# How much RAM does your PC have?



## Bluemount Score (Jun 3, 2019)

16GB here.
Works with my medium sized template but with the projects getting bigger and bigger, I have to use the "update sample pool" function more often now. Time to double up!


----------



## MarcelM (Jun 3, 2019)

64gb here for the one ive build over the weekend. ram is cheap at the moment so i just thought why not


----------



## Lassi Tani (Jun 3, 2019)

Where's 96GB option?


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 3, 2019)

2 macs each with 128GB....


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 3, 2019)

sekkosiki said:


> Where's 96GB option?


Fixed


----------



## micrologus (Jun 3, 2019)

40Gb


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 3, 2019)

micrologus said:


> 40Gb


Got an option for weird numbers as well :D


----------



## micrologus (Jun 3, 2019)

Meetyhtan said:


> Got an option for weird numbers as well :D


I added 32 Gb to the 8 Gb installed on my iMac!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 3, 2019)

128gb. I don't know why I upgraded from 64gb, I am never even coming close to using it all, but I just wanted it and its become affordable to do so on 5,1 MacPros.


----------



## SchnookyPants (Jun 3, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> 2 macs each with 128GB....


Show off...


----------



## Delio Roman (Jun 5, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> 2 macs each with 128GB....



Cheesegrators or trash cans?


----------



## Delio Roman (Jun 5, 2019)

Currently, 32GB on the trashcan and 96GB on the Dell VEPro servers


----------



## I like music (Jun 5, 2019)

Meetyhtan said:


> 16GB here.
> Works with my medium sized template but with the projects getting bigger and bigger, I have to use the "update sample pool" function more often now. Time to double up!



What's in your template?


----------



## I like music (Jun 5, 2019)

So many people with 128+!!!


----------



## Denkii (Jun 5, 2019)

16 GB freezenation over here.


----------



## BenG (Jun 5, 2019)

64gb for me!


----------



## Robert_G (Jun 5, 2019)

Someone voted 8GB. I'm not sure how that's even possible. I started with 16 and hit 90% quickly. I'm now at 32GB, and I still have to purge samples and use lighter patches when possible.
All in all, 32GB allows me to do what I want, but I have to think it through first. I can't just load patch after patch relentlessly.


----------



## Denkii (Jun 5, 2019)

Robert_G said:


> Someone voted 8GB. I'm not sure how that's even possible. I started with 16 and hit 90% quickly. I'm now at 32GB, and I still have to purge samples and use lighter patches when possible.
> All in all, 32GB allows me to do what I want, but I have to think it through first. I can't just load patch after patch relentlessly.


I don't see a problem with that for as long as you set it up with few instances and purge everything. No need to have everything loaded 24/7 especially when it's all coming from SSDs. Of course it's more convenient but you're still able to handle big(ish) templates. If necessary, freezing takes two clicks.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 5, 2019)

Delio Roman said:


> Cheesegrators or trash cans?



Trashcans Delio. Not absolutely perfect as the bus speed is down, but it's nice to have almost everything to immediate hand.


----------



## visiblenoise (Jun 5, 2019)

Robert_G said:


> Someone voted 8GB. I'm not sure how that's even possible. I started with 16 and hit 90% quickly. I'm now at 32GB, and I still have to purge samples and use lighter patches when possible.
> All in all, 32GB allows me to do what I want, but I have to think it through first. I can't just load patch after patch relentlessly.



I'm about to add another 8GB vote...it really depends on what kind of libraries you're using. 8GB + Spitfire Studio Core + SSD/purging, for example, suits an entry-level guy like me just fine. Not everyone here has been fully sucked into the sample library spiral (yet)!


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 5, 2019)

I like music said:


> What's in your template?


That's hard to say, as it's pretty variable (I'm deleting / purging everything I'm not actively using)
Generally speaking CSS and CSSS take most of the space. All 3 mics loaded, it's 2GB+ RAM per instrument.
On top of that, I lately used many multi articulation patches from the Metropolis Ark Series... huge as well.


