Buyer’s remorse for 64gb ram?

[wegster]

I just ran into an application that actually needs more than 32gb of RAM otherwise it doesn't run. This is an image reconstruction technique in an academic lab so its not very optimized well at all (like most academic programmers), but damn I do wonder if 64gb could have helped

Oof on the doesn't run at all part, but yeah - not terribly surprising (but also fairly rare at least that I've seen to date).
I'm surprised my lead data scientist didn't chide me for not going to 64GB (I would up picking up a MBP16 - 32GB, 2.4GHz 8 core), but DS is his all-day job and we're still working to get corporate to get him into a 32GB system as is..

Any alternative software available to work from an expanded scratch SSD or shrink the working data set in RAM, or just 'sorry, that's it'?

 

[impulse462]

Oof on the doesn't run at all part, but yeah - not terribly surprising (but also fairly rare at least that I've seen to date).
I'm surprised my lead data scientist didn't chide me for not going to 64GB (I would up picking up a MBP16 - 32GB, 2.4GHz 8 core), but DS is his all-day job and we're still working to get corporate to get him into a 32GB system as is..

Any alternative software available to work from an expanded scratch SSD or shrink the working data set in RAM, or just 'sorry, that's it'?

we actually have a whole set-up where i can vnc into clusters or workstations. right now using a 64-core/256gb RAM workstation. its fine. i get it. but itd be nice to have it run locally. you do ML/DL related stuff?

 

[HelloMikee]

I dont understand how people can barely reach 32GB. On my iMac, I am constantly reaching it. I am 1000% getting 64GB in any computer I end up getting.

 

[maflynn]

I dont understand how people can barely reach 32GB

Maybe they don't use it as you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have 8GB on my iMac and I've not incurred any resource constraints at all. Granted most, if not all of my iMac usage has evaporated as I now use a laptop, but when it was my primary computer, using PS, LR and various other apps, my ram pressure was rarely in the red

 

[chrono1081]

No regrets here. Houdini loves all my RAM.

 

[hftvhftv]

My opinion is that if you can not articulate exactly why your workflow requires more than 32GB of RAM, then you absolutely positively do not need more than that.

The idea of buying more RAM to future proof the machine is outdated and does not apply to machines that start with 32GB RAM. The only way 32 will become outdated within the lifespan of the machine is if your needs for that machine change.

Heck, for “Normal” use, 8GB is still fine for a lot of folks - that’s why Apple still uses that as the base case for the 13” models. And people on this forum have been saying 8GB would be out dated “in 2-3 years” since 2012.

So, if you don’t do any “heavy” computing (i.e. video editing, running VMs) then 16GB will fine for a long time. If you think you might use the machine that way over it’s lifetime, then 32 makes sense as an upgrade. But unless you need it now, 64 is overkill and a waste of money.

I'd agree with you completely. There's no need to purchase more memory than what you need now, as by the time you need more than what you need now, hopefully you also need to upgrade the rest of your computer in which case the disposability of new MacBooks forces you to buy a new one anyways. I have been using my early 2011 MacBook Pro 15" with 8GB of memory since upgrading in 2013 and I haven't needed to go for 16GB as macOS is still so extremely efficient.

 

[impulse462]

I dont understand how people can barely reach 32GB. On my iMac, I am constantly reaching it. I am 1000% getting 64GB in any computer I end up getting. View attachment 899943

you dont need 64gb ram (given this screenshot). your memory pressure is quite low. only if your pressure is high, which means the system is failing to free enough ram dynamically when you run your programs. unix-based OS's use all available ram to increase the responsiveness of the system. if you had 64gb of ram you'd say "i need 128gb" because the system will load more things into ram because theres an abudance of it

 

[HelloMikee]

you dont need 64gb ram (given this screenshot). your memory pressure is quite low. only if your pressure is high, which means the system is failing to free enough ram dynamically when you run your programs. unix-based OS's use all available ram to increase the responsiveness of the system. if you had 64gb of ram you'd say "i need 128gb" because the system will load more things into ram because theres an abudance of it

interesting, I’ll have to look into this more, thanks!

 

[Schismz]

I dont understand how people can barely reach 32GB. On my iMac, I am constantly reaching it. I am 1000% getting 64GB in any computer I end up getting. View attachment 899943

It really depends on what you do with your computer. I've been at 96GB since 2010; currently @ 384GB. This is about average, not under heavy load (Mac Pro):

Haven't really paid any attention to the latest MBP, but from recollection the latest 2019 16" is relatively powerful. Is the RAM replaceable or have Apple soldered it in again? Since we're all locked down and I have way too much spare time on my hands, I've actually loaded the page for the new MBP... so you've got 8 cores, a halfway decent graphics card, can upgrade to a 8TB SSD (the only computer in Apple's lineup that does this other than Mac Pro); apparently you cannot replace the RAM and have to choose 32GB or 64GB forever.

