Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
16gb MBP in 2021 isn’t enough for long-term
- Thread starter 0112862
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Need change with time and I think when you make an purchase/investment(if you are working) your computer shouldn't become obsolete because of something you could have prevented a few years ago. In a few years, this forums will be full of peoples complaining that their mac is slow since they hooked up to a second monitor. And the only answer will be ''buy a new mac''.
Extremely eye-opening. Even with heavy page outs, negligible performance difference. Apparently the high bandwidth bus w/ fast SSD acts as a fairly seamless extended memory subsystem.
Last edited:
This is so true,
It’s either not the right device (too slow for you), or it’s damaged and consider swapping out. And I have seen some major slowdowns on Windows because of RAM usage.
It’s quite funny because all the naysayers wanted everyone to upgrade from 8 to 16 just a year ago is now doing the same thing from 16 to 32. So what has changed in the last year that now 16 isn’t enough????
Just because you see the 32GB machine using 17GB-24GB doesn't mean it would struggle on a 16GB machine, it doesn't work like that. The base model would also handle those programs with an ease
It's generally advantageous to buy base models w/ Apple and upgrade more often than to spec out to future proof. Apple's brand equity means high resale, but the unserviceable nature leads to high option costs that just aren't worth it unless you need it in the here and now.
Unfied memory works differently (better) than oldschool RAM plus you have an absurdly fast SSD as backup for swapping. Most people gonna be perfectly fine with 16GB over the next years, especially the ones deciding between the 13" M1 and 14" M1Pro who don't do crazy 3D projects or VMs.
I am slowly getting annoyed when looking at the increasing amount of clickbait or trolling threads within the last 48hrs ('legacy ports suck!' 'gaming on it sucks!' 'ugly and too thick!' '16Gb not enough for anyone!'). People are either really bored this weekend, or from Intel ?♂️
I am slowly getting annoyed when looking at the increasing amount of clickbait or trolling threads within the last 48hrs ('legacy ports suck!' 'gaming on it sucks!' 'ugly and too thick!' '16Gb not enough for anyone!'). People are either really bored this weekend, or from Intel ?♂️
How much memory a Mac uses is not an indicator of how much it needs.
Photoshop and Lightroom are notorious for "using" as much memory as you give them.
On my 2020 iMac I experimented with 8, 16, 32 and 64 GB RAM. In all cases, while running LR and PS and web browsers, the Mac would eventually "use" all the RAM. Concluding that the Mac therefore "needs" 64GB is, however, incorrect. There was negligible performance difference with more than about 16GB RAM. (I decided on 32GB, because RAM for the 2020 iMac is cheap.)
On my 16GB M1 Pro, 16GB occasionally gets into yellow memory pressure using LR and PS, but this does not appear to affect the performance in the slightest (for me). Ideally, I would probably get 32GB, but certainly not for $400 more. Not making extra cash donations to Apple.
Having such a high memory bandwidth and an SSD running at 5GB/s (for swaps) appears to make a huge difference.
Photoshop and Lightroom are notorious for "using" as much memory as you give them.
On my 2020 iMac I experimented with 8, 16, 32 and 64 GB RAM. In all cases, while running LR and PS and web browsers, the Mac would eventually "use" all the RAM. Concluding that the Mac therefore "needs" 64GB is, however, incorrect. There was negligible performance difference with more than about 16GB RAM. (I decided on 32GB, because RAM for the 2020 iMac is cheap.)
On my 16GB M1 Pro, 16GB occasionally gets into yellow memory pressure using LR and PS, but this does not appear to affect the performance in the slightest (for me). Ideally, I would probably get 32GB, but certainly not for $400 more. Not making extra cash donations to Apple.
Having such a high memory bandwidth and an SSD running at 5GB/s (for swaps) appears to make a huge difference.
Last edited:
I would buy the 32 gb version if its available. 16 gb is not enough. The m1 pro costs arround 3000 Euros. The M1 Max with 32 GB costs only 3850 Euros. So i would buy this instead of the 400 Euro cheaper M1 Pro with half bandwith and gpu cores. If you could upgrade the M1 with ram. I would buy the 16 gb model and add or replace the ram.