----------



## LudovicVDP (Jun 6, 2019)

16 Go on my current laptop that is about to be replaced with a new computer being built at the moment, with 64Go.
I have a few projects I can't finish as they become too heavy for my laptop. It was time to change.


----------



## I like music (Jun 6, 2019)

Meetyhtan said:


> That's hard to say, as it's pretty variable (I'm deleting / purging everything I'm not actively using)
> Generally speaking CSS and CSSS take most of the space. All 3 mics loaded, it's 2GB+ RAM per instrument.
> On top of that, I lately used many multi articulation patches from the Metropolis Ark Series... huge as well.



Ah, you're an all-mic loader. Fair play. I asked because I'm trying to set a template up in 32gb which I'll use for the next year or so. So trying to cram in as many things as possible. 

I have CSS (mix mics), Hollywood Strings (Gold), Orchestral String Runs, Infinite Brass (I took CSB out of the template and kept Infinite Brass in instead), a few basic articulations from Berlin Woodwinds, Hollywood Percussion, Liberis and Lacrimosa and EWQLS Choirs.

With everything purged, it is fine. But right now my template is being dominated by strings in terms of RAM. Lack of mic position flexibility is a big pain in the ass so I might have to do what you're doing, or upgrade.


----------



## Garry (Jun 6, 2019)

This is perhaps my only regret with my 2017 Mac (4 cores, 4.2GHz processor): it's maxed out at 32Gb. Would love to increase it as I do run into issues, at least up to 64Gb, but I'm stuck with this.

This forces me into the following workaround: I have my template setup, so that's it's all color-coded, instruments grouped, effects on sends, panned, leveled, EQed, etc, but although each track has a Kontakt instance loaded, there is no instrument loaded into Kontakt. That makes my template manageable in terms of RAM, and when I need to load up a new instrument into a track that is already set up the way I like it, I use QuickLoad in Logic to pull up the instrument. I can pull up any instrument very quickly from within QuickLoad, and I still get the benefit of having the template setup, without taking the hit on RAM. I tried loading all instruments and then purging everything, but that still pushes the total used RAM way up.

Does this sound like a reasonable compromise in my situation, or are there other, better ways?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 6, 2019)

I like music said:


> Ah, you're an all-mic loader.


Recently yes, when I'm impatient and doing some mixing tweaks early on. But as it doubles the amount of needed RAM (with CSS), it might be smarter to hold on to your mix mic until the very end of your arrangement.


----------



## J-M (Jun 6, 2019)

sekkosiki said:


> Where's 96GB option?



You can't do that. Either go back to 64GB or be a man and go to a nice number like 128GB. 96 is for weirdos.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 6, 2019)

MrLinssi said:


> You can't do that. Either go back to 64GB or be a man and go to a nice number like 128GB. 96 is for weirdos.


I felt weird just by adding an "96" option


----------



## tav.one (Jun 6, 2019)

Where's 512MB option?

JK


----------



## scoringdreams (Jun 6, 2019)

Ah...RAM issues.

I am also looking for the solution without having to sell all my organs for a cheese grater.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jun 6, 2019)

128 worry free GBs


----------



## oks2024 (Jun 6, 2019)

32Gb, because that's the maximum supported by my 4790k.
But for now it's enough for me, with all my librairies on a SSD, and using a Cubase template with everything disabled it seems to be fine and fast enough.
And if I need more I will probably try to go for a VEP setup.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 6, 2019)

16GB on the master (MB Pro), and 32GB on the PC slave. My biggest template on he PC only takes up about 24GB. Since loading just what I need for a given project, I am getting by quite well on the MB Pro, which includes Hollywood Strings/Brass Gold. Since adding the Samsung T5, everything is fast and smooth the single machine. I really don't get why some people have like 128GB+, do they really _need _all of that.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> 16GB on the master (MB Pro), and 32GB on the PC slave. My biggest template on he PC only takes up about 24GB. Since loading just what I need for a given project, I am getting by quite well on the MB Pro, which includes Hollywood Strings/Brass Gold. Since adding the Samsung T5, everything is fast and smooth the single machine. I really don't get why some people have like 128GB+, do they really _need _all of that.



