Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

saudor

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2011
1,512
2,115
get what you want based on your usage. Dont let the 8gb folks sway you. Those people may also upgrade every year so they'll never see the time when the base model is no longer enough or when their SSD is almost dead in swap writes because they've already replaced the machine.

For me, even 32gb will hit the red and swap out 10-20gb onto my SSD but i dont do that often enough to bother going 64gb. System performance is still OK though.

at the end of the day, tech is cheap compared to other things/hobbies. Going overboard isn't a bad idea especially if you plan to keep it longer.

EDIT: just saw your app list. 16gb should be enough for those tasks. As long as you are not consistently running up against the limit, the impact on the SSD's endurance will be negligible.
 
Last edited:

james2538

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2008
580
1,829
I typically use the following apps, all running at the same time, and I have to switch frequently between them:

- Two web Broswers (Safari, Chrome or FireFox), with dozens of tabs open,
- Preview to see several pictures and read large PDFs,
- ITunes or Evermusic to play music in the background,
- Some LaTeX interface (Latexian, or Texshop, or Texifier) to write code and compiling some large PDFs with pdfLaTeX,
- Mathematica to do some calculations and graphics (some may be pretty intense!),
- Intaglio (or an equivalent vectorial drawing app, like EazyDraw) to draw figures/schematics/diagrams,
- Mail app, to email...,
- Pixelmator Pro to edit photos/pictures,
- Xee (or another equivalent app) to browse pictures,

I often have to launch more apps, like Discord, or a game to relax a bit between "multitasking sessions".

When I do this on any of my old Intel Macs with only 8GB of ram, I systematically get a strong impact on performances (apps slowing down or freezing, lags, beach balls, ...). I always have to quit several of the apps above. I don't think 16GB would really be enough on these old computers. I know that things have changed on the Silicon Macs, but still, would 16GB be really enough without swapping to death on the SSD?

The app list is helpful. If you’re editing photos at the same time as everything else on this list then spring for the 32GB.

That’ll also come in handy if you need to use virtualization in the future (say you need to fire up Windows for some reason)
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,360
12,603
- Mathematica to do some calculations and graphics (some may be pretty intense!),

This makes or breaks it, frankly. If your datasets are larger than your available RAM, you'll slow down a lot.

There are two types of multitasking: are multiple things performing complex calculations at the same time, or do you just shift your attention among open applications. If the former, any you have a lot of simultaneous active background tasks, then you'll benefit from RAM. If the latter, then your ability to shift mental focus is most likely the limiting factor.

You can open a lot of Chrome tabs on a 128GB Mac Studio, but you're still mostly using 1GB of RAM and a single thread of CPU resources on the tab you're currently viewing.
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
Is RAM usage of Silicon Mac = half of RAM usage of Intel Mac?

For example, if I am used to 16GB RAM on Intel MacBook Pro, if I go for a Silicon MacBook Pro, does it translate to 8GB RAM due to Apple Silicon's "efficient use of memory"?
 

1BadManVan

macrumors 68040
Dec 20, 2009
3,285
3,446
Bc Canada
if you've gotten by on 8gb, im sure 16gb will feel quite refreshing, especially on Apple Silicon, and yes the ram upgrade prices apple charges are criminal to say the least. Try the 16gb version, apple has a no questions asked 14 day return policy, put it through its paces and see if you're happy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wyrdness

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,360
12,603
Is RAM usage of Silicon Mac = half of RAM usage of Intel Mac?

For example, if I am used to 16GB RAM on Intel MacBook Pro, if I go for a Silicon MacBook Pro, does it translate to 8GB RAM due to Apple Silicon's "efficient use of memory"?

No, RAM is RAM. Most of the RAM is consumed by data and that data is the same regardless of the platform. Some of that RAM is code which does vary in efficiency, but it's a small part compared to even basic images. Someone once pointed out that the OS X boot logo (before it went to the white apple) takes more memory than the 128K that the original Mac had.

What's different with AS is bandwidth to RAM, which is very high, and the fact that it's shared to multiple processing systems such as the GPUs-- that saves duplication of data and the time it would take to make those copies.

Depending on the generation of your Intel Mac, there may be other system level improvements that also help, but no, things aren't suddenly scaled in half. You are just likely to see less delay in switching tasks because the system around that memory is much faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyrdness

Zest28

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2022
2,581
3,933
16GB RAM is probably going to be enough as long as you have a fast SSD which you can use for swap. You have to be careful nowadays as Apple likes put slow SSD's in their base models.

But if you have the money, I don't see why you shouldn't go for the 32GB RAM version?
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
The proof is in real word tests. Watch this in its entirety as it may help with making your decision vs what's on paper:


So M2, M3, M4 series follow the same? I watched that famous Max Tech video when it came out but some members in the forum suggested taking his words as a grain of salt.

Also some people compared things that are of different types. For example, "14-inch MacBook Pro, which has 16GB RAM, with the high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro equipped with 32GB RAM". screen size is different, thermal is different, chip is different, memory bus is different, etc. That is not a valid comparison.
 
