Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone with 64 GB or 128 GB RAM build out there?

Last response: in Memory
Share
June 15, 2012 6:31:30 PM

I need to build system with plenty of RAM for Photoshop work. The feedback information from motherboard buyers indicates that most LGA 2011 motherboards have issuance recognizing complete 64 GB of RAM, let alone 128GB. Did anyone build stable system with that much RAM? If you are, please be kind to share your component setup, particularly Main Board info, Bios revision, RAM manufacturer and stick/ kit serial number. Thank you in advance.

More about : 128 ram build

a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
June 15, 2012 7:17:02 PM

wow, 64 and 128gb are you going to the space with that amount of ram, editing does not require more than 16gb of ram even 32GB is way too much overkill , if you do alot heavy editing still you don't need more than 16gb. In this forum I've seen a guy he was also in the search of 64gb kit ram but i forgot his name. Damn!
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
June 15, 2012 7:20:45 PM

There are plenty of server setups with that much RAM. For desktops I have never heard of anyone ever needing that much RAM.

Are you sure you can't get by with 32 GBs?
m
0
l
Related resources
June 15, 2012 9:33:35 PM

64 GB may sound like much, but it is not for Photoshop work. I do collages. A single file can easily have 100 layers... sometimes 4 times as many. A single layer can contain 10-40 mb worth of info. So we are already into multi-gigabyte territory. With each image Photoshop needs about 4 times as much space in RAM to do its magic - undos, history states, etc... I am afraid 64 GB may not do what I want, but I don't think 128 GB setup is even possible for modern desktops... - there are simply no such memory kits... And if you plan for the future - let's say 5 years from now 128 GB does not sound that impressive after all... Have you heard of gigapixel cameras? They are coming...
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
June 15, 2012 9:54:40 PM

Companies aren't going to be making a lot of programs that use 64 - 128 GBs of RAM any time soon since 99.9% of people don't have anywhere close to that. 99.9% of people don't even have boards that can handle it even if they had the money to buy 8x 8GBs or 16x 8GBs.

They make programs that the people who want to use have systems capable of using. If their average customer has 16 GBs they make programs that require that, for example.

Additionally, games are one of the biggest things that pushes new hardware into homes and games are written as 32 bit to be compatible on as many computers as possible which means they can only use 2 GBs of RAM.

So while video games are pushing new hardware in the form of video cards, processors, and so on into people's homes, it is not doing the same thing for large amounts of RAM.

You could try this motherboard

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

but all I have ever seen and heard is that these things are a huge PITA to work with and have very high rates of flaws right out of the box. It is also $500 too, but I guess if you really must have 64 - 128 GBs that would get you potentially up to 96. You gotta pay to play if you have ultra-niche interests.
m
0
l
June 15, 2012 10:55:02 PM

Well... there are people who are still using windows XP, there are people who still watching TVs and there are people who still use regular mail and afraid of computers... and among those people there are millions of unemployed... If you want to survive professionally in modern world you need to learn things like email, modern software, programming and you need to push the envelope with hardware... I agree with you when it comes to consumer world... but when it comes to professional needs you either stagnate, sink or swim... It is precisely because of this PITA installation troubles that I come to this forum for some advice... Thank you for the input, yet this board is a bit outdated considering the price... most of current LGA 2011 boards support 64GB of quad channel RAM... on paper, the problem comes when you try to install it $3000 later. I have never dealt with Asrock boards before... What's your opinion of this company?
m
0
l
June 15, 2012 11:06:33 PM

lol 64gb ram? for photoshop... not necessary 8gb would even be sufficient. Don't waste your money!
m
0
l
June 15, 2012 11:15:43 PM

If you really do think you need 64GB of RAM, good luck to you. To do that, you'll need a good quality motherboard from a reputable manufacturer with a great warranty, as from what I've seen and heard, defect rates are high.

If you think you need 128GB, then you'll need to build on a server motherboard. Nothing wrong with this, if that's what you really need. But for advice on that, you'll have to go an check a server-specific forum, as from what I understand, memory in servers is a bit different than in the consumer space. They're much more finicky about what they will and won't accept for super-high memory configurations.

I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but if I were you, I'd get a good consumer 2011 socket motherboard that's rated to use 64GB, and then get RAM from a very reputable company, like Corsair or someone similar. Get 32GB and see if that alleviates your issues. If not, get more.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 1:16:06 AM

kbafewx said:
lol 64gb ram? for photoshop... not necessary 8gb would even be sufficient. Don't waste your money!


