or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Transcend's 32GB RAM modules for Apple's Mac Pro doubles max memory to 128GB [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Transcend's 32GB RAM modules for Apple's Mac Pro doubles max memory to 128GB [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Thanks, that video was a real eye-opener (as to how often graphics are actually used).

There's a studio here does a lot of films and they show VFX breakdowns for a few of them (click on the movie and the breakdown button):

http://www.rsp.com.au/portfolio.htm#

Another studio Atomic Fiction uses iMacs and MBPs to do effects work and then pushes it to different cloud rendering farms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX4sHpwY3H0
http://vimeo.com/58060379
http://vimeo.com/59542337
http://vimeo.com/59513312

When the Mac Pro was being shown off at WWDC, some people had concerns about the 64GB of memory:

http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=34&t=77930&page=1

"Honestly Jack, "just" 12-cores (we got E5 processors with 8 now, so it could have 16), and 4 memory dimms, even if we get 16 dimms, it´s still just a 64 ram machine, working nuke with 4k, that memory will be gone in 30 frames and 5 nodes, using agressive caching. "

Jack Greasley who was on stage at WWDC showing off MARI replied there:

"I've been working on one for the last three weeks. It is the best off the shelf performance I have ever seen.
Don't assume anything."

and there's a VFX guy here:

http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8421
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0754146/

"I just got a new linux box with hex core, 64GB ram and SSD.

Best machine I ever had for Nuke. With the SSD I can run 4k dpxfiles in real time in Nuke (caching can't even keep up with the playback in 2k). As for RAM, you can never have enough in Nuke"

That's the thing with SSD now is that it's getting close to old RAM speeds. The memory bandwidth of the old G5 towers could go down to 2-3GB/s. With PCIe SSDs being ~1GB/s, a 1TB SSD is almost like having 1TB of RAM. It's pretty slow RAM but fast enough to stream large amounts of data from.

Another VFX guy who uses 128GB-256GB in 24-core machines is this guy - they do fluid sims and other effects work for 4K, 5K, 6K:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1436046/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dekekincaid

Here you can see him working on a Macbook Pro:

http://vimeo.com/87714688

He was jumping between 5K, 2K, 1080p, 3D files all on the MBP, which can only take 16GB RAM and screen recording at the same time, which slowed things down.

The motivation for more memory seems to be for more of a data cache but ideally, real-time processing shouldn't even need a cache. For the instances it is needed, RAM is faster than storage but if the storage is fast enough, it's fine too. A MBP with 1TB SSD can cache frames to the drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer 
A company that can produce a quality 16bit per channel, 4K Panel for Home Theaters for $1500 at 50" diagonal would own the industry.

It certainly seems like the manufacturers are just experimenting to see what margins they can get away with. I can't imagine the unit volumes would be too high at the prices they sell at just now.

OLED looks great for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXhPK-iNpw

Lightweight, deep black levels, accurate enough colors, fast refresh rate. It's just the price. It would be good if Apple could make 4K OLED displays suitable for the iMacs, Thunderbolt displays and possibly TVs with laminated anti-glare glass and metal backing. The guy in the video mentioned that they wouldn't bring out the monitors until they could sell them cheaper than a car but if it's just down to the supplier then it's not necessarily build costs.
post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

There are so many aspects of current TV technology that really need improvement, yet manufacturers ignore them and go for resolution because it's an easy sell. Thus we get more pixels instead of more chroma bandwidth or wider dynamic range or just fewer compression artifacts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

People aren't content with 8bpp. People don't know jack about pixel depth per channel. People see asinine pricing for 4K and walk away. The industry is caught yearly with price fixing fraud cases, whether they be for RAM, LED/LCD panels, to audio chips, you name it.

 

 

Do Mac users have short memory or selective memory?

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070409070320/http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/74635/apple-hit-with-class-action-suit-over-macbook-macbook-pro-displays

 

Surely cost could not be a reason for Apple using lower quality and less accurate display panels in those Macbook Pros, because Mac users are supposed to be willing to pay more for higher quality parts.  And you can't blame the LCD manufacturer for selling Apple those low quality screens because those same manufacturers also make higher quality panels which Apple could have used at that time.

post #43 of 50

Your comments back up their comments, not disprove them. "A pair of owners" is not the general public usage of "people" that @mdriftmeyer used. "People" don't know about pixel depth per channel.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #44 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Your comments back up their comments, not disprove them. "A pair of owners" is not the general public usage of "people" that @mdriftmeyer used. "People" don't know about pixel depth per channel.

 

Does that mean Apple was betting on the general public's lack of knowledge about display quality in order to get away with selling Macbook Pros with the inferior display panels, and marketing them as "a nuanced view simply unavailable on other portables"?  Or betting on pro-Apple users on sites such as AppleInsider to come to Apple's defense?

post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Does that mean Apple was betting on the general public's lack of knowledge about display quality in order to get away with selling Macbook Pros with the inferior display panels, and marketing them as "a nuanced view simply unavailable on other portables"?

