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

ForkHandles

macrumors 6502a
Jun 8, 2012
550
1,399
My prejudice is that, because RAM is the only thing you can all adjust, people go crazy for exercising the option.

I do web work, graphics, coding, amateur movie making and a lot of home computing. My 8Gb Mac M1 mini was faultless. I swapped it out for a Mac Pro M1 16Gb and noticed no performance bump whatsoever.

The truth is that if you don't know what you need then you don't need 32Gb.

If you know you need 32Gb/64Gb its because your machine is a professional tool and it costs you money to have less memory and weaker performance. In which case the company is paying, just max it out and claim it on expenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leman

An-apple-a-day

macrumors regular
Mar 31, 2010
106
134
When I tried a M1 MacBook Pro 16" when it first came out, even I did not launch applications, those launched by MacOS already occupied over 10GB as I recall. Some forum members said that MacOS and Silicon Mac would try to use as much RAM as possible available in the machine. In other words, if a Mac has 16GB, it would try to fill up 16GB. If it has 32GB, it would try to fill up 32GB. Sounds like even with 64GB RAM, the Mac would try to fill up 64GB also. However, from that famous 16GB vs 32GB Max Tech video, it does the opposite also.

Given that some of you Silicon Mac users have been using your machine for 1.5 years and gained a better understanding of such behavior, how does this work actually?
Much like Linux, MacOS uses available RAM for filesystem cache. The more available memory you have, the more will be allocated for filesystem cache over time as file I/O operations are performed. Sometimes the filesystem cache can even be overcommitted causing some use of swap. In Linux there is a kernel "swappiness" setting to influence this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hajime

Johnny London

macrumors regular
Aug 28, 2012
182
209
This is what my idle MacBook Pro M1 Pro 16BG 1TB stats look like. I would say that 16 GB isn’t enough even if you only leave a lot of tabs open plus WhatsApp on desktop. Just opened my MacBook for the screenshot. No working on it being done yet.
 

Attachments

  • A0B33658-9297-42BC-A2C7-E62F446DE137.png
    A0B33658-9297-42BC-A2C7-E62F446DE137.png
    289.9 KB · Views: 117

xxray

macrumors 68040
Jul 27, 2013
3,115
9,412
I would think your use case would be fine with 16GB but given how much it bothers you to have any hang ups, that extra RAM of 32GB might be worth the peace of mind for you as a user.
 

BigMac?

macrumors 6502
Jan 30, 2007
276
264
Erlangen, Bavaria
Well, I don't agree with 8GB at all. I did tested the new base mini M2 8GB in the store, and I was easily able to put it under the yellow memory pressure (and some red spikes) while only playing with several apps. I was even able to put the base mini M2 Pro (16GB) into the yellow zone, but it was harder than with the base mini M2. And yet, I wasn't even doing any serious stuff with it, like what I would do at home. The 16GB was harder to put into the yellow zone, and I wasn't able to get red spikes just by launching and playing with the apps, in the Apple store. I must admit that I was impressed by this test, but I'm still uncertain that 16GB would be enough.
For the exact same reason I returned MBP16-16gb and got it with 32.
You reach to easily yellow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scarrus

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,521
19,674
Much like Linux, MacOS uses available RAM for filesystem cache. The more available memory you have, the more will be allocated for filesystem cache over time as file I/O operations are performed. Sometimes the filesystem cache can even be overcommitted causing some use of swap. In Linux there is a kernel "swappiness" setting to influence this.

What’s more, Mac kernel has a concept called purgeable memory which as far as I know is unique to Apple systems. It’s a type of memory allocation which can be dropped by the OS at any time without notice. This makes it very simple to implement caching and it’s a mechanism that many Apple frameworks and apps use aggressively. This might look as if an app has a massive memory leak or is hiking RAM for no reason but most of that RAM can often be dropped in an instant without any adverse effect. For example, people often complain about high RAM usage of Safari, but a big portion of that RAM is purgeable memory used to cache some intermediate browser data.
 

Johnny London

macrumors regular
Aug 28, 2012
182
209
For some strange reason---and I pointed it out in another post----there are a lot of similar questions like the one in this OP. And the comments and answers are more or less the same: "Forget 8GB, go for at least 16, and if you can, go for 32. Still, want peace of mind? 64 and up!"