I currently working with 8GB. Efficiency setting in Photoshop on most of my image operations reside in the range 6%-13% which means that my RAM is sufficient to process only 6%-13% of my image - the rest is swapped to HDD. In other words to properly work with image files of current size I need somewhere around 100GB of RAM. Yes the files are huge... but that what I do...
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 1:23:14 AM

bavarians6 said:
If you really do think you need 64GB of RAM, good luck to you. To do that, you'll need a good quality motherboard from a reputable manufacturer with a great warranty, as from what I've seen and heard, defect rates are high.

If you think you need 128GB, then you'll need to build on a server motherboard. Nothing wrong with this, if that's what you really need. But for advice on that, you'll have to go an check a server-specific forum, as from what I understand, memory in servers is a bit different than in the consumer space. They're much more finicky about what they will and won't accept for super-high memory configurations.

I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but if I were you, I'd get a good consumer 2011 socket motherboard that's rated to use 64GB, and then get RAM from a very reputable company, like Corsair or someone similar. Get 32GB and see if that alleviates your issues. If not, get more.


I don't mind hearing that. In fact I'have been looking at LGA 2011 all along and find plenty of boards with the amount of RAM I need. I've been using Corsair for last several years... also. The problem comes when you memory that Corsair recommends is not on Qualified Vendor's List and vice versa. When match does occur you read horror stories from people who tried to install that much memory on the board in question... so I am looking for someone who already done that and have stable build...

PS.
Only on these forums I realize how unusual my memory requirements... and that is not a good thing.
m
0
l
a c 347 } Memory
a c 717 V Motherboard
June 16, 2012 1:41:41 AM

I have servers with a lot more than 128GB of RAM, but most of the folks I run across never require >64GB of RAM. Now if you want an additional 64GB for a RAM Drive (128GB total) for the Files & Scratch Disk then sure why not if you have the money.

Eventually, there will be 16GB/stick density for consumers that 'should' work on the X79/LGA 2011 (8x16GB), but for now it's all RDIMM.

I would look at the SUPERMICRO X9SRA and your choice of Xeon E5-2600 series with 8x16GB e.g. Samsung M393B2G70BH0-CK0
ref - http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/xeon/c60...
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 4:55:30 AM

jaquith said:
I have servers with a lot more than 128GB of RAM, but most of the folks I run across never require >64GB of RAM. Now if you want an additional 64GB for a RAM Drive (128GB total) for the Files & Scratch Disk then sure why not if you have the money.

Eventually, there will be 16GB/stick density for consumers that 'should' work on the X79/LGA 2011 (8x16GB), but for now it's all RDIMM.

I would look at the SUPERMICRO X9SRA and your choice of Xeon E5-2600 series with 8x16GB e.g. Samsung M393B2G70BH0-CK0
ref - http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/xeon/c60...



Well, this is closer to what I am looking for... the board is actually is not that expensive... have to look into RDIMM prices...but looking at the board I kind of wonder if it can work with high end video cards... I've been worrying about RAM, but I do need decent video also... this server set up is too novel for me - have to do more research... But certainly thank you for interesting suggestion
m
0
l
a c 347 } Memory
a c 717 V Motherboard
June 16, 2012 1:06:32 PM

RDIMM 16GB/stick 8 * $167 = $1336 ; M393B2G70BH0-CK0 - http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=D3-16R16GS

A 'real' Workstation is either using at minimum a Xeon or Opteron CPU and some form of ECC RAM. Further, at least today anything >64GB will require one of those CPU's and UDIMM or RDIMM memory.

As far as high-end video cards there's no problems whatsoever.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
June 16, 2012 1:42:57 PM

If you are doing the "real" workstation, there are Quadro and FirePro video cards that are traditional for those sorts of computers. Might work better than a regular GTX 6xx would when doing your stuff, you might want to look into it.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 9:37:32 PM

Jaquith and Raiddinn thank you for your help. It is time for me to do the homework on components - the prices for complete system are getting a bit too high... I will have to make my mind between mid tire and high end LGA 2011 boards... and server vs. workstation setups... will post again to this group when get some sort of working solution...
m
0
l
June 22, 2012 4:33:46 PM

we had failed to built with 128GB (8 slot x 16GB with 2 rank ) ram on 9XSRA mobo. We are running windows7 x64 limiting to 96 GB (6slot x 16GB). we enjoy 64GB main memory and 32 GB ram disk to run FEM soft.
m
0
l
August 19, 2012 7:14:32 AM

RAM limits for the different editions of Windows 7 64bit:

Starter: 8GB
Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Professional: 192GB
Enterprise: 192GB
Ultimate: 192GB

As for the build, you could get this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

and 2 sets of these

Kingston 64GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Also, you could use this setup as reference for your build as well:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xeon-e5-2687w-bench...