@Rashy
If there is not enough ram it has to swap. Max. 7 gbyte/s isn't fast compared with 200-400 gbyte/s ram. Even my windows desktop with pcie 4.0 ssd has 5 gbyte/s peak. But it's only the speed for huge files. For smallers you will get only a few hundred mbyte/s up to 2 gbyte/s.
@Rashy
If there is not enough ram it has to swap. Max. 7 gbyte/s isn't fast compared with 200-400 gbyte/s ram. Even my windows desktop with pcie 4.0 ssd has 5 gbyte/s peak. But it's only the speed for huge files. For smallers you will get only a few hundred mbyte/s up to 2 gbyte/s.
Are you saying these apps would use less memory if I only had 16GB? - I'm not using any SWAP at the moment etc
Kindof meaningless post. All os’s use memory and cache stuff, makes it faster to load when needed. Sounds like you are just talking total memory. Which means nothing
For example, I have a 13 MBP m1, I have run handbrake, brave, safari, numbers, pages, maps, find my, all at the same time and never got over 6.5 gb
Correct. Memory pressure is the biggest indicator of truly not having enough ram
Then what will those apps do just use less? - Why would they choose to use this much if they don't really need it.
Me too. I'm sure it's a spectrum. Professionals in this spectrum would know whether they would benefit from more memory, or if the diminishing returns make sense (need to keep it for longer duration to maximize tax deduction, etc). I fall into this camp. I'm sure there are plenty who don't, as well.
Exactly. I am a software developer and there is almost no point where I ask the system how much memory is available and then do something one way or another. I simply allocate the memory as needed based on my design which has already evaluated speed/memory tradeoffs. The OS then determines how to manage the memory on the system.
This is a BS scare post from an uneducated user. The OS uses the ram to the fullest extent when it can. has nothing to do with the hardware's ability to keep up. Nice try troll
The apps don‘t choose - the OS does. Certainly, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that more RAM is not technically better. But are you guys familiar with the law of diminishing returns? You would agree, I’d imagine, that if you translated this whole discussion from an argument about 16 v 32GB to one about 32 v 64GB it would be quite silly to suggest that 32GB will be too little in just a few years. Well, I think we’re already at that point with 16GB for generic usage.
If you have a clear need for 32 GB of RAM buy it! But to say a 16GB machine will be slow/obsolete in a few years is not rooted in reality I think. You don’t need more than 16GB of RAM to drive an external monitor, lol.
SSD speeds with ~5GB+/sec read/write, and 200GB+/s memory bandwidth with these new macbooks means the swapping (when it needs to) is so fast and efficient that, as the MaxTech video shows, the extra RAM on the most intensive multitask workflows only yields very marginal performance improvements of a few percent, which is definitely not worth the +$400 to the price for 99% of people that are able to work just fine on 16GB today. And this won’t change within 5 years, nor will it change within 10.
These latest macbooks give a whole new perspective to how a system can manage its memory. Memory management and swapping this efficient was unheard of until Apple Silicon released.
Get your head out of x86 thinking if you’re investing in Apple Silicon computers. It’s only going to cost you more $ for practically nothing
These latest macbooks give a whole new perspective to how a system can manage its memory. Memory management and swapping this efficient was unheard of until Apple Silicon released.
Get your head out of x86 thinking if you’re investing in Apple Silicon computers. It’s only going to cost you more $ for practically nothing
This is the video that finally convinced me that 16GB will be fine for me and I don't need 32GB.
I tried the memory pressure application last night. Opened a good few safari tabs, photos, iMovie, word, excel, numbers, a game, X plane etc. didn’t phase it one bit. Have 16GB on a 2015 iMac.
I would say that if you end up running VMs then you would definitely want to look at more RAM, that is a harder limit as VM assigned memory isn't something that can be paged out. Although needing to run VMs if they can only be ARM based is probably much less of a thing now.
I’m going to call BS on this: all the configs of 16” MBP are available to buy on apple.de. Won’t ship for 4-5 weeks, true, but they are available. If you really need a different configuration why didn’t you wait rather than waste money on what’s likely a fairly long-term investment but isn‘t what you need? Alternatively, if you couldn’t wait because you desperately needed the machine for a specific job and are going to replace it with a different configuration when you can get it, why are you complaining?