Inferior to what other consumer machine in its class?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #46 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

There are so many aspects of current TV technology that really need improvement, yet manufacturers ignore them and go for resolution because it's an easy sell. Thus we get more pixels instead of more chroma bandwidth or wider dynamic range or just fewer compression artifacts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

People aren't content with 8bpp. People don't know jack about pixel depth per channel. People see asinine pricing for 4K and walk away. The industry is caught yearly with price fixing fraud cases, whether they be for RAM, LED/LCD panels, to audio chips, you name it.

 

 

Do Mac users have short memory or selective memory?

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070409070320/http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/74635/apple-hit-with-class-action-suit-over-macbook-macbook-pro-displays

 

Surely cost could not be a reason for Apple using lower quality and less accurate display panels in those Macbook Pros, because Mac users are supposed to be willing to pay more for higher quality parts.  And you can't blame the LCD manufacturer for selling Apple those low quality screens because those same manufacturers also make higher quality panels which Apple could have used at that time.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand the connection between what I wrote and your comment. Can you elaborate?

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #47 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


People aren't content with 8bpp. People don't know jack about pixel depth per channel. People see asinine pricing for 4K and walk away. The industry is caught yearly with price fixing fraud cases, whether they be for RAM, LED/LCD panels, to audio chips, you name it.

Price is the singularity in selling electronics. 4K becoming common allows studios to jump to 8k and beyond.  A company that can produce a quality 16bit per channel, 4K Panel for Home Theaters for $1500 at 50" diagonal would own the industry.

Here's the problem: There are how many major panel manufacturers left? LG, Samsung, SHARP [Samsung], Panasonic, SONY, Toshiba, Hitachi, etc

Nice list: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1060466/list-of-lcd-panel-manufactures-the-panel-behind-the-brand



LG, Samsung busted for billions in collusion. SHARP bankrupt, if not for Samsung. And Toshiba is high on crack with this kind of pricing:

http://www.toshiba.com/us/tv/4k/84l9300u

Toshiba 84L9300U 84" Class 4K LED TV : List Price $19,999.99 , Current Price: $16,999.99.




They are pricing 4K like they did in 1998 when HDTV true 1080p panels showed up at around $25k and people laughed their asses off. Then we had US Senate hearings and heard about all the sorrow from Manufacturers needing to recoup their R&D, never mind they get tax subsidies.


Sorry, but with the Advent of 4K hitting big in motion pictures and more, these companies better blow up pricing down to sane levels or you will see companies like Apple creating a subsidiary [joint venture] with other big players and producing their own.

 
FWIW: With 10GbE going in on 3rd party Clone Motherboards for PCs and Thunderbolt 2 out with 20GB on current Intel PC Clones, and later, with most major markets offering 20Mbps-40Mbps never mind 100Mbps FiOS and beyond, you won't have a problem with demand.

Here's the real reality, SONY/Panasonic are releasing 300GB - 1TB Archive Format Disc to replace Blu-Ray means Disc Catalogue Sales will be introduced.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132786-Sony-Panasonic-Reveal-Archival-Disc-300GB-to-1TB-Optical-Disc

 


This won't flop. This won't be Blu-Ray all over. Stars Series, on 1 DISC. ALIENS on that same DISC, etc. Studios can create Marvel Release DiSCS, etc.

That's fascinating news ... thanks, I had not heard of this.

For archival purposes I can see this, I am dubious about them as a method of selling games etc. given the trend to streaming as the internet (in theory) gets cheaper and faster. I currently use 1 TB bare HDs for archival and they are dirt cheap these days but bulky obviously. I wonder what the cost of the burner and burning speed will be. I have been through so many 'archival systems' in the last 35 years I have lost count . The problem is always, one day, the device to play them back is obsolete ... anybody want a SCSI DLT and 100 tapes?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #48 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


That's fascinating news ... thanks, I had not heard of this.

For archival purposes I can see this, I am dubious about them as a method of selling games etc. given the trend to streaming as the internet (in theory) gets cheaper and faster. I currently use 1 TB bare HDs for archival and they are dirt cheap these days but bulky obviously. I wonder what the cost of the burner and burning speed will be. I have been through so many 'archival systems' in the last 35 years I have lost count . The problem is always, one day, the device to play them back is obsolete ... anybody want a SCSI DLT and 100 tapes?

 

HD will fail long before this format. Games with gigabytes of textures, streaming across a Thunderbolt 2/2+ from an Archive Disc [there will have to be an integrated SSD installed] will resolve your concerns.

post #49 of 50
The Transcend 32 GB RAM is only 1333MHz, vs. 1866MHz memory Apple ships, so there is a minor tradeoff of sorts...
post #50 of 50
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post
The Transcend 32 GB RAM is only 1333MHz, vs. 1866MHz memory Apple ships, so there is a minor tradeoff of sorts...

 

Yowza. Can it even be used safely?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Transcend's 32GB RAM modules for Apple's Mac Pro doubles max memory to 128GB [u]