My question would be, if "8GB RAM is more than enough" then why do you need a MBP? The least powerful computer Apple sells or an iPad would probably be more than enough for whatever your use case is.

 

[PeterJP]

The idea of buying more RAM to future proof the machine is outdated and does not apply to machines that start with 32GB RAM. The only way 32 will become outdated within the lifespan of the machine is if your needs for that machine change.

I've seen so many people post 'aspirational' reasons for buying an upgrade. "If I would have 32GB, I could do this and that" and then they buy it and never start doing this and that. It's the basis of our over-consumption society. There's no reason at all to get it if you don't need it. Indeed, because the 'for future proofing' era is over.

I am still using my late 2013 8/256 MBP 13. In the 6 years I had it now, i suddenly started programming again. Fortunately, I'm used to vi/command line, but I'm pretty certain my machine would've coped pretty well with Eclipse as well. Then I dabbled a bit with AI and neural networks. Nothing too fancy, but I was much more constrained by CPU and GPU than by RAM. Now I find myself doing plenty of stuff with VMs for server tests before deploying on metal or Proxmox. The MBP is coping pretty well. And just for fun, I started doing some music. Loading a 2GB piano sample set takes some time, but once it's memory, the machine plays it like it’s nothing.

That's quite a bit of 'doing more than I originally intended', but that's why I upgraded to an MBP after trialing an MBA first. The machine just goes and goes, even with 'just' 8gb RAM. I wished many times I had gotten more storage, and sometimes that I would have had a more powerful CPU. But RAM? Almost never.

 

[wegster]

I dont understand how people can barely reach 32GB. On my iMac, I am constantly reaching it. I am 1000% getting 64GB in any computer I end up getting.

In your app's display, you're only using ~24GB in reality.
Cached memory is released to the system as apps aren't using it any more.
Is your memory pressure typically in yellow or red?

Any apps using large data files, data sets etc., moreso those doing lots of editing across numeric files - I would be surprised if 'cached memory' doesn't drive through the roof, but it's of no real consequence. I am curious why you're seeing so much compressed, though.

*shrug* It's all about specific usage, and understanding which memory is truly active/used, etc.
Maybe for your workflows and file sizes for in-memory editing (e.g. lots of individual photos -> cached memory, no real impact IMO, but large video files could benefit from in-memory editing) you do. Many don't, and certainly not for typical web/office programs/mail etc. types of usage.
[automerge]1584896064[/automerge]

I'd agree with you completely. There's no need to purchase more memory than what you need now, as by the time you need more than what you need now, hopefully you also need to upgrade the rest of your computer in which case the disposability of new MacBooks forces you to buy a new one anyways. I have been using my early 2011 MacBook Pro 15" with 8GB of memory since upgrading in 2013 and I haven't needed to go for 16GB as macOS is still so extremely efficient.

I had kept my 2011 CTO MBP for a while - but upgraded it to 1TB SSD + 16GB RAM.
It worked for me for some time. Amusingly, when I next 'upgraded' it was to a 2015 Retina - same 1TB (but Apple/from factory) and 16GB factory. Read/write speeds were a bit better, but it wasn't hugely faster overall, and still ran into limits on memory as VMs and dev tools would bring it to it's knees - still usable, as SSDs certainly make swapping less painful vs spinning platter drives, but combination of apps, data loaded, VMs, as well as hitting near storage capacity made it time for an upgrade.

The most immediate noticeable difference on powering up the 32GB 16" MBP, besides thr shrunk borders and huge (in comparison) trackpad, was with multiple VMs up and other standard apps, the system remains quick and response, no beachballs - memory pressure isn't sitting in red like it was before.

I agree with your intent, though. With the non-upgradeable (other than USB-C/TB3 for eGPU, storage, etc.) fashion of MBPs (and Surfacebooks and clones) today, it helps to understand how you really use your system, the actual specs you could benefit from, and consider what your upgrade interval is. Before shifting primarily to laptop + cloud, I used to build or upgrade my own workstations yearly(which honestly wasn't always needed), but have been on a ~4-4.5 year upgrade cycle on laptops for a bit. Entirely possible by the time I upgrade next I'll be running red on memory pressure routinely, but I should be good for at least a few years with the 32GB. Numbers will vary for others - if you're not in constant red for memory pressure at 8 or 16GB, without significant changes in what you'll be doing, there isn't much realbenefit in moving to 64GB, and likely not even 32GB, but YMMV as always.

 

[this1is4gingers]

Computational design form exploration. I create algorithms that result in a lot of 3D geometry, often using physics solvers. My portable Windows box at work has Xeon, 64 GB, Nvidia Quadro RTX. I hate Windows.

Have you considered an eGPU with a 64 GB, i9 MBP? Nvidia eGPUs have had issues with newer MacOS versions, but have been reported to work on Windows via Boot Camp and Parallels 15.1.x.

 

[MrGimper]

Nope, on the UK refurb store the difference between the 2.4/32 and the 2.3/64 was £130, so I chose the latter.