You always need some free space for normal operations of macOS, and if you use it for other things you're going to need space for all the other applications you'll want to install. However, I think it wouldn't be too long before you'd have to start deleting things frequently to recover space. Granted, that could probably be reduced quite a bit I've been developing on this machine 4 years, and I'm sure I could delete a lot of stuff from the Library/Developer folder (such as old simulators I don't use and derived data that is automatically recreated if it is deleted). My Library/Developer folder is over 100 GB. If you want to have both the current release version of Xcode for submitting apps to the store and the beta version of Xcode to get your apps ready for new versions of iOS, you would need double that. On my system, Xcode 8 takes up 12.1 GB in the applications folder. However, if your workflow gobbles up all the real memory, the 'slower, higher capacity' 128GB memory kit will boost performance dramatically.ĬONCLUSION: Not every 2013 Mac Pro owner needs more than 64GB of DDR3 memory, but it's nice to know that a 128GB kit is available (and easy to install) if and when you need it.My opinion is that 128GB SSD is not enough. Just because a memory kit has a 75% lower clock speed than the factory memory doesn't mean your Mac will run 75% slower running most pro apps using average requirements.Ģ. An examination of the Memory Stress panel in Activity Monitor revealed 72.5GB being used as File Cache.ġ. Of the 96GB of real memory installed in his Mac Pro tower, 95.6GB was in use. He was also running Motion and Lightroom.
(RED bar means FASTEST.)Īnother example of the need for more than 64GB of DDR3 came from a reader who was putting together sixteen 2K video clips with Final Cut Pro X. With the 128GB memory kit installed, Activity Monitor reported real memory use of 61GB by Photoshop itself and 69GB total real memory use including OS X and its minions.
The PhotoShop diglloydHuge action file performs various functions including resize, convert, and rotate. So memory clock speed doesn't translate to a big hit in performance, but when total real memory used for one app exceeds 64GB, the big hit is taken by the Mac Pro with the 64GB (and 32GB) kits. Here's a few examples of real world applications exhibiting only a slight loss in performance with the slower clocked 128GB kit. But do these numbers translate into big losses in the real world? (RED bar means FASTEST.) It could be worse since the clock speed is 75% lower. The Geekbench 3 Memory Stream Copy Multi-core test indicates 22% loss of performance with the 128G upgrade. Will that slow down the Mac Pro? Or will the extra capacity compensate and speed things up?ġ28GB = 2013 Mac Pro 3.0GHz 8-core, 128GB 1066MHz memory (4x32GB), 512G flash storage, dual FirePro D700 GPUsĦ4GB = 2013 Mac Pro 3.0GHz 8-core, 64GB 1866MHz memory (4x16GB), 512G flash storage, dual FirePro D700 GPUs. The catch is that the 128GB kit is clocked at 1066MHz instead of the factory kit's 1866MHz. That's double the capacity of the top Apple factory 64GB DDR3 option. Last week we had the opportunity to road test a 128GB memory kit for the 2013 Mac Pro. Posted Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 by rob-ART morgan, mad scientist
0 kommentar(er)