Yes....


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> 16GB on the master (MB Pro), and 32GB on the PC slave. My biggest template on he PC only takes up about 24GB. Since loading just what I need for a given project, I am getting by quite well on the MB Pro, which includes Hollywood Strings/Brass Gold. Since adding the Samsung T5, everything is fast and smooth the single machine. I really don't get why some people have like 128GB+, do they really _need _all of that.



double yes


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 6, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Yes....



I guess my question is...could you still complete your projects using less than that? Do your final renderings actually have 128GB worth of instruments? I’m not saying they don’t, but it seems excessive.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 6, 2019)

...its all about articulations, timbre and expression and how you use them for me Wolfie. I'm classically trained and a competent scorer and even with the best library sets, am frustrated at times that I can't achieve the effect that's on the paper (yep, old school too). I accept the limitations as we are talking samples here, so it helps if I have almost all my options immediately available so I can experiment and get the best I can without too much effort, because its hard enough just getting something decent down on the crotchets and quaver front irrespective of the DAW bollocks.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I guess my question is...could you still complete your projects using less than that? Do your final renderings actually have 128GB worth of instruments? I’m not saying they don’t, but it seems excessive.



I think that question might depend on the system, the workflow and maybe one's ability to accept a little bit of overkill. I've had a partner who basically swore that 16GBs was more than enough. Then he hit a bottle neck as plugins started getting more complex and OS requirements got heavier, so he upgraded to 32GB. Now he's finding that for full orchestral pieces, while of course its possible, its not always practical. When you work with less you can of course get by with less instruments running all at once, or maybe bouncing or freezing unnecessary tracks and finding an order that allows you to work without hitting your performance wall.

My perspective was, be ready for today and tomorrow. As it is, with the setup of my system, I can run a full template of all the potential instruments and articulations I might use in real time, without any need to bounce tracks. I'm sure it'd probably be possible to do this on a 64GB RAM system, but knowing I want to keep this machine for awhile, and not knowing how my computing needs might change, I went overboard without a need to really overthink it. The performance is not guaranteed, and some is probably even wasted, but for my day to day, I never hit a wall, and that's enough for me.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 6, 2019)

@chocobitz825 excellent points. And it's always good to be future proof.


----------



## jbuhler (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> 16GB on the master (MB Pro), and 32GB on the PC slave. My biggest template on he PC only takes up about 24GB. Since loading just what I need for a given project, I am getting by quite well on the MB Pro, which includes Hollywood Strings/Brass Gold. Since adding the Samsung T5, everything is fast and smooth the single machine. I really don't get why some people have like 128GB+, do they really _need _all of that.


Well, I run everything on one computer and with 32GB I found myself often running short. (System and other things takes RAM too.) So far 64GB has been good, but even there I have one current project that will use all of it and still require quite a lot of freezing. If my experience with the basic Berlin Strings library is any guide, anyone wanting to run the full complement of the Berlin series would almost certainly need 128GB.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jun 6, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Well, I run everything on one computer and with 32GB I found myself often running short. (System and other things takes RAM too.) So far 64GB has been good, but even there I have one current project that will use all of it and still require quite a lot of freezing. If my experience with the basic Berlin Strings library is any guide, anyone wanting to run the full complement of the Berlin series would almost certainly need 128GB.



I used to have a template of with just berlin instruments, multiple articulations. No problems running it live, with effects processing.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 6, 2019)

Whenever the question of resources comes up, odd hostilities about "overindulgence" or posturing erupts about "greater creativity from fewer resources."

What's with that? Does anyone know how much paper or how many quills Dante or Shakespeare used? Or whether they wrote better music because it got dark at 5 o'clock and it was hard to work all night?