Wish you best of luck with your build!
m
0
l
November 10, 2012 7:17:42 PM

ashma said:
I need to build system with plenty of RAM for Photoshop work. The feedback information from motherboard buyers indicates that most LGA 2011 motherboards have issuance recognizing complete 64 GB of RAM, let alone 128GB. Did anyone build stable system with that much RAM? If you are, please be kind to share your component setup, particularly Main Board info, Bios revision, RAM manufacturer and stick/ kit serial number. Thank you in advance.



I have a really solid build running a i7-3930K 3.2 1 LGA 2011 Processor, SSD x 2, Hdd x 3 and 64 GB ram. Stable and wicked fast.
I can give the specs if you like.
m
0
l
November 10, 2012 11:09:12 PM

I would bet you NEVER use that RAM. To whoever stated a super high Gigapixal camera. LOL! Like shooting video with a DSLR. The bigger numbers are for YOU to upgrade a perfectly good piece of equipment. You want nice video you want many frames a second and progressive. Go record a gun firing and then see what I mean, when you try an slow it down.
Research, it will save you a bundle. I bought a quadro card 2 months ago as the Drivers are written for the software I like to use, as well as written for most NLE/photshop LIKE ADOBE CS6. I may have been that guy who was trying to build an x79 platform with 64gb.... I read, and asked to 2 months now, and am saving about a 1000. bucks after doing so. That gets me almost halfway to my 'Blackmagic" Raw video camera. You would be better off buying 4gb or bigger video card and coupling it with 32 gb of Ram then buying 1000gb of ram and coupling it with 2gb of vram. Oh and your computer is not using your HDD to render. It May be using your RAM or GPU but not your HDD storage to render. As well as using crossfire with Two 4gb cards does not give you 8gb of space. Rather it mirrors the job and will render 4gbs almost twice as fast. Hope this helps. I went round and round trying to learn this. The folks on this forum, such as Mocchan helped me a lot understanding that.
Peace,
netcommercial
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:50:10 PM

Hello,
I wonder if W7 64 bit sees all 64 GB of Ram.. ? and how much is actualy available for photoshop. working with single files 30GB each, 1 history state.. so double the size I need 60 GB Ram available ... Now working with Raid 0 hdd as scratch disc..

But 14 minute open and save times are just too long. Have 3 months work ahead and trying to shave of a few weeks spending 2-3 hours a day saving.. Not very efficient. So trying to see if going from scratch drive to Ram will do the trick... or I try SSD scratch discs..

Maybe any comments, as you might be doing similar Ram Temp intensive work.
In any case the yous system set up would be very helpfull tnks

Klaus
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
November 24, 2012 1:17:07 PM

It definitely helps to use SSDs when you need to save huge quantities of data. Having multiple SSDs in RAID allows it to work even faster. I have seen an advertisement where someone put 32 SSDs in a RAID setup and they were able to copy a 4.7 gig movie file in about 15 seconds.

Windows 7 x64 definitely does see all 64 GBs of RAM.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 12:58:53 AM

Yes, Even Windows XP Pro x64-bit edition can use 128GB of RAM. LGA 2011 boards with 8 DIMMs can use up to 128GB with future 16GB DDR-3 modules, or 64GB with current ones. With the massive file sizes you are working with, you would probably benefit from the processing power of dual-CPUs. With a board like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168..., you could start out with on 6 or 8-core LGA2011 Xeon CPU, 128GB of RAM, and later upgrade to a second CPU and even more memory if desired. It can handle a stunning 512GB (.5TB) or RAM!

