Do I need new computer or more RAM?

[theupgrade]

I am using MacBook Pro Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013 (El Capitan)

2,6 GHz Intel Core i5

8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3

 

I have been using logic for 10 years. I probably know every trick and preferred settings to save on CPU. But I feel like there is no workaround anymore. My current computer is limiting me and I need help determining if I need to upgrade RAM or new computer?

 

The problem is that too many times (in different projects) run into the System Overload message.Sure, I can bounce and freeze but it just holds my creativity back. I have done that for the past 2 years. This is what the activity monitor is telling me when I pushed logic to get the System overload message.

 

[Eiko]

I'd have thought your MacBook should be capable of some serious work. But of course demands on processors have gone up too.

One thing to consider though: sometimes the problem is caused by the way a project is laid out: some folks have used individual reverbs on each track, and later wondered why their comp is running out of steam.

Others have piled hundreds of tracks with hundreds of synths and unnecessary plugins on top of each other, instead of focussing on those parts, that really help a song.

So assuming you know how a reverb plugin should be used I don't have to elaborate on the first case.

Not knowing what your projects look like, I'd say make sure you don't fall into the trap of bloating your arrangement simply because you can, instead try to reduce the arrangement, and find out what a song really needs. We often add things because we think it needs it, maybe one more synth line here, another strings pad there because it sounds so much fatter now etc. But often it won't make the track any better (not to mention the problems you might run into later on when you're trying to get a balanced mix)

 

Again, I don't know how you work, so all this might not apply. But maybe you're running out of power because you're already using a dozen Alchemys in you track, in which case I wouldn't be surprised.

 

It might be time to reduce and keep it simple. I always found it beneficial for my arrangements when I had to work around technical limitations.

 

If all that doesn't apply, by all means, get a new comp, because you obviously need one! After all, it's great having a new machine that runs at light speed, isn't it?

[ProgAndy]

What is your buffer i/o size?

Tried to tweak that?

[stardustmedia]

Very hard to say... it really depends on how you work, like Eiko said already. If you use 10 U-He Diva at max quality "Diva" playing 16-notes-polyphonic you'll probably hit the limit with a maxed out MacPro

 

What ever you change, upgrade your RAM anyway to at least 16GB.

[MikeRobinson]

I'm a big fan of "more RAM," for the very simple reason that "RAM is the one thing that everything has to have." If the data's there, it will be furnished to the CPU in a matter of nano-seconds. If not, it must be retrieved from the hard drive (a matter of milli-seconds), and something might first have to be written out to make room for the next thing to be read in. "Even a Ferrari can get stuck in traffic." I/O operations, of any sort, are multiple millions of times slower than direct memory operations.

[stardustmedia]

I'm a big fan of "more RAM," for the very simple reason that "RAM is the one thing that everything has to have." If the data's there, it will be furnished to the CPU in a matter of nano-seconds. If not, it must be retrieved from the hard drive (a matter of milli-seconds), and something might first have to be written out to make room for the next thing to be read in. "Even a Ferrari can get stuck in traffic." I/O operations, of any sort, are multiple millions of times slower than direct memory operations.

 

Yes, but for most users it's not worth to spend more money to get 64 instead of 32 GB. That money is like thrown in the bin

 

I even think most users won't need more than 16GB. I'm pretty happy with 16, and I haven't yet noticed that I hit the limit there. So I saved some money I was able to spend for plugins, or synths, or a nice dinner for my wife

[Eiko]

According to Mactracker the OP's MacBook Pro doesn't have any ram slots anymore, so from what I've read now on the internet, this machine might not be upgradeable at all. Is that even possible?

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/want-to-upgrade-that-retina-macbook-pro-tough-luck/

 

The OPs MacBook won't hold more than 16GB anyway, but it seems he's out of luck here. Basically from what I've gathered if you don't max your comp out right at the beginning (at purchase) you're basically stuck with what you've got.

I still find it hard to believe!

[stardustmedia]

According to Mactracker the OP's MacBook Pro doesn't have any ram slots anymore, so from what I've read now on the internet, this machine might not be upgradeable at all. Is that even possible?

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/want-to-upgrade-that-retina-macbook-pro-tough-luck/

 

The OPs MacBook won't hold more than 16GB anyway, but it seems he's out of luck here. Basically from what I've gathered if you don't max your comp out right at the beginning (at purchase) you're basically stuck with what you've got.

I still find it hard to believe!

 

This not a new "selling" method of Apple. But not all models are affected. For instance the entry level iMacs cannot be upgraded easily by yourself. You have to destroy the case etc. But the bigger models can be upgraded.

[MikeRobinson]

Every computer has "a certain number of 'slots'" (usually, 2 ...) on the motherboard. And, ordinarily, the memory devices that are plugged into each slot must be the same size. Therefore, yes, "there is an exponential progression." You can therefore (say ...) have 8GB (=2x4), or 16GB (=2x8), and so on.

 

Certainly, there's most likely to be "a point of diminishing returns." 64GB won't do you any good (and, won't be worth the $$money!!$$ ) if you're not exhausting 32GB, and so on.

 

"My friendly advice," therefore, certainly applies most at the bottom of the scale. "8GB" is a big advance over "4," but "16GB" might be not-so-much over "8," and: "if '32 over 16' or '64 over 32' applies to you, then you are a Power User!"

 

But also, I'll stick to this initial thought: "if you have to choose between 'CPU' and 'RAM,' choose 'RAM.'" There's no point in buying a Ferrari if you can only afford a two-lane road. These days, even a "slower" (sic ...) CPU could probably get the job done quite nicely (except in the inevitable "edge cases" ...), if it never had to wait for I/O caused by a shortage of memory.

 

... But let me also introduce one other thought-question here: "What's the 'skinny,' these days, about 'semiconductor' versus 'hard disk' disk-drives?" Does it currently make a measurable, pragmatic difference if the drive consists of chips vs. spinning platters?

[Eric Cardenas]

I feel that this thread is being derailed in the RAM direction.

I believe the OP mostly running into the processing limit of his CPU.

 

@theupgrade

What kind of 3rd party instruments do you use and how many?

What happens if younselect an empty audio track with no output nor input?

[stardustmedia]

I just thought the same, mea culpa too

 

Yeah, why not show us one of your sessions that hit your performance? Most plugins will benefit more from better CPU, some benefit from more RAM. And a few might need also very fast hard drives.