I don't get it. The guys whose music I admire use very substantial resources -- computers, libraries, recording facilities, analogue synths -- you name it. 

Use whatever you want. I don't like to juggle samples so they fit into a small RAM footprint so I use a lot of stuff. I got solar power to offset the carbon footprint.

Writing music is hard enough without getting normative about how much people "should" have or use.


----------



## jbuhler (Jun 6, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I used to have a template of with just berlin instruments, multiple articulations. No problems running it live, with effects processing.


I found Berlin Strings unusable at 16 GB, and at 32GB I had to be judicious about microphones and articulations (running dfd at 24kb) if I wanted to use any other instruments. And that was without any of the expansions. I haven't tried BS since I upgraded to 64GB. I seem to recall someone saying they needed 96GB to load all the Berlin series.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 6, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Well, I run everything on one computer and with 32GB I found myself often running short. (System and other things takes RAM too.) So far 64GB has been good, but even there I have one current project that will use all of it and still require quite a lot of freezing. If my experience with the basic Berlin Strings library is any guide, anyone wanting to run the full complement of the Berlin series would almost certainly need 128GB.



But are you loading a ton of instruments you are actually using, or do you have them all loaded for convenience?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 6, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Writing music is hard enough without getting normative about how much people "should" have or use.



I'm not criticizing anyone by any means, just trying to understand their workflows.

PS- you should see my drum set collection, it is excessive. My wife finds it amusing.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I'm not criticizing anyone by any means, just trying to understand their workflows.



to speak for myself, having everything I could possibly use available helps me improvise more. Sometimes you write knowing exactly what you intend to make without much deviation. Sometimes I just dont know exactly what I want, so when the inspiration hits, its better to have it fired up so I can do immediately, rather than risk losing the idea while I'm trying to hunt down an articulation to load up.


----------



## jbuhler (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> But are you loading a ton of instruments you are actually using, or do you have them all loaded for convenience?


These are all instruments I'm using, more or less. I do load up the basic patches of Spitfire libraries, for instance, which might contain articulations that ultimately don't get used. But it's not banks and banks of unused instruments. I am using multiple mics which increases the RAM usage. And I'm layering/choosing among a lot of instruments (three different strings libraries; four brass libraries, etc.). This is not normal for me however, and generally I rarely get above 50 GB RAM used including system and other open programs.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 6, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I'm not criticizing anyone by any means, just trying to understand their workflows.
> 
> PS- you should see my drum set collection, it is excessive. My wife finds it amusing.



funny about the drums!

I wasn't picking on you in particular. Just felt shades of the "I don't use a template and I'm more creative," or "I use an Apple II and that's all I need to be far more inventive than you," claims might be sneakily insinuating themselves into the thread. Maybe not.

How many computers does HZ or JNH or Tom H have? No idea. A lot more than I do, one supposes. 

JW? Less.

In other news...

Thank God I have an agent so I don't have to dress / look, even act "like a composer." For a while you "had" to have some facial hair / earring / leather jacket or something, like you were supposed to be a rocker of some kind when they actually wanted you to write for orchestra.

I think you have to be every kind of person to write well for stories. You have to be able to intuit everyone from a child to a villain to an old person and _inhabit_ that person. You can't think _about_ the character, you have to be the character, support and live in him or her. I mean, ideally.

It's good to be acquainted with _everything:_ power chords, woodwinds, chamber music, Rossini, Lutoslawski. Nothing is out of bounds 

I know that how you look and what your background is, musically, may not seem related to the gear question, but I believe it's part of the whole subject: *how you're supposed to create* 

It just makes me tired. Everyone seems to have a different method and it's better to look at the work and not judge (or compete over) from whence it comes.


----------



## Loïc D (Jun 6, 2019)

16Gb here on mbp late 2013.
Too little for my increasing template...
So, i have to pick 1 mic and freeze freeze freeze.