Of course to use that much, you will need an industrial-strength OS like Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise or Server 2012 Standard. I don't recommend Windows "8" due to its poor interface, although it claims up to 512GB on the Pro 64-bit edition.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
January 7, 2013 12:31:50 AM

I just wanted to say that the Windows 8 interface takes some getting used to, but I hardly think its fair to call it poor.
m
0
l
January 7, 2013 1:05:22 AM

In my opinion, the interface of Windows 8 (really 6.2) is very poor and dumbed-down, and I would never recommend it to anyone. The Start Menu has been stripped away, the dual-interface scheme (with Metro / Modern apps vs the desktop) is detrimental and even things like My Documents are harder to get into. So I am very disappointed with Microsoft on this one.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
January 8, 2013 4:06:27 PM

Clicking in the lower left corner brings up the metro interface which is functionally equivalent to a start menu. I don't see what the problem is.

Did you, by any chance, prefer using DOS 6.22 long after Windows 95 was released?

As far as getting into My Documents goes, I don't see why its so hard to click on my computer and then click on the documents icon. It is one additional step from if there were a my documents icon on the desktop, but it takes all of about half a second more time RL to accomplish.

I bought Windows 8 so I could get familiar with it in order to better be able to support it, but I honestly can't see myself going back to 7 like I originally intended to. I am normally pretty resistant to change and all, but it really doesn't feel worse to me.

Boot times were shrunk down in Windows 8, the metro UI as a replacement for the start menu is actually more efficient and reduces the necessary clicks and its arguably more visually appealing, performance is up a tiny bit across the board, and quite a few other things.

I am not real happy with their mail program, but its still possible to just download and use any other kind of mail program you want.

I like how they streamlined the interface and moved to a hover in the corner model to bring up things that would normally be taking up screen real estate and how easy it is to exit out of stuff like unused desktop sessions.

I kinda hated it for about the first week or so, but after that it was not a problem anymore.
m
0
l
January 8, 2013 4:34:12 PM

The metro interface is far less functional than the Start menu, and does not replace it. The main things that can launch from Metro tiles are these miniature applications, or apps, not conventional programs, whereas the Start menu launches conventional, fully-functional software. The apps that launch from the Metro interface also don't do well with multitasking (at least more than one on the screen), as it is made to emulate a simplistic tablet-PC experience. These features should have been relegated to the RT version of Windows, not shipped with desktop versions.

There are many other problems with the UI as well, as some experts in computer interfaces have pointed out over the last few months. So I'm not jumping on the Windows "8" bandwagon, even though it may be a popular thing to do.

Incidentally, I was using MS DOS 6.22 and WFW 3.11 after the release of Windows 95, but that was more for financial reasons back then.

Also, do you any of you guys care to comment on why MS called it Windows 8, when it is really version 6.2? That is kind of absurd in my mind, especially considering Apple's naming system which keeps with their actual operating system version.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
January 8, 2013 8:07:10 PM

Calling it Windows 8 vs Windows 6.2 is a marketing decision and nothing else.

If MSFT made, say, Vista and called it 5 and then Windows 7 and called it 5.1 the people would be more wary of buying Windows 7. Windows 5.1 could be well worth the money, but people look at that first number primarily.

Apple, on the other hand, can get away with doing a lot of marketing unfriendly things for some stupid reason so you can't really compare them with normal companies. If you can get away with making sub-par products and charging twice what the competition does then you can also get away with naming your OSs the same as their version numbers.

As far as what can be launched from the metro UI... I can launch Skyrim, Darksiders 2, other games, Libre Office, and pretty much anything else I want to launch directly off the metro UI. I haven't seen anything yet that I can't launch from there. I don't know what the difference is between an app and a conventional program that you are describing, but there seems to be zero difference to me and everything just works.

I would agree that Windows 8 isnt great at having multiple windows open at once, but desktop mode still works the same as it usually does. I can get Libre Office Writer and Calc both side by side with no problems. For programs that need desktop sessions anyway, as most productivity apps do that I have seen, it works exactly the same.

The built in mail program doesn't have a background desktop session requirement so I couldn't get both email and either writer or calc on the screen at once, but that is still doable with any kind of other mail program I feel like installing most of which will have desktop session requirements.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 3:07:53 AM

My position is that when a company has to start using false numbers to market their products, they are in the beginning of a decline. Lowering marketing standards by starting to use dishonest techniques, goes hand in hand with lowering technological standards and quality of user experience, as we have seen. So especially with the release of Windows 8, I am not holding out high hopes for the future of Microsoft... Don't believe the marketing hype, or accept the conditioning they are trying to give you.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
January 16, 2013 8:59:20 PM

Why not complain about Windows 95 not being equal to the version number?