Last edited:

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,360
12,603
So M2, M3, M4 series follow the same? I watched that Max Tech video when it came out but some members in the forum suggested taking his words as a grain of salt.

You need to take an unhealthy amount of salt when watching MaxTech. Either way, it's not good for you-- either the sodium or their BS will lead to hypertension.

Not sure what you mean by the different series following the same. There's a few things that will all interact here: the RAM indicates how much information the CPU has easy access to. Each generation of processor appears to be improving the speed at which data in memory can be accessed and the speed at which the CPU can use that data. I don't expect the generations to make much difference in how much memory is used (that changes with the ways we use the computer for higher resolution images and video, bigger machine learning models, etc).
 

richard371

macrumors 68040
Feb 1, 2008
3,739
1,926
He was using 2 identical MBP 16. Only difference is the mem. Yes it would not be a good test if one was 14” and 1 16” or different processors pro vs max etc. another party mentioned in the article did their own similar testing and found similar results so id say it’s a pretty solid grain of salt lol.
 

Scarrus

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2011
295
86
I keep reading everywhere that 32GB is overkill and a waste of money if we don't do heavy 3D renderings or large professional video productions, and that 16GB is way enough for 99% of the population. That may be true if we only work in a single app at a time, doing "normal" usual or everyday stuff (office, web browsing, answering emails, watching a movie, managing files in the Finder, ...). The answer I keep reading is that 32GB is only useful for professionals that do heavy stuff in their specialized app, like 8K video editing or super music productions (I'm not one of these guys). I rarely see discussions about "heavy multitasking", i.e using many "ordinary apps" at the same time, frequently switching between apps, and doing a lot of web browsing with multi-tabs open while listening to music. This is the kind of stuff I do very frequently with my Mac, and I hate slowing down my multitasking workflow because of the computer lacking memory.

In the past (on all of my Intel Macs, with 8GB of ram), I very frequently suffered of a lack of memory while doing "heavy multitasking", with ordinary apps only: slow apps switching, some apps freezing, web navigators slowing down with lots of tabs, background music lagging or stopping, some beach balls when switching apps, ..., and I hate that to death! I'm the kind of person that gets very irritated/frustrated by the computer lags, and I may become very impatient with the computer when it's slowing down! (of course, I did checked the computer for any unexpected background processes or other "illness". The computer was always okay.)

I understand that unified memory on Silicon Macs changes a lot of things. Coming from an Intel Mac, it's hard to use our past experience to appropriately choose a proper amount of memory for a new Mac. Especially since the video ram (VRAM) is now unified with the "ordinary" ram, and that we can't change/upgrade anymore the memory later (after two years of use, for example). So we now have to carefully decide the proper amount of memory when we buy a new Mac, and yet we don't want to waste our money with a large overkill amount of memory.

So is 16GB really enough these days (and for the few years to come), on Apple Silicon Macs for doing "heavy multitasking", or is it better to pay the extra to get 32GB?

Please, don't tell anything about large professional video productions! This is what I hear ALL THE TIME in ALL videos on YouTube that talk about Silicon Mac memory! All benchmarks and comparisons are done with video productions or large 3D games, and I'm not interested in that kind of workflow. I know that several benchmarks/comparisons videos on YT are showing that there's no noticeable difference of performance between 16GB and 32GB of ram, when using a single specialized app (again, it's always done for large video import/edit/export or copying large files...). This is not what I'm asking about. These YT videos are saying nothing about heavy multitasking!
From my experience with using a MacBook with Safari, Whatsapp, Mail, Discord open at the same time and using a Windows laptop doing the exact same things(using Chrome instead of Safari) the memory usage is about the same, slightly more in Mac OS ~ 10Gb on Win10 and ~11 - 12GB on Mac OS.

With a new machine I’d go with 24Gb min or 32(preferably) if you plan to use the computer for more than a year IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruftzooi

richard371

macrumors 68040
Feb 1, 2008
3,739
1,926
I’d put the money towards the faster and larger ssd. Do not go with the 512. It’s half the speed of the 1 tb. That will help when you do get into swap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgdosen

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,360
12,603
I’d put the money towards the faster and larger ssd. Do not go with the 512. It’s half the speed of the 1 tb. That will help when you do get into swap.

If you're worried about swap, why would you put the money toward SSD so you swap twice as fast and not toward enough RAM to avoid swapping all together?

And let's please remember that getting into swap for Mathematica is bad, but getting into swap with Chrome is par for the course.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,360
12,603
From my experience with using a MacBook with Safari, Whatsapp, Mail, Discord open at the same time and using a Windows laptop doing the exact same things(using Chrome instead of Safari) the memory usage is about the same, slightly more in Mac OS ~ 10Gb on Win10 and ~11 - 12GB on Mac OS.

With a new machine I’d go with 24Gb min or 32(preferably) if you plan to use the computer for more than a year IMO.

I'm sorry, where does this recommendation come from? It's not even supported by the data you present.

