CanadaMark Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
15Bit wrote:
Ben,
It is really not necessary to change what you specified in your last iteration. That computer spec is really excellent. Don't get caught up in this four channel memory business - the vast majority of desktop PC users have dual channel systems, Apple make all their iMac's with dual channel hardware, my PC is dual channel RAM, as is Mark's until he upgrades to a new one later this year. It really is a non-issue. And think about it this way - if you need 64GB RAM, then 64GB of slower RAM is a hell of a lot faster than 32GB of RAM and a swap file on the hard disk.
...Show more →
In the same breath I would add that if he isn't going to max out his 64GB of RAM, he's probably better off with a pair of 16GB sticks in dual channel configuration, and it will save him money to boot. I barely use the 16GB I have currently working with dozens of 36MP RAW files, so it might be worthwhile for Ben to pay attention to how much RAM he is using currently and make a decision based on that. It's always a relatively cheap upgrade down the road if he needs more.
Apple makes their macs dual channel because it's the fastest possible configuration with the processors they typically offer, not because they feel the differences between dual and quad channel RAM aren't worthwhile. The reason the vast majority of PC users have dual channel is because the only platforms that support quad channel ram are more expensive and less popular especially in the gaming community. Most PC users aren't heavy users either, so they would never notice, but when you get into heavy editing with enormous files, that's where you can see real improvements with a collection of more subtle upgrades. Even shaving off 5-10% of processing time equates to hours upon hours of saved time over the course of a year or whatever. Most people don't have Ferrari's, but they aren't somehow worse than a Toyota Camry simply because they are less common. The analogy that something is definitely not worthwhile simply because most people don't have them I think is very inaccurate, especially when we're already talking about a fairly non-standard build.
I wouldn't even be suggesting it if the cost increase was significant, but it's extremely small, and if this computer is to be kept for the next 10+ years I would be grabbing every advantage I could, if for no other reason than it might become much more valuable sometime down the road.
He won't be unhappy with the computer he has spec'd out so far, but as I'm sure you can tell by now I am very much of the opinion that optimizing where possible for minimal cost increases on a machine intended for many, many, years of service is my approach.
|