What about Vista not being equal to the version number for that matter?

Its branding, not some kind of conspiracy because Microsoft is out to get you. If they thought they would get more sales calling it "Windows Awesomeness" then that is what they would write on the box. If they thought you would be more likely to buy it if they called it "Windows Shoe" then that is what they would write on the box.

Its the job of marketers to come up with catchy names that make people want to buy things and that is what they did.

Apple, for whatever reason, thought that people would be more willing to waste $300 per product they make if they just put an "i" in front of it and it was true for the most part. Genius on the part of their marketers.

That is just how the game works. MS would be stupid to use version numbers if it would result in fewer sales and according to their marketers that's exactly what is going to happen. They aren't idiots, therefore they don't.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
January 22, 2013 9:22:06 AM

I have 64 gig ram with Intel Core I7-3820 CPU and HD Radeon 6800.
Running on Windows Ultimate, and I actually use it for video editing.
And running ps2/wii emulator.

It recognizes the ram perfectly and works awesome.

With 2 ssd's and 4 terrabyte disks.

Epic dekstop pc..
m
0
l
January 28, 2013 7:34:22 PM

Having been using Windows 8 for months now I prefer it to Windows 7, I have 4 monitors which makes it awesome to designate one screen as a screen for metro apps. I also find tapping the windows key and typing or tapping the windows key and clicking superior to clicking the start menu, selecting all programs, and then navigating to the correct folder, then finally opening a program. ALL issues that supposed power users are having with the OS accessing settings can be fixed by them learning to right click the button left corner of the Desktop screen. People are just crying about an OS they don't use just like people with crap single core celeron computers with 256 megs of ram cried about Vista being slow and bloated.

Starman80 said:
The metro interface is far less functional than the Start menu, and does not replace it. The main things that can launch from Metro tiles are these miniature applications, or apps, not conventional programs, whereas the Start menu launches conventional, fully-functional software. The apps that launch from the Metro interface also don't do well with multitasking (at least more than one on the screen), as it is made to emulate a simplistic tablet-PC experience. These features should have been relegated to the RT version of Windows, not shipped with desktop versions.

There are many other problems with the UI as well, as some experts in computer interfaces have pointed out over the last few months. So I'm not jumping on the Windows "8" bandwagon, even though it may be a popular thing to do.

Incidentally, I was using MS DOS 6.22 and WFW 3.11 after the release of Windows 95, but that was more for financial reasons back then.

Also, do you any of you guys care to comment on why MS called it Windows 8, when it is really version 6.2? That is kind of absurd in my mind, especially considering Apple's naming system which keeps with their actual operating system version.

m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 29, 2013 12:02:06 AM

This thread is quite old. Personally I find it hard to believe anything would use much more than 16gb of ram. Even with image/video editing and heavy gaming.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
February 2, 2013 4:38:22 AM

Games can't use more than 2GB most of the time for architectural reasons (and for backwards compatibility with weaker systems, too).
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
February 2, 2013 4:43:55 AM

Raiddinn said:
Games can't use more than 2GB most of the time for architectural reasons (and for backwards compatibility with weaker systems, too).

You might be surprised. Some games will load as much of the textures and maps into RAM as possible and then load from disk what will not fit.

That is actually quite an efficient strategy but not the easiest to implement programmaticly.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
February 3, 2013 12:37:59 AM

Which ones?
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
February 4, 2013 6:20:49 PM

Right I have the thing you want, now I watch a lot of Minecraft and Tekkit stuff so I know about the Yogscast and they are in conjunction with ChillBlast a huge crazy big computers company and believe me you will have no trouble with this computer it's EPIC and I know what you mean about needing more and more and more so I won't spare you any more grief here it the Chillblast Fusion Leviathan:

http://www.chillblast.com/Chillbla [...] athan.html

I hope you've got a big buget it's £10,000!!

