) at the expense of memory speed (by not being able to run the memory modules in "triple mode")

2) maximizing memory speed (24 gigs of RAM = 3 x 8GB modules running in triple mode) at the expense of less actual memory into which you can load samples

any ideas?

[BKK-OZ]

my main question is, assuming i can even get the 4th stick to load, which of these would be better as far as system performance / being able to load more instruments?

1) maximizing memory amount (32 gigs of RAM = 4 x 8 GB modules running in double(?) mode) at the expense of memory speed (by not being able to run the memory modules in "triple mode")

2) maximizing memory speed (24 gigs of RAM = 3 x 8GB modules running in triple mode) at the expense of less actual memory into which you can load samples

any ideas?

When I was shopping around just before I bought my MP, I looked into every benchmark, etc. I could find. I honestly don't recall anyone who had tested the scenarios you are talking about here, so you may have to do your own experiments to see what the difference might be. My own, simple logic tells me that the effective 'speed' of RAM won't make much, if any, difference, because it is all so damn fast anyway that I can't see you or anyone else being able to tell the difference. I must admit though, that I have been wrong once or twice in the past...

[studio_651]

update: success!! i tested the 4 modules of 8 gb ram from OWC this morning and it fired right up giving me 32 gb! there must be some issue with the modules that DMS is selling because no matter what i did i couldn't get any more than 3 to work at one time (24 gb max) even though all of the modules work. they just don't seem capable of working as a team of 4.

system profiler is saying that they're all running at 1333 MHz, but as many have stated before, that's probably not the case since they're not running in triple mode. is there a application that can tell me at which speed they're actually running?

i think i'm going to keep all 4 sticks of OWC ram since they give me the potential to use all 4 at once. there may be situations in which i'd be better off choosing higher ram amount (4 modules) over higher ram speed (3 modules). the main reason i can think of, and the reason i've gone this far, is that i want to be able to load lots of sample-based instruments into ram without having to freeze tracks. most of the time my deadlines are impossibly short, and if i can save time by not rendering too many VIs, i can deliver my music quicker to the client, leaving me more time for revisions later (and there always are revisions!). after testing my system out with some big projects, i may opt to just use 3 modules in cases when i need optimal system speed, but i like having the option to go the other way and maximize ram capacity if i need to. and it only works out to about a $250 difference between keeping 4 modules and only keeping 3.

i've spent hours researching this, and the conclusion i've come to is that no one can really state definitively whether a certain ram/processor configuration will actually be better than another in a specific real-world scenario (like running "x" number of tracks in DP with "y" number of plugins (versions "g, h, and i"), and "z" GBs of samples loaded in ram). you see benchmark tests all over the place and they seem to be conflicting. for example, here's a test supporting the "3 modules is better than 4" argument (barely better): http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews- ... width.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here's a test that seems to support the "4 modules is better than 3" argument (again, barely better): http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Frame ... halem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the cynic in me is thinking "of course OWC is saying more ram is better" since they're selling it. but on the other hand, it seems to make sense when i remember my original goal: being able to load more samples into memory. either way i go, the only way to really know is to test it on my machine running my applications with my plugins and my versions of those applications and plugins. after all, i'm not building this system to render photoshop files like a lot of the benchmarks seem to test, i'm building it to make music with digital performer and my unique combination of plugins.

as long as i have a set of 4 ram modules that are able to load as a team, at least i have all my options open. i'll follow up with another update once my system is up and running and let you know how the 3 modules / 4 modules configurations fare with respect to big DP sessions.

many thanks to everyone who has helped me so far with advice! motunation is one of the best resources i've ever found - i have learned SO MUCH from all of you.

p.s. this is a question for malditoyanki: you posted back on november 24th that you had ordered the same mac pro and same 32 gigs of ram from OWC that i have. any news? is all of your ram working? have you experimented with just running 3 ram modules vs. 4 ram modules? any overall observations on how your system is running with DP, or tips for optimization?

[HCMarkus]

Thanks for sharing the news and info Matt. Congrats, and have fun trying to max out your new, six-core 32gb beast on massive DP projects!

[James Steele]

Are you the internet police?

No. But I'm the MOTUnation police, and they have a point. You're not helping and if you have an opinion on the underlying reasons behind someone wanting more RAM, you can state it far more diplomatically.

[studio_651]

and by the way, just to clear up which kind of RAM was not working before:

32GB Kit (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 (PC3-10600) 1024x72 CL9 1.5v 240 Pin ECC DIMMs

http://www.datamemorysystems.com/_apple ... y_1629.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they were purchased from DMS (Data Memory Systems = a retailer, not another kind of RAM). they were, in fact, the "proper" RAM for my machine. but for some reason, only 3 of the 4 modules that i received from Data Memory Systems would load at one time, even though all 4 were good. i tested them by switching out all of them in the 3 slots i could get working - no matter which 3 i put in slots 1-3, they always worked and my system always gave me 24 gb of RAM).

i then purchased the same amount and same kind of RAM from Other World Computing (OWC) and it worked perfectly from the first boot. so my advice to other owners of mid-2010 6-core 3.33 ghz mac pros is to buy memory from OWC, not from DMS.

