Does OSX like more memory or more processor?

gh0zttgh0ztt
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I just recently purchased the 1.0 GHz 12" PB. I'm thinking about adding 1GB of RAM to the system, but now I'm wondering if I would be better off returning the system and putting the ~$350 that I would spend on RAM towards the purchase of a faster processor PB. If I did that I wouldn't be able to get as much RAM though... So what's better for OSX, processor or memory?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    bnoyhtuawbbnoyhtuawb Posts: 456member
    1. RAM (1GB, thereafter for "normal" use no change)

    2. CPU

    3. Disk (fast disk like the 5400 yield a tremendous boost -- at least in my PB it did!

    4. GPU

  • Reply 2 of 10
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BNOYHTUAWB

    RAM (1GB, thereafter for "normal" use no change)
    CPU
    Disk (fast disk like the 5400 yield a tremendous boost -- at least in my PB it did!
    GPU




    I'd say that a faster CPU only helps if you have more RAM first. You can have a dual 4Ghz G6, but if you have a 5400RPM HD and 256/512 RAM and you are working with a couple apps, the paging going on with your HD will slow your system down a lot.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    d.j. adequated.j. adequate Posts: 476member
    I don't know about Powerbooks, but I recently did some experiments and ended up buying a dual 1.8 G5 with 1.5 gig of memory, rather than a dual 2.0 with 512 meg, because the slower processor with more memory benchmarked faster for the project I was doing.



    It may not have been the wisest choice, but speed was of the essence and the budget was fixed. Memory seemed to make bigger difference than the CPU speed.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    dobbydobby Posts: 797member
    It all depends what your doing.

    If your calculating Pi to a million decimal places then ram doesn't really count. (no difference between 512Mb and 2GB).

    Ram doesn't help when browsing a network either.

    If you doing something memory intensive as in loading a 200MB image then a machine with 1GB will be faster than the same machine with only 256MB.



    Dobby.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    gh0zttgh0ztt Posts: 42member
    I will mainly be doing photography work, some webdesign, and some video editing. I went ahead and ordered the 1 GB stick today... hopefully I made a good choice
  • Reply 6 of 10
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Getting a faster CPU is more future proof. Its easy to add more memory later on, but upgrading the CPU is another story.



    That said, if you're not planning to upgrade your machine any time soon, definitely allocate enough money for Ram. For most tasks (especially in modern multi-tasking situations) the available RAM will be your bottleneck versus the CPUs raw performance. The drive speed and GPU are also other factors.



    In general, I wouldn't go with any less that 512 MB of RAM, or 1 GB if you've got a G5. I have 768 MB in my Ti 500 and 1.5 GB in my dual 2 GHz G5.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    d.j. adequated.j. adequate Posts: 476member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gh0ztt

    I will mainly be doing photography work, some webdesign, and some video editing. I went ahead and ordered the 1 GB stick today... hopefully I made a good choice



    The video editing will definitely benefit from the memory. That was more or less what I was doing, pushing through and compressing lots of video. It required moving around massive files.



    I still want a faster machine some day, but that's always been true.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    dobbydobby Posts: 797member
    Adding more memory certainly won't hurt and you will definitely notice it in Photoshop etc.



    Dobby.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    RAM is the single most effective 'bang for the buck' performance boost for what you've described



    consider the difference in speeds when comparing: more RAM vs faster HDD

    RAM access is measured in nanoseconds

    HDD access is measured in milliseconds



    so a system with limited RAM (and OS X needs 256 just for optimal OS performance, before you even start to talk about the number of simultaneously running apps and their demands) has to swap data out to virtual memory on disk at a rate more than ten times slower than what it could do if it had enough memory headroom to do it all in RAM.



    video capture definitely benefits from a faster HDD for capture performance,

    but if you had the cash for only one upgrade, RAM is the single best choice you could make to maximize efficiency in the tasks you've listed



    that said... the rumour mill is buzzing with expectations of new Powerbooks within 2 weeks

    perhaps the options will change and your desire to return the 1GHz 12PB will enable a better trade-up



    but otherwise, you can never have enough RAM for video work
  • Reply 10 of 10
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by curiousuburb

    RAM is the single most effective 'bang for the buck' performance boost for what you've described



    consider the difference in speeds when comparing: more RAM vs faster HDD

    RAM access is measured in nanoseconds

    HDD access is measured in milliseconds



    so a system with limited RAM (and OS X needs 256 just for optimal OS performance, before you even start to talk about the number of simultaneously running apps and their demands) has to swap data out to virtual memory on disk at a rate more than ten times slower than what it could do if it had enough memory headroom to do it all in RAM.



    "More than ten times" is a quaint way of putting it, given that there are 1 million nanoseconds in a millisecond.
Sign In or Register to comment.