Well I hope you have a good time hope to see your name in the future,
Yogscast fan
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 6:47:40 PM

Case: Azza Fusion 4000
CPU: Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Six-Core 3.50 GHz 15MB Cache
SSD: 480 GB Intel 520 x4
HDD: 2TB 7200RPM Hard Drive x2
RAM: 64GB (8x8GB) DDR3/1866mhz
Motherboard: Asus P9X79 Pro Intel X79 Chipset,
Video cards: Liquid Cooling NVIDIA GTX 680 2GB x3
m
0
l
February 20, 2013 2:26:37 PM

ashma said:
Well, this is closer to what I am looking for... the board is actually is not that expensive... have to look into RDIMM prices...but looking at the board I kind of wonder if it can work with high end video cards... I've been worrying about RAM, but I do need decent video also... this server set up is too novel for me - have to do more research... But certainly thank you for interesting suggestion


With 128 GB of RAM, you will really want a good video card, if you have some money left after the RAM Purchase either go in for the GTX 690 or the HD 7990. I had previously owned an GTX 690 and had many horror stories when I tried something very crazy on it. The HD 7990 would be the best. Currently I am using the ASUS ROG Ares II, and only 1000 of them are made, each one comprises of 2-7970 GHz editions GPU's. And currently it's the fastest Graphics Card in the World. I don't know if the 1000 pieces have already been sold out, I got mine as soon as I heard they were released. I am Hardcore Gamer as well as a Photoshop loving guy, and I use only 64 GB and not 128 GB and all is fine for now!
m
0
l
February 20, 2013 2:31:21 PM

TeamSignal said:
Case: Azza Fusion 4000
CPU: Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Six-Core 3.50 GHz 15MB Cache
SSD: 480 GB Intel 520 x4
HDD: 2TB 7200RPM Hard Drive x2
RAM: 64GB (8x8GB) DDR3/1866mhz
Motherboard: Asus P9X79 Pro Intel X79 Chipset,
Video cards: Liquid Cooling NVIDIA GTX 680 2GB x3


I was searching hard for the Ivy Bridge-E Processor, where did you get it? I really want it. I got 1200$ for it and I believe it is sufficient. I got a ASUS Rampage IV Extreme MoBo, it will run just fine.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 4:23:22 PM

kbafewx said:
lol 64gb ram? for photoshop... not necessary 8gb would even be sufficient. Don't waste your money!



According to your logic, Dolorian owners should sell their cars and buy Volkswagons. You may never use it, but its there if you want it.
m
0
l
March 16, 2013 9:35:15 AM

Motherboard: ASUS P9X79 PRO (LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0, $330 on Amazon)
CPU: Intel Core i7-3820
RAM: 64Gb (8x8Gb) DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz (Komputerbay, 10x10x10x27)
<rest irrelevant>
All memory is recognized perfectly and works flawlessly for 7 months by now. I use it under relatively heavy load for scientific computing (DNA sequence comparison), using all available RAM.

The only problem I've seen is that Sound card had stopped working after 2 month of use. It started to produce only high-pitch fuzz, so that I disabled it, and now use cheap external (USB) sound device. The sound quality on the new one is poor, but I guess one can buy better external sound card. I was afraid that broken sound indicates poor assembly quality of MB,but so far the rest works.

m
0
l
April 21, 2013 12:18:43 PM

Hi Ashma,
I have a system with 64 GB RAM working fine.
ASUS RAMPAGE IV EXTREME - LGA2011 - X79 - 8x DIMM - PCIe 3.0 Motherboards
2 of Corsair Vengeance 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz PC3 12800 Quad Channel 240 Pin Desktop Memory CMZ32GX3M4X1600C10
Corsair Force GT 240 GB SATA III/6G SATA 6.0 Gb-s 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive - CSSD-F240GBGT-BK
NVidia GTX 580
Power: Corsair gold 850 watts
regards,
Yurion

m
0
l
April 21, 2013 12:18:43 PM

Hi Ashma,
I have a system with 64 GB RAM working fine.
ASUS RAMPAGE IV EXTREME - LGA2011 - X79 - 8x DIMM - PCIe 3.0 Motherboards
2 of Corsair Vengeance 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz PC3 12800 Quad Channel 240 Pin Desktop Memory CMZ32GX3M4X1600C10
Corsair Force GT 240 GB SATA III/6G SATA 6.0 Gb-s 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive - CSSD-F240GBGT-BK
NVidia GTX 580
Power: Corsair gold 850 watts
regards,
Yurion

