32 gigglebytes of RAM

Discussion in 'iMac' started by fury, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. fury

    fury Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    238
    I found a 16gb pack of Corsair DDR3 laptop memory on sale for about $77 on Newegg. I jumped on it and bought two packs, for a total of 4 8gb sticks, so that I could max out my 2010 iMac. Not 5 months ago, this kind of upgrade was over $300, and just a year ago it was something like $800. Now I've maxed out the iMac for $154.

    gigglebytes.png

    Not quite sure yet what I'm going to do with that many gigglebytes, but I'm probably going to have fun at it beerbang.gif

    Any suggestions? Everything from serious to silly would be welcome
     
  2. FlwrPwer

    FlwrPwer Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Likes Received:
    77
    What's a gigglebyte? ;)
     
  3. fury

    fury Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    238
    A number of gigabytes that is so ridiculously overkill that it makes me giggle. Well, it's more like an evil cackle, but gigglebyte sounds better than cacklebyte
     
  4. Hondamaker

    Hondamaker Genius
    Gold

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Likes Received:
    638
    That stuff is so cheap anymore. It's a shame that we can't upgrade our processor and graphics chips in our iMacs.
     
  5. fury

    fury Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    238
    For the more adventurous, the graphics card can in fact be upgraded (in many cases), but it's not nearly as straightforward as upgrading graphics cards in PCs. First of all, it has to be an MXM card, flashed with the proper Apple EFI support. Second, it involves taking apart the whole computer.

    I took the easy way out and upgraded my iMac's graphics by attaching a PC to it and installing a Radeon 7970 in it wink2.gif
     
  6. patrickj

    patrickj Genius
    Gold

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Likes Received:
    445
    I think that many gigglebytes should be put to good use. Maybe start with something small like creating a new search engine and run it from just that machine. Then look to step up and run the world afterwards.
     
  7. fury

    fury Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    238
    But the world is such a small place... I think I'd rather go for a galaxy or two.
     
  8. Bennyboy

    Bennyboy Genius
    Platinum

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    This thread makes me giggle :D
     
  9. iphonewarrior

    iphonewarrior Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Likes Received:
    701
    I want some gigglebytes :p
     
  10. psylichon

    psylichon Genius
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Likes Received:
    751
    I thought I was over the top with 18 giggles. I've never used up more than 10 GB even with my biggest, sample-laden recording sessions.
     
  11. theorioles33

    theorioles33 Evangelist
    Silver

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Likes Received:
    136
    I thought I had a lot with 8GB in my MacBook. Too bad I'm maxed out. Cant compete anymore. :)
     
  12. iBoss

    iBoss Contributor
    Bronze

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Likes Received:
    53
    hey Bennyboy are you "Saurik" from cydia. :D
     
  13. chris

    chris Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Likes Received:
    1,777
    Good deal. I'd be interested to hear if you see any beach balls? I see entirely too many, thinking it's a slowdown caused by my hard drives.
     
  14. Bennyboy

    Bennyboy Genius
    Platinum

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    BZZZZZZ Thats David Gilmour.
     
  15. psylichon

    psylichon Genius
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Likes Received:
    751
    I've noticed that dual-channel is in vogue again. What ever happened to running memory sticks triple-channel? That's how my 18 is configured.

    Running without virtual memory or a page file is wonderful.
     
  16. fury

    fury Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    238
    Diminishing returns...the marginal performance increase from dual channel to triple channel wasn't cost-effective. The artificial segmenting of the market by Intel is partly to blame there--you had to step up to the higher-end i7s to get it (LGA1366), so the entry point was pretty high.

    Now that there's the Core i7-39xx doing quad channel on the high end, I don't see triple channel coming back any time soon.
     
  17. Hondamaker

    Hondamaker Genius
    Gold

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Likes Received:
    638
    I've only got 8 gigs on my 2.7 i5 iMac, and I still see an occasional beach ball. Wonder if more RAM would help with that. And yeah, you did take the easy way out! I have a gaming rig I built myself to play Battlefield 3. I want to be able to use my iMac because of the gorgeous display, but the built-in graphic chip isn't quite up to the task. Thats why I want to be able to upgrade it.
     
  18. psylichon

    psylichon Genius
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Likes Received:
    751
    I don't understand "not cost effective". The memory costs what it costs. You just buy it in pairs or threes.
     
  19. fury

    fury Evangelist
    Gold

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Likes Received:
    238
    The platform on which you need to build the PC in order to do triple channel is more expensive than the benefit you get from the third channel. Triple channel support has to be baked into both the motherboard and processor. So, due to the increased complexity, and the almighty beancounters calling for Intel to jack up the price on those higher end platforms, the bang for the buck isn't as much as that of dual channel. The third channel won't even make a huge difference in most cases (unless your use case depends heavily upon memory throughput or latency). So it didn't catch on well enough. Of course, then Intel had to go nuts and put quad channel on Sandy Bridge Extreme. It'll probably only be dual channel and quad channel from here on out.

    I am sad to report that I have witnessed a couple of beach balls. Each only lasted a couple of seconds, though, and I think it was just that Firefox was going out to lunch. I haven't seen them while using any other application. Firefox seems to be all too happy to do that, especially after it's been open for a while.

    Overall, I would say there has been a vast improvement, but that's to be expected, coming from "only" 4 GB of RAM.

    Absolutely no disk-related slowdown whatsoever (except for of course starting up an application/loading data in the first place). iPhoto sails through my entire photo library without a hiccup.

    I have what Activity Monitor claims to be 12.07 GB in use now (1.54 wired, 6.51 active, 4.02 inactive)

    Steam is the biggest hog, using up 3.14 gigglebytes. I think there's something going wrong, there, that doesn't sound right...In any case, Steam is followed by a distant second place kernel_task holding onto 1.36 GB, and Firefox rounding out the top 3 with a cool 499 MB.

    Other than that, I'm running VLC, iTunes, Safari, Skype, Textual, Coda, and several web server/database server type doohickeys.

    And I'm just getting warmed up.

    Swap used: 57.6 MB. lol
     

Share This Page