Ableton Forum

I had a MacBook with 512 MB of RAM with Live for about two weeks before I said, "No more." It makes a HUGE difference in overall performance -- in load times, in saves and quits. The whole ball of wax -- everything.

I know just about 98% of this board prob. already knows this, but I'm saying it b/c for the 2% who think they can get by on the cheap -- well, trust me: you can't. Max it out before you drive yourself crazy.

Naive Teen Idol wrote:I had a MacBook with 512 MB of RAM with Live for about two weeks before I said, "No more." It makes a HUGE difference in overall performance -- in load times, in saves and quits. The whole ball of wax -- everything.

I know just about 98% of this board prob. already knows this, but I'm saying it b/c for the 2% who think they can get by on the cheap -- well, trust me: you can't. Max it out before you drive yourself crazy.

Not just for macbooks my friend, but Live is RAM-hungry with all computers (PCs too).

so then upgrading from 1GB to 2GB IS important? (WinXP) I always thought it didnt matter as long as you dont use massive multi samples

ikke wrote:so then upgrading from 1GB to 2GB IS important? (WinXP) I always thought it didnt matter as long as you dont use massive multi samples

Well, if you don't use massive multisamples, or a huge number of tracks, it may not be an issue.

But when it comes to music, more RAM and faster CPU are always better.

512mb in xp is usable.
in mac osx it is terrible, anyone would notice. my girlfriend has 128mb on her old p3 dell and it is much more usable than a new macbook with 512mb.

you NEED 2gb in osx. period.

memory management in osx is very bad... thats why not many people run servers on osx... let the flames begin.

1 gig is just fine for me, but i got a video card

512mb in xp is not usable for me.

I guess it depends on how you use Live.

Getting my macbook this week . Gonna replace the 2x512's with 2gigs and sell em.

I used 256 for while on live 5 but I was massivly constrained by the amount tracks I had. Moving from that to 1 gig blew my mind. :p

ikke wrote:so then upgrading from 1GB to 2GB IS important? (WinXP) I always thought it didnt matter as long as you dont use massive multi samples

When live 7 is released.

veggieryan wrote:512mb in xp is usable.
in mac osx it is terrible, anyone would notice. my girlfriend has 128mb on her old p3 dell and it is much more usable than a new macbook with 512mb.

you NEED 2gb in osx. period.

memory management in osx is very bad... thats why not many people run servers on osx... let the flames begin.

Not at all, OSX runs without problems with 512 RAM. I've been using my MacBook (CoreDuo) since September with 512 RAM and manage fine. In fact, I get much better performances with much lower latency with Live 5 in OSX than Live 6 in XP. Saying a P3 with 128BM is faster than my MacBook 2.00Ghz Dual Core processor is just a joke.

Is this for DJ work or multitracking with audio and softsynths?

I just don't understand.... 512mb ram would choke my system. My Dell has 768 mb ram and runs OK but definately leaves a world to be desired.. My emachines has 1.25gb and it could even use more...

I can do a lot with 1GB ram (dual channel 400 Mhz) but then again, my laptop is beast (Dell Inspiron 9100) which weighs slightly less than an African elephant runs for 33 seconds on battery power and has a desktop 3.2 Ghz P4 chip with h/t (turned off in bios for live) which runs hotter than a steel furnace (g4 powerbook owners burnt laps are nothing on this!).

But plug the sucker into the AC in a ventilated area and it flies - it is still whupping ass on most of the dual-core machines my friends own (they are lighter and actually can run on a battery but my lappy still outperforms most of 'em). Of course, when the programs are truly optimized for dual core then I'll be left behind in the reear view mirror but I don't believe the dual core factor is properly implemented in Live or Cubase or other DAWS, the drivers are still almost beta in some cases.

leedsquietman wrote: Of course, when the programs are truly optimized for dual core then I'll be left behind in the reear view mirror but I don't believe the dual core factor is properly implemented in Live or Cubase or other DAWS, the drivers are still almost beta in some cases.

Yeah I wonder just how effectively Live currently makes use of multicores- but the performance thread along with individual testimonies have me pretty convinced that the difference is VERY noticable.

the best thing is for multi core users, things will surely get even better but it would help if they settled down and didn't keep changing things so fast, such as Intel rumored to be changing their standard to quad core soon etc. That's fine but let's just let the dust settle on dual core for a while before we all need another upgrade and have to wait months for drivers to function etc.