m
0
l
April 21, 2013 12:18:44 PM

Hi Ashma,
I have a system with 64 GB RAM working fine.
ASUS RAMPAGE IV EXTREME - LGA2011 - X79 - 8x DIMM - PCIe 3.0 Motherboards
2 of Corsair Vengeance 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz PC3 12800 Quad Channel 240 Pin Desktop Memory CMZ32GX3M4X1600C10
Corsair Force GT 240 GB SATA III/6G SATA 6.0 Gb-s 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive - CSSD-F240GBGT-BK
NVidia GTX 580
Power: Corsair gold 850 watts
regards,
Yurion

m
0
l
April 21, 2013 12:18:44 PM

Hi Ashma,
I have a system with 64 GB RAM working fine.
ASUS RAMPAGE IV EXTREME - LGA2011 - X79 - 8x DIMM - PCIe 3.0 Motherboards
2 of Corsair Vengeance 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz PC3 12800 Quad Channel 240 Pin Desktop Memory CMZ32GX3M4X1600C10
Corsair Force GT 240 GB SATA III/6G SATA 6.0 Gb-s 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive - CSSD-F240GBGT-BK
NVidia GTX 580
Power: Corsair gold 850 watts
regards,
Yurion

m
0
l
April 23, 2013 11:09:34 PM

Believe me, you can!

Run several virtual machines to which you give plenty of RAM (8GB for example), then run several RAM hungry applications on your host machine.

Anyway, if one wants to have as much RAM as possible, why not? Remember when EDO ram was in use? I remember I had a system with a whopping 1GB RAM (ATARI system). It was huge then, along with dual floppy drives! Everybody would never have thought of today's possibilities. So 128GB ram now might actually become the low range standard entry system in another 5 years...

At least this board has the "potential" to allow for growth at the RAM side, which is quite nice. I wish they would actually propose quick and easy BIOS upgrade so more RAM per slot could be used. I have a Dell Dimension 9200 with a dual core E pentium CPU. When my company bought it, it was the top of the crop, with 4GB RAM (4 X 1GB modules maxed out!)... It is a pain now because I can't even use it to run a couple of virtual machines. I use it to run pfsense! Waste of energy as well for this!


netcommercial said:
I would bet you NEVER use that RAM. To whoever stated a super high Gigapixal camera. LOL! Like shooting video with a DSLR. The bigger numbers are for YOU to upgrade a perfectly good piece of equipment. You want nice video you want many frames a second and progressive. Go record a gun firing and then see what I mean, when you try an slow it down.
Research, it will save you a bundle. I bought a quadro card 2 months ago as the Drivers are written for the software I like to use, as well as written for most NLE/photshop LIKE ADOBE CS6. I may have been that guy who was trying to build an x79 platform with 64gb.... I read, and asked to 2 months now, and am saving about a 1000. bucks after doing so. That gets me almost halfway to my 'Blackmagic" Raw video camera. You would be better off buying 4gb or bigger video card and coupling it with 32 gb of Ram then buying 1000gb of ram and coupling it with 2gb of vram. Oh and your computer is not using your HDD to render. It May be using your RAM or GPU but not your HDD storage to render. As well as using crossfire with Two 4gb cards does not give you 8gb of space. Rather it mirrors the job and will render 4gbs almost twice as fast. Hope this helps. I went round and round trying to learn this. The folks on this forum, such as Mocchan helped me a lot understanding that.
Peace,
netcommercial


m
0
l
May 5, 2013 4:19:37 PM

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

^ 32 GB of ram. You don't need that much,for if you have too much your computer will drain it down and you will end up not getting what you payed for. That on is a gaming computer. It is 999 USD currency. I about bought it but found more hard drive memory,fitting to what I needed. Best regards :D 
m
0
l
May 12, 2013 1:25:05 PM

My recommendation is that you should also consider a Supermicro H8SGL motherboard.
This is a workstation board. ATX format, single CPU, 256MB DDR3 RAM max.
You are not building a server, so a H8SGL-F is not necessary.
Use a 6200 or 6300 series Opteron CPU.
My opinion: Stay away from the 6100 series. There is a failure rate, albeit small.
There were labor/management problems in Dresden, Germany in 2009. (The Fab)
Supermicro is the best quality you can buy.
We have a legacy server with old programs that we occasionally need, 120,000+ hours run time.
The biggest problems are fan bearing failure and dust/dirt.
These people citing cost are "Penny wise and pound foolish".
My best wishes, Chris
m
0
l
!