What makes one believe that one will elicit a different kind of response?
I think people want to know how others use their macbook. what I pointed out in my other post on this thread though, a M1 16GB Macbook Pro can be running out of RAM and start swapping even if idle, if you have a lot of tabs open- I find it useful and believe many do the same.
 

k3rast4se

macrumors newbie
Sep 1, 2010
23
3
montreal
While it's true that Apple Silicon can leverage SSD as swap through high-bandwidth interconnect, it is still limited by SSD read latency in certain workloads. For example:
Samsung 990 Pro lowest read latency: 36ms aka 36,000,000ns
LPDDR4-5 latency: 0.200ns
So yes, RAM is 7,200,000x faster at answering back.
So, it all comes down to workloads, Apple's memory management, and software implementation. I'm sure Apple is smart enough to keep latency-dependent processes in the RAM and transfer everything else to the swap. However, I don't have a great degree of confidence regarding developers. Personally, I would choose RAM over SSD since it is physically faster than SSD, and Apple cannot go against this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vivalarock

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
I would say go 16GB if you know you won't use Parallels. If you think you might use Parallels, go 32.
Good suggestion but to do that we also need to pay an annual subscription fee to assign more RAM to the Windows partition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electrojake

Bodhitree

macrumors 68020
Apr 5, 2021
2,085
2,216
Netherlands
I’ve got an M1 iMac 24” with 16 GB of ram and I usually have 5-6 GB free, running about 10 Safari tabs, Pages, Music, TV, WhatsApp desktop client and a few other things. I’d probably be OK with 8 GB but occasionally I run Unity 3D Editor and then it can spike rapidly. Anyway, with 16 GB I’ve never yet gone into yellow memory pressure.

In the OP’s case, I’d say go for 32 GB. You know you run with a lot of open apps, memory is a concern for you, and there is always future proofing to consider. It seems a good bet to spend the extra money and avoid a potential problem.

It’s true what someone said further up, that if you need 32 or 64 GB you generally know the exact workload you are buying it for. You’d probably be OK with 16 GB, but if you really stress the machine with browser tabs and apps three years down the line you don’t want to be stuck.
 

Zdigital2015

macrumors 601
Jul 14, 2015
4,143
5,622
East Coast, United States
Can he get a model with 24GB?
He may need to depending on what model Mac he’s looking at. I don’t remember reading a specific model that he’s referring to as wanting to purchase. Therein lies another subtle Apple Tax in that the Mac mini with M2 Pro is the cheapest path to 32GB, so the minimum buy-in price for that “luxury” 32GB is $1699 USD, much less what the Canadian dollar price is. The poster needs to look at what their real budget is and then work backwards from that to narrow down what actual Mac they’re really looking at purchasing and whether or not 24GB is the actual max DRAM in their future.
 

smirking

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,942
4,009
Silicon Valley
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?

Rack up all that's different between those old computers and current Macs. The SSDs are much faster. The networking protocols are much faster. The RAM is faster. Processors are faster. Every step in the chain is a completely different animal than it was before, yet people still approach this like someone in 2012 asking in all seriousness "How many megahertz in that bad boy?"

16GB is a healthy amount of RAM for everyday users and even for many heavy users. I'm a developer, server admin, and a photographer so I fall into the heavy category. If you're not sure you need it, you probably don't. Don't base this on the color of the memory bar. That doesn't mean much on its own.

I ran an 8GB 13" M1 in the red for 2 weeks with a heavier workflow than you described. I was running side by side: Parallels w/Windows 11, PHPStorm, a VM Web Server, Capture One Pro, Photoshop, multiple browsers with lots of tabs, and a ton of the usual programs like Mail and accessory helper programs. I even threw in a compile job in XCode once just to see what would happen.

It performed surprisingly well. Whatever speed impairment I had was not obvious to me and when I did have performance problems, it was due to the program itself. This was before a lot of programs were optimized to run on the M-chips. The only thing that dragged badly from lack of memory was Windows 11 running over Parallels.

2 weeks living lean like this made me realize I didn't need to stay at 32GB for my next machine or jump up to 64GB to feed my growing RAM anxiety. Rather than feed it, I cured my RAM anxiety instead. I felt pretty secure that 16GB would be enough when I upgraded to a 16" M1 Pro.

Mind you, I did initially order 32GB just in case, but I had been running my mouth that 8GB was surprisingly workable. I needed to put my money where my mouth was and if I was wrong, it'd only be right for me to suffer the consequences first hand.

That was over a year ago. I'm not suffering.
 
Last edited:

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
This is what my idle MacBook Pro M1 Pro 16BG 1TB stats look like. I would say that 16 GB isn’t enough even if you only leave a lot of tabs open plus WhatsApp on desktop. Just opened my MacBook for the screenshot. No working on it being done yet.

I saw something like that when I got mine. I think immediately after release, there were some talks about memory leak. I got so scared that I immediately returned it.
 