I think this is why people here think Macs are so expensive-- the forums keep upselling everyone...
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Apple$ and Scarrus

richard371

macrumors 68040
Feb 1, 2008
3,739
1,926
For me I need more than 512 and I like my programs/files etc opening faster so the 1tb was a better option for me. Hind site i should have gone 2tb. Hell 32gb/2tb would been ideal but more then I wanted to spend for my light use.
 

tempire

macrumors newbie
Mar 18, 2012
2
12
Pshaw. Run 6 electron apps side by side over the course of a day, and the question will change to whether 64 is enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2Stepfan

dgdosen

macrumors 68030
Dec 13, 2003
2,817
1,463
Seattle
I’d put the money towards the faster and larger ssd. Do not go with the 512. It’s half the speed of the 1 tb. That will help when you do get into swap.

As an Apple Silicon layman, this makes sense to me. Running Docker/Kubernetes and a few tmux dev environments, I do see see 'yellow' memory pressure but my machine doesn't seem any slower... I just know that I know the graph shows yellow in Activity Monitor. Is that worth a $400 upgrade?

It seems like a good solution to bump up to a faster SSD (1TB over 512GB) vs more memory (16GB to 32GB), but I'm interested in hearing comments about any how bad those swapfile page out penalties are. I'm fine with the SSD churn, because as far as I can see, with my current workflow, `smartctl` is showing my Apple Silicon SSDs will have enough useful life for this laptop to be passed on for at least one, maybe two, family generations :)
 

Media Pimp

macrumors member
Oct 18, 2007
45
65
Maryland
I would say go with 32gb for peace of mind.

BUT, just to put it out there, I did the opposite with my current M1 Pro MBP and got the 16gb, mostly because I needed it next day after my Mac mini crapped out on me and I've had zero issues.

I like to think I do a fair amount of multitasking and almost never close apps. My day to day consists of graphic and web design/development, music production, recording, mixing/mastering, server admin stuff, a little photography, podcasting, regular zoom meetings and then the basic web browsing, research and such.

I've yet to run into any memory issues with my current workflow, but I know mileage may vary and I seem to be a touch lucky in that regard, as my wife's 16gb M1 MBAir constantly runs out of memory, and I can't for the life of me figure out how. All she does are zoom meetings, web browsing and writing (google docs and such). 🤷🏾‍♂️

With all that being said, go with 32gb, just to stay on the safe side.
 

wilberforce

macrumors 68030
Aug 15, 2020
2,930
3,207
SF Bay Area
There have been many many threads like this, that all pretty much run the same course - answers are all over the map, as there is no clear definition of "enough" and "worth it" and everyone has a different perspective.
Half the time the OP is simply looking for validation of what they they plan to do anyway (which of course will be provided, no matter what that is), and half the time OP remains exactly as confused and undecided as when the question is first proposed.
Anyway, it is entertaining discussing it, just don't expect any real reliable answers that you can sort from the random uninformed opinions.
 

mossimossimossi

macrumors member
Jan 11, 2023
63
51
@Cham2000, here's my sample set data:

MBP 16 base with M1P and 16GB RAM
Chrome with 239 tabs (don't judge! 🙃)
Firefox with 77 tabs (mostly music streams)
Slack app
Textpad app
Wrike app
Zoom app

That is my base set of applications to start the day. Preview, Microsoft Office, Numbers, Calculator, Notes, and Terminal app will open as they are needed. I honestly didn't know my tab count until I added them up just now, even though I knew it would be fairly large. I'm showing green memory pressure that's halfway up on the chart, which is high but no problems and no swap being used.

I will say, however, when I first got the laptop I experienced slowdowns and got yellow memory pressure. I was able to identify the memory hogs and now I rarely ever need to reboot the laptop. Here's what I did:

* Always close down the high memory hog apps when not in use. I work in some large Excel sheets at times and I always quit the app when I'm done. Same goes for Powerpoint as some of the ones I create can be rather large in size. The rest of the apps I listed above are always open.
* Most importantly, however, I restart Chrome, Firefox, and Slack every day. This alone drops my base memory usage down about 35-40% and gives me space for whatever apps I need to use during the day. It's a simple process and I avoid seeing any slowdowns.

I see that you have more apps open. If you don't mind simply closing and restarting it again (maybe not even every day but every other day), 16GB should work for you.

Edit for more details: I got into yellow memory pressure after using it for two weeks without restarting the laptop or apps and leaving Excel/Powerpoint open along with my base apps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Radiuwel

mossimossimossi

macrumors member
Jan 11, 2023
63
51
Looking at your apps list again, if you were using a laptop like the way I do, I would restart the Mathematica and Intaglio apps fairly frequently.
 

phenste

macrumors 6502a
Sep 16, 2012
729
2,122
get the 32GB if you can afford it man, future-proofing never hurts & my M2 MBP can handle virtually anything I throw at it—I've seen a spinning rainbow exactly one (1) time, while putting Ableton under some crazy duress & having a ton of other apps open. I am the same kind of "heavy multitasker."
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.