don't get me wrong, i still like DMS and have some of their memory working just fine in my G5. i was also very happy with the customer service and technical support that they offered. it's just that in this specific case, their RAM wouldn't do what OWC's RAM would.
---
and to i7user who posted "Now I want to hear this awesome score that this ram count achieves...": i'm not expecting this new system to make me into a good composer. in all humility, i feel that after playing and teaching several instruments and writing music for most of my life, i'm already pretty decent at it. and i hope to get better every day. i proudly have a link to my music site in my signature below (where can i go to listen to your "awesome score"?).

i never posted on this forum to boast about my new computer, or to claim that an awesome computer = awesome music. i'm just trying to maximize the effectiveness of the tools i use to make my music, and specifically to address my particular current and future needs for RAM. you have a valid point even though you've stated it very abrasively - computers, pianos, guitars, and even digital performer are all just tools. they don't make great music, great musicians do. i'm just trying to be the best musician i can. i'm happy that you feel good about your DP setup: "My DP machine is an iMac and it's very adequate for my needs...". but what's right for you might not work for others, and you don't have to attack them for wanting to work differently than you do. let's all just try to help each other reach our goals and leave the petty comments out.

[i7user]

and by the way, just to clear up which kind of RAM was not working before:

32GB Kit (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 (PC3-10600) 1024x72 CL9 1.5v 240 Pin ECC DIMMs

http://www.datamemorysystems.com/_apple ... y_1629.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they were purchased from DMS (Data Memory Systems = a retailer, not another kind of RAM). they were, in fact, the "proper" RAM for my machine. but for some reason, only 3 of the 4 modules that i received from Data Memory Systems would load at one time, even though all 4 were good. i tested them by switching out all of them in the 3 slots i could get working - no matter which 3 i put in slots 1-3, they always worked and my system always gave me 24 gb of RAM).

i then purchased the same amount and same kind of RAM from Other World Computing (OWC) and it worked perfectly from the first boot. so my advice to other owners of mid-2010 6-core 3.33 ghz mac pros is to buy memory from OWC, not from DMS.

don't get me wrong, i still like DMS and have some of their memory working just fine in my G5. i was also very happy with the customer service and technical support that they offered. it's just that in this specific case, their RAM wouldn't do what OWC's RAM would.
---
and to i7user who posted "Now I want to hear this awesome score that this ram count achieves...": i'm not expecting this new system to make me into a good composer. in all humility, i feel that after playing and teaching several instruments and writing music for most of my life, i'm already pretty decent at it. and i hope to get better every day. i proudly have a link to my music site in my signature below (where can i go to listen to your "awesome score"?).

i never posted on this forum to boast about my new computer, or to claim that an awesome computer = awesome music. i'm just trying to maximize the effectiveness of the tools i use to make my music, and specifically to address my particular current and future needs for RAM. you have a valid point even though you've stated it very abrasively - computers, pianos, guitars, and even digital performer are all just tools. they don't make great music, great musicians do. i'm just trying to be the best musician i can. i'm happy that you feel good about your DP setup: "My DP machine is an iMac and it's very adequate for my needs...". but what's right for you might not work for others, and you don't have to attack them for wanting to work differently than you do. let's all just try to help each other reach our goals and leave the petty comments out.

Thanks for the valued info!

[n2mpujack]

Matt:
Glad to see you got things straightened out. I've steered quite a few people to OWC and their memory, specifically for the ability to use 32 gig or 64 gig in a Mac Pro and for their ram being so less expensive the comparable Apple ram. I was beginning to worry if I steered them wrong.

The EE in me wonders if both the DMS & OWC modules used the same exact chips in them and if they were different lots or date codes if that maybe there was a bad batch of chips (or at least borderline). Or maybe somewheres along the line the modules got a static zap. ESD discharges don't always show as an outright failure and can show as the most maddening intermittent failures. And with lead-free soldering there's a whole host of other failures that can happen - whiskers growing from one solder pad to another making shorts one might not see with the naked eye.

[studio_651]

The EE in me wonders if both the DMS & OWC modules used the same exact chips in them and if they were different lots or date codes if that maybe there was a bad batch of chips (or at least borderline). Or maybe somewheres along the line the modules got a static zap. ESD discharges don't always show as an outright failure and can show as the most maddening intermittent failures. And with lead-free soldering there's a whole host of other failures that can happen - whiskers growing from one sodler pad to another making shorts one might not see with the naked eye.

that could be - i'm definitely not an EE : ) but i will say that visually the modules from the two companies were different. the chips may have been the same, but the outer "casing" (is that the heatsink?) was different. DMS still claim that they have sold 32 gb sets to others and they've worked, so i don't want to blacklist them here. all i can say is that unfortunately the modules i received didn't work like the OWC ones did.

[i7user]

The EE in me wonders if both the DMS & OWC modules used the same exact chips in them and if they were different lots or date codes

Or just simply the timing of the chips themselves...

[malditoyanki]

I got 32 gigs of OWC ram in my new Westmere 6 core 3.33Ghz and everything is magical. As a result, I've been able to abandon bidule and yes, even MachFive 2. Between VE pro 64 and 32 bit server I can load everything very simply.

Happy to answer any follow up questions...