Last edited:

Quackington

macrumors 6502a
Aug 12, 2010
546
314
England, UK
I see it this way Cham2000. . .
While I completely agree with leman's post above and feel that technically 16Gb is plenty, I'd say that for psychological reasons you'd better go with 32Gb of Ram because if you settle for 16 you will constantly be worried about not having enough RAM. It will ruin then joy of your new system. Get the 32Gb and be done with it. No stress, no doubts, no second thoughts after you own it.
This is spot on.
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
How about just buy the 16GB model and if it is not sufficient later, trade-in for the 32GB model? I am considering this myself. Still changing the shopping list several times a day and Mac Pro could be released this or next month. By the time a configured model is delivered 2-3 weeks later, probably Apple will have announced new models. (Would the lowest-end Mac Pro model comparable with Mini M2 Pro?) I cannot decide what to buy thanks to Apple making components not upgradable and their marketing team playing number games (lowest end models have slow SSD and expensive upgrade cost which could easily cost more than another model. e.g. M2 Mini to M2 Pro Mini to M1 Max Studio). A never ending cycle.

Probably I will lose half the money trading in with Apple. I don't want to go through troubles selling in eBay nor stranger.
 
Last edited:

IG88

macrumors 65816
Nov 4, 2016
1,117
1,645
Haha, these threads on RAM seem to escalate regularly. Now we're at 32GB is the minimum sane amount? Will we be at 64 or bust by the end of the year?

Also, hear me out, maybe you don't need 80 open tabs across multiple browsers going at the same time? Turn it into a tab group and close 40 of them until you actually need them?
That it's impossible (without soldering) to upgrade the RAM later is what sets this angst up.

I toyed with the idea of 32GB, to run VMs without having any worries about RAM, but finally decided the extra $500 wasn't worth it.

Its gross that Apple charges so much on RAM upgrades for RAM chips that cost them maybe a few dollars.

Same with storage upgrades. Their markup is ridiculous. The base should be 16GB RAM / 512 GB SSD for their prices.
 

MallardDuck

macrumors 68000
Jul 21, 2014
1,677
3,222
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!
So the modern OS's themselves really want 8GB to work well. Yes, they can work in 4, but my experience is that leaving 8 is the best option. That leaves 8GB for applications, with room to spike up to 12 if you need it. Swapping will get you more (that's the memory pressure indicator in activity monitor), but swapping is always slower than running in RAM. Where M1 does better is that it degrades more gracefully than Intel - but it still degrades. Memory used is memory used. But workloads vary - I have 64GB and am running at 52 in use right now. So what you need is real data, which is easy to get.

I'd check out your current memory usage in activity monitor with both a typical, and a maximum workload running. Look at Memory used vs physical memory. If it's close to 16 (especially for a typical workload), buy 32. If it's well under, 16 is probably fine for your workload today. And that's the other kicker - how long do you plan to use your machine? Software is bloating as bad as the federal deficit (well, maybe not quite that bad). Your memory requirements will only go up. 32 is absolutely more future proof than 16, and 16 is the minimum I'd buy if you can afford it. I did buy an 8GB air for my niece for college, because, well, she's 18 and that's what I could afford (besides, she does most of her school work online, and as long as she doesn't use Chrome, she's fine).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scarrus

Ethanmenzel

macrumors member
Dec 24, 2017
42
52
I see it this way Cham2000. . .
While I completely agree with leman's post above and feel that technically 16Gb is plenty, I'd say that for psychological reasons you'd better go with 32Gb of Ram because if you settle for 16 you will constantly be worried about not having enough RAM. It will ruin then joy of your new system. Get the 32Gb and be done with it. No stress, no doubts, no second thoughts after you own it.
This is so me with my current 512GB MacBook Pro that I will never buy anything ever again with 512. I upgraded from 256GB on my iPhone to 1TB because I just couldn't have the constant reminder of my MacBook Pro with 512 GB of storage.

Don't let anyone fool you storage is still expensive but not as expensive as gen hers are making it out to be.

My Next MacBook Pro will be 64GB ram because I am using a 2017 intel MacBook Pro with a high battery count (not 1000 yet) and it's already throttling performance to the point where I wish I had the extra RAM. I'm the person who likes to hold on to their Mac for as long as they can and will upgrade when the features are worth it like M3. I read the reviews and make judgements based on whats out now and what will be in the future if I wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electrojake

Media Pimp

macrumors member
Oct 18, 2007
45
65
Maryland
@Media Pimp Ask her to close and restart her web browser every other day and see if that helps. It seems I have the same use case.
Yep. She does keep a million tabs open at all times and refuses to close any of them, as she insists that she "needs" them open 🙃. She tried to use tab groups, but forgets about them... something about things not existing if she doesn't see them. I just tell her to restart her machine, which always fixes the issue for a bit. 🤷🏾‍♂️
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.