Contribute
Register

WWDC 2023 Announced for June 5-9

scottkendall said:
I been running 64 gig memory since 2013, I have not ever seen a need for more. The 90GB might be good with M2

I have swapped out my video cards from time to time, depending on what kind of upgrade cycle I am on. When GPU were overly bloated in price I stayed with the Vega 64 for a very long time. Honestly I did not upgrade anything in that window of time. While waiting for AS products to not be two months in the specs I wanted I did upgrade the GPU to tide me over. My Hack got a new CPU after 2 years and new GPU after 4 years, but not more memory or even drive space. I can easily push the Mac Book Pro with 32gb of memory to the point it shuts itself down. But I subsepct it has more to do with parallels, windows on arm, running x64 apps in emulation while running a very GPU intensive rendering software.

After about 4 hours vtdecoder goes off the rails and pushes its memory use to 200gb and the swap to 60gb...


View attachment 566031


When I worked in a corporate environment 20 years ago when the computers needed upgrading the IT department came threw grabbed the tower unplugged it, put the new tower in its place and plugged it in. Every 3 to 6 months they had a used hardware auction for the employees.
Click to expand...

Same here, 64GB has been fine for me for the last 5-6 years. Prior to that, I had 32GB in my MacPro5,1. Depending on when I upgrade to a new system, I may or may not opt for more.

On my hacks, I didn't really change much other than GPU either. I was fine with my Vega 56 and later with my Radeon VII (which I ended up selling at the peak of the GPU shortage). The primary reason I swapped the Vega 56 for a Radeon VII and then a 6600 XT was because it sucked so much power and ran so damned hot. The 6600 XT was much more efficient and offered me enough performance for my needs. The 32 GPU cores of my M1 Max performs very similarly and is still fine for my needs. Zero complaints.

Running virtual machines can def eat up resources fast. Apple Silicon is probably not the best platform to use if you intend to run lots of VMs.

Yeah, all the IT depts I've known don't really do "upgrades". They just swap for higher specced systems.
 
pastrychef said:
It won't beat it on FCPX render times.

Not only does it suck down a ton more power, it requires lots of cooling which means noise.

If you keep all your storage external, upgradable storage won't even be in the discussion anymore. I moved all my storage to a NAS and configured my Mac Studio with 2TB. In the 5 years or so that I had my i9-9900K system, I never had the need to upgrade the RAM because cause I configured enough at the start.




That's basically a new computer.




Configure enough RAM and use external storage and you will be fine.

Even if Apple released an Apple Silicon Mac with PCI-e slots, I really doubt AMD or Nvidia will release any drivers for their video cards.

As long as you are comfortable with being stuck on one version of macOS after Apple drops support for Intel systems, then that's fine. There's no reason to think whatever you build won't last for decades or more.
Click to expand...
Yes fcpx works better with apple silicon as it is an apple product but I don't think there will be huge differences. Resolve from the other will use all resources from cpu/gpu and will provide faster speeds with the configuration I suggested.
What I'm trying to say here is the hackintosh for me is a much better choice for many reasons. It's much less expensive, you can upgrade it, you choose your components, the joy that it's your build! Yes cpu/mobo/ram is new computer but the components will cost significant less. Intel i9-13900k, Asus Proart Z790 and 64Gb DDR5 5600 cost a little more than 1000/1100€. So with 2000€ or a little more I can upgrade my 2 systems to latest gen or buy a basic configuration mac studio. I'm not willing to spend so much cash for a machine that is not upgradeable.
 
skroutz999 said:
Yes fcpx works better with apple silicon as it is an apple product but I don't think there will be huge differences. Resolve from the other will use all resources from cpu/gpu and will provide faster speeds with the configuration I suggested.
What I'm trying to say here is the hackintosh for me is a much better choice for many reasons. It's much less expensive, you can upgrade it, you choose your components, the joy that it's your build! Yes cpu/mobo/ram is new computer but the components will cost significant less. Intel i9-13900k, Asus Proart Z790 and 64Gb DDR5 5600 cost a little more than 1000/1100€. So with 2000€ or a little more I can upgrade my 2 systems to latest gen or buy a basic configuration mac studio. I'm not willing to spend so much cash for a machine that is not upgradeable.
Click to expand...

Apple has never been and probably will never be the cheapest option.

I question the wisdom of spending on a new build when it's a known fact that macOS support will be ending for Intel systems sooner rather than later. The OS "upgradability" is on life support.
 
Hacks could be a non-sense in a couple of years. On the other hand it's funny how many people have their Ryzen builds working flawlessly despite MacOS was never designed to work with AMD. So... who knows :) I use both MacOS for music production and Windows for gaming for the last 13 years. Every new OS brings waves of oppinions on how this will be probably the end of the hackintosh but it's still alive, for good or bad :)
 
Bogito said:
Hacks could be a non-sense in a couple of years. On the other hand it's funny how many people have their Ryzen builds working flawlessly despite MacOS was never designed to work with AMD. So... who knows :) I use both MacOS for music production and Windows for gaming for the last 13 years. Every new OS brings waves of oppinions on how this will be probably the end of the hackintosh but it's still alive, for good or bad :)
Click to expand...

