Choosing internal memory: why is 32gb so unpopular?

[tigersoul]

Looking at buying a Macbook pro 2021 16,2" or possibly waiting for the 2023 version. Everything is clear to me but one detail: why is the 32gb internal memory option so unpopular? I mean like I get it, it's expensive to pay for, but you're already getting a VERY expensive machine that you're likely going to hold on to for maybe 6-8 years, and you're fine with having just 16gb? How would that be enough in a few years even when every damn app turns into electron and using hundreds of mb's?

Am I missing something? Will 16gb be just fine and I'm just overestimating what will be needed a few years from now or what?

 

[richmlow]

Looking at buying a Macbook pro 2021 16,2" or possibly waiting for the 2023 version. Everything is clear to me but one detail: why is the 32gb internal memory option so unpopular? I mean like I get it, it's expensive to pay for, but you're already getting a VERY expensive machine that you're likely going to hold on to for maybe 6-8 years, and you're fine with having just 16gb? How would that be enough in a few years even when every damn app turns into electron and using hundreds of mb's?

Am I missing something? Will 16gb be just fine and I'm just overestimating what will be needed a few years from now or what?

Hello tigersoul,


I think that you hit the nail on the head.... people don't want to pay the extra money for 32GB RAM.

However, I think that having more RAM is never a bad thing. The argument of "unused RAM is wasted RAM" is not a compelling one, in my mind. That's just like saying "unused brain power is wasted (in a human)!" Besides, workflows can increase in the future and new macOS's have a tendency to have higher RAM requirements over time.

My main workhorse is still the (late) 2013 Mac Pro, which has 64GB RAM.


richmlow

 

[fatTribble]

I think it has everything to do with the applications you run. I basically run the standard apps like Safari, Photos, Finder, etc. I’m in no way a power user. And rarely do I run very many apps at the same time. If I were to config a new MacBook Pro today I’d likely choose 16GB for memory.

 

[tigersoul]

Hello tigersoul,


I think that you hit the nail on the head.... people don't want to pay the extra money for 32GB RAM.

However, I think that having more RAM is never a bad thing. The argument of "unused RAM is wasted RAM" is not a compelling one, in my mind. That's just like saying "unused brain power is wasted (in a human)!" Besides, workflows can increase in the future and new macOS's have a tendency to have higher RAM requirements over time.

My main workhorse is still the (late) 2013 Mac Pro, which has 64GB RAM.


richmlow

- That's likely it, but considering where things are going with electron apps...

I think it has everything to do with the applications you run. I basically run the standard apps like Safari, Photos, Finder, etc. I’m in no way a power user. And rarely do I run very many apps at the same time. If I were to config a new MacBook Pro today I’d likely choose 16GB for memory.

- That's the issue for me. I need to run emulation at times and a DAW with many plugins.

 

[glenthompson]

I think it has everything to do with the applications you run. I basically run the standard apps like Safari, Photos, Finder, etc. I’m in no way a power user. And rarely do I run very many apps at the same time. If I were to config a new MacBook Pro today I’d likely choose 16GB for memory.

Exactly my situation. I have 2 Has, an older MacBook Air that I take on infrequent trips and a M1 iMac. The Air has 8gb and runs into memory pressure issues on rare occasions. The iMac has 16gb and never runs out of memory. I don't usually run many apps at once and few of them are memory intensive.

 

[barkomatic]

I chose 16GB because it's the stock the model that I didn't have to wait several weeks for though I might have gone with 32GB if I didn't have to wait. I'm also not exactly a power user either so this will be fine with me for years. Instead of spending more to spec out and future proof my computer I'd rather just buy an entirely new Mac when mine slows down or can't do what I want it to. There are often additional hardware feature that get introduced beyond just RAM in future generations.

I know these computers are marketed as "pro" machines that only video editors should get, but in reality I think most people are regular consumers who wanted the slightly bigger and better screen the MBP offers.

 

[profcutter]

I chose 16GB because it's the stock the model that I didn't have to wait several weeks for though I might have gone with 32GB if I didn't have to wait. I'm also not exactly a power user either so this will be fine with me for years. Instead of spending more to spec out and future proof my computer I'd rather just buy an entirely new Mac when mine slows down or can't do what I want it to. There are often additional hardware feature that get introduced beyond just RAM in future generations.

I know these computers are marketed as "pro" machines that only video editors should get, but in reality I think most people are regular consumers who wanted the slightly bigger and better screen the MBP offers.

I think this is the answer right here. There’s no sweet spot for the in-stock models. You either get 16GB, get the 4tb 64gb monster, or wait some unknown amount of time for your custom machine to arrive. I’m looking for a 2TB 32gig model, and my options are either wait for a custom build, or get a refurb. Given that we’re probably close to the end of this model cycle, it’s hard to commit to waiting for them to build me one now. I’d much prefer just cruising down to Delaware to the Costco to get one there with their great return policy.

 

[velocityg4]

It depends on the usage. For a laptop. I'd find 16GB to be plenty and expect it'd hold up, performance wise. For my usage for ten years. So, that is what I'd go with on a laptop.

My desktop usage is totally different though. I want at least 32GB RAM. If I was buying something like the Mac Studio. I'd get 64GB to make sure it lasts. Because my RAM needs are generally greater than my CPU needs. I could actually do fine with a third gen i7. So, the M1 Max would last me a long time.

Cost wise. The RAM upgrades offer a good value to lifespan. I may pay an extra 15% to 25%. But I expect a return of at least a 50% increase in useful life. Some people might want a new computer every few years. I wouldn't mind it. But I consider it wasteful, monetarily and environmentally.

 

[profcutter]

It depends on the usage. For a laptop. I'd find 16GB to be plenty and expect it'd hold up, performance wise. For my usage for ten years. So, that is what I'd go with on a laptop.

My desktop usage is totally different though. I want at least 32GB RAM. If I was buying something like the Mac Studio. I'd get 64GB to make sure it lasts. Because my RAM needs are generally greater than my CPU needs. I could actually do fine with a third gen i7. So, the M1 Max would last me a long time.

Cost wise. The RAM upgrades offer a good value to lifespan. I may pay an extra 15% to 25%. But I expect a return of at least a 50% increase in useful life. Some people might want a new computer every few years. I wouldn't mind it. But I consider it wasteful, monetarily and environmentally.

Can I just say, I love your profile picture. Is that from the old educational film about