View Full Version : AE 5.5, OSX and 2GB of RAM
12 December 2002, 09:31 PM
I would like to bring everyones attention back to this:
"It turns out (after much testing and emailing Adobe tech support) that AE doesn't recognize more than 1.5GB of RAM in a system. I have a new dual 1GHz G4 with 2GB of RAM. When I remove one 512MB DIMM, leaving 1.5GB, RAM previews work flawlessly on all image sequences and QT movies of all sizes in X 10.2 (Jaguar)."
In my conversation with Adobe tech support, they tell me it is a known limitation, but that because there has not been sufficient user feedback, nothing is being done about it.
Let's see if we can turn the tide:
12 December 2002, 01:52 PM
This is a 32bit operating system/processor limitation. 32 bit os/cpu can't allocate more than 1.5-1.6 gig of ram to any single process(intel p3/p4, athlon and powerpc are 32 bit and window/osx are 32 bit). You need to wait for 64 bit processor/os to get around this. Then you have to wait for adobe to recompile their apps to support the 64 bit os/processor in order to use the extra ram.
Someone brought to my attention that there are some special hacks for linux/win2k advanced server to fool the system into giving more than that to a process, but they are buggy and don't work all the time.
In short, there is nothing adobe can do about it right now.
12 December 2002, 01:55 PM
woops, my bad, I didn't read your post all the way. Thats weird that you actually have to remove the ram in order for afterfx to work properly.
12 December 2002, 11:57 PM
on a sidenote, you're wasting your time and money using afterfx on that machine, afx isnt multitreaded :thumbsdow none of the adobe apps are that I know of, though some plugins support it. This is far more outrageous than the ram-limit you describe, IMO.
afx 6.0 better be damn good, otherwise its literally not worth using anymore, time is money! windows users can at least launch multiple instances of afterfx with the -m switch, but that requires a lot of ram since you're rendering in two apps at the same time.
The devteam got a lot to do .. i'm not surprised to hear about the flaw you describe
12 December 2002, 12:28 AM
>>on a sidenote, you're wasting your time and money using afterfx on that machine, afx isnt multitreaded none of the adobe apps are that I know of, though some plugins support it. This is far more outrageous than the ram-limit you describe, IMO.
Actually the filters are multithreaded, so any rendering of them or updating of them in the viewport will benefit from dual processors.
Also he never said that he is only doing afterfx work on that machine. If he is working with 3d, many apps will benefit from dual processors. Do you skip out on dual processors simply because one of the apps you use doesn't multithread all the way?
01 January 2003, 10:33 PM
huh?? no i skip that software if it doesnt support multiprocessing. it's the least you can expect. and none of the native filters support multithreading, only a few commercial ones but far from all do
01 January 2003, 04:16 PM
>>and none of the native filters support multithreading, only a few commercial ones but far from all do
No, many of the native ones support it. I remember this was a big deal back when datastar made 4 processor macs around afterfx 2/3 and the speed increase was quite signifigant. Especially Motion Blur or any other blurs(Gaussian).
01 January 2003, 06:19 PM
so name one..!! i run dual and afx never renders on 100%, but for example lightburst from FE does.. and i dont consider that native
01 January 2003, 03:53 PM
>>so name one..!!
reread what I said, I allready named a few:
"Especially Motion Blur or any other blurs(Gaussian)."
01 January 2003, 06:46 PM
but they're not multithreaded.. check your taskmanager
01 January 2006, 02:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.