I don't see any humor in macOS running on X86 based Ryzens. When (not if) Apple kills X86 support, it won't matter if you are on a Rizen or an Intel system, you won't be upgrading macOS anymore.

In all the time that I hackintoshed, I never heard "this will probably be the end of hackintosh" until Apple announced the Apple Silicon transition. Do you really honestly believe that someone will get Apple Silicon versions of macOS running in X86 systems with any sense of usability anytime in the near future? Where have you see any indications of this?

You keep talking about upgradability. If you build a Z790 system with i9-13900K, 128GB of RAM, and 6900 XT, what are you going to upgrade to? Hypothetically, if you built with a 13700K instead, yes, you can upgrade to 13900K. But what do you do with the 13700K that you spent $400+ on?
 
Last edited:
There's nothing to upgrade to right now. That's a top notch system. In case of replacing 13700K with 13900K, the old CPU goes to ebay. My concern is - if you spend thousands of dollars for the best PC available now, and it is outdated in 2 years....we are in trouble. Doesn't matter if the trouble comes from Apple or anybody else. I guess this is how technologies works nowadays :)
 
Bogito said:
There's nothing to upgrade to right now. That's a top notch system. In case of replacing 13700K with 13900K, the old CPU goes to ebay. My concern is - if you spend thousands of dollars for the best PC available now, and it is outdated in 2 years....we are in trouble. Doesn't matter if the trouble comes from Apple or anybody else. I guess this is how technologies works nowadays :)
Click to expand...

Exactly, those systems that people built are only upgradable if they are under specced and they are not infinitely upgradable. Trying to drop in a 15900K or 16900K in a few years won't be an option.

How do you worry about and compensate for what can not be foreseen??? Get and use what you need today.
 
pastrychef said:
How do you worry about and compensate for what can not be foreseen??? Get and use what you need today.
Click to expand...
I think a better question is there really that much difference between a maxed system today and a maxed system 4 years from today? Other then bench mark scores, I have never really noticed the difference when I stuck was a 4 year upgrade cycle.

As you noted every 2 years intel changes their Chipset for the next CPU, so unless you upgrade on the first year there is no where to go. Might be cheaper on the wallet but it is not cheaper on the time.

GPU sure, Memory sure, storage sure, but unless you are deal with heavy video files storage should be a moot point, if you start with 64gb memory should be a non issue as well. That leaves really only the GPU for upgrading internally and even then I saw a meager FPS increase in my rendering software when I changed from Vega 64 to 6900xt. The GPU upgrade was a stop gap for me and came about 4yrs into the life of the hack.

Back when Power PC was a thing I upgrade my windows PC about every 2yrs or so, my Mac friends upgrade every 4 to 6 years or longer. People keep there Mac hardware around longer and are not in a hurry to upgrade with every new shinny part that comes out. I think all this upgrade upgrade upgrade stuff comes as a carry over from PC users changing to Mac.
 
Build 1 Titan Ridge TB3
Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 |  i9 9900K |  RX 6900 XT (16 GB)
scottkendall said:
I think a better question is there really that much difference between a maxed system today and a maxed system 4 years from today? Other then bench mark scores, I have never really noticed the difference when I stuck was a 4 year upgrade cycle.

As you noted every 2 years intel changes their Chipset for the next CPU, so unless you upgrade on the first year there is no where to go. Might be cheaper on the wallet but it is not cheaper on the time.

GPU sure, Memory sure, storage sure, but unless you are deal with heavy video files storage should be a moot point, if you start with 64gb memory should be a non issue as well. That leaves really only the GPU for upgrading internally and even then I saw a meager FPS increase in my rendering software when I changed from Vega 64 to 6900xt. The GPU upgrade was a stop gap for me and came about 4yrs into the life of the hack.

Back when Power PC was a thing I upgrade my windows PC about every 2yrs or so, my Mac friends upgrade every 4 to 6 years or longer. People keep there Mac hardware around longer and are not in a hurry to upgrade with every new shinny part that comes out. I think all this upgrade upgrade upgrade stuff comes as a carry over from PC users changing to Mac.
Click to expand...

Since it's highly unlikely that there will be any new GPU drivers for macOS. There's only so far GPU can be upgraded. It's all dead ends.
 
pastrychef said:
I don't see any humor in macOS running on X86 based Ryzens. When (not if) Apple kills X86 support, it won't matter if you are on a Rizen or an Intel system, you won't be upgrading macOS anymore.

In all the time that I hackintoshed, I never heard "this will probably be the end of hackintosh" until Apple announced the Apple Silicon transition. Do you really honestly believe that someone will get Apple Silicon versions of macOS running in X86 systems with any sense of usability anytime in the near future? Where have you see any indications of this?

You keep talking about upgradability. If you build a Z790 system with i9-13900K, 128GB of RAM, and 6900 XT, what are you going to upgrade to? Hypothetically, if you built with a 13700K instead, yes, you can upgrade to 13900K. But what do you do with the 13700K that you spent $400+ on?
Click to expand...
If I upgrade to that system I can get away with it for the next 5 years! When I get there I will see what am I going to do next! Maybe until then many things shall have changed…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Copyright © 2010 - 2024 tonymacx86 LLC
Back
Top