I love mbp but don’t really feel excited by the latest yearly upgrades.
If no radical change occur in 2020, I’ll have to switch to another solution.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 6, 2019)

JohnG said:


> ........ Does anyone know how much paper or how many quills Dante or Shakespeare used? Or whether they wrote better music because it got dark at 5 o'clock and it was hard to work all night?
> 
> I don't get it.




Me neither, but they surely wouldn't have been able to see the staves so well in candlelight. What films did they score?

(sorry John...too good to miss..)


----------



## Robo Rivard (Jun 6, 2019)

48 GB here. With all my samples on SSD, it's quite enough for my needs.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 11, 2019)

Main DAW 32gb.
3 slaves with 96gb each.


----------



## Lassi Tani (Jun 11, 2019)

MrLinssi said:


> You can't do that. Either go back to 64GB or be a man and go to a nice number like 128GB. 96 is for weirdos.



But I like to be weird.


----------



## toomanynotes (Jun 11, 2019)

If it was RAM and not orchestration that help my music sound better than I would have more than 16gb.
I might go 32gb eventually when prices have dropped just for the extra room.
Plus anything serious I would hope to have a real orchestra playing. VST instruments just don't cut it.


----------



## I like music (Jun 11, 2019)

toomanynotes said:


> If it was RAM and not orchestration that help my music sound better than I would have more than 16gb.
> I might go 32gb eventually when prices have dropped just for the extra room.
> Plus anything serious I would hope to have a real orchestra playing. VST instruments just don't cut it.



Yes, but VSTs can be _next-gen!!!_ Live orchestra players, by definition, can only be current-gen, or last-gen.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Dec 23, 2019)

Upgraded to 32GB, which seems to be the average of what people have. Can't imagine going back to less again.


----------



## AdamKmusic (Dec 23, 2019)

80gb!


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Dec 23, 2019)

512 GB !

No, I'm just dreamin'
Honestly, 12 GB. My PC and I are almost in agony.






Here's what's going to happen if I keep this up.


----------



## Will Blackburn (Dec 23, 2019)

48gb. Ideally would like to double it.


----------



## Celestial Aeon (Dec 23, 2019)

Had 32 for a long time but BBC SO was the final thing that made me bite the bullet and now I'm upgrading to 128. It will hopefully give my 3 year old work horse few more years before having to upgrade everything again.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Dec 23, 2019)

Celestial Aeon said:


> Had 32 for a long time but BBC SO was the final thing that made me bite the bullet and now I'm upgrading to 128. It will hopefully give my 3 year old work horse few more years before having to upgrade everything again.


And then, there is me, who upgraded from 16 to 32 because of BBCSO


----------



## Celestial Aeon (Dec 23, 2019)

Bluemount Score said:


> And then, there is me, who upgraded from 16 to 32 because of BBCSO



To lessen your worries, 32 can be enough even for BBC SO  I'm just sort of too lazy to do any extra hassle, so it was sort of close to the limit with other libraries involved so 128 will be totally excessive.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

128 but honestly I think it was overkill I never fill it.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> 128 but honestly I think it was overkill I never fill it.


I don't think there is anything like RAM overkill. Good thing, you never have to worry about it


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 23, 2019)

It’s also a cost benefit issue. With my cheesegrater the ram can be acquired for less money then a newer machine needing faster newer ram. It ended up being just a couple hundred bucks to go from 64 to 128. No brainer. 

for newer tech it could cost a lot more for that much mem, in which case I think I would be perfectly fine with much less but for me I think 64 would be my minimum.


----------



## Technostica (Dec 23, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> It’s also a cost benefit issue. With my cheesegrater the ram can be acquired for less money then a newer machine needing faster newer ram. It ended up being just a couple hundred bucks to go from 64 to 128. No brainer.
> 
> for newer tech it could cost a lot more for that much mem, in which case I think I would be perfectly fine with much less but for me I think 64 would be my minimum.


You can go from 64 to 128GB for a couple of hundred bucks with DDR4 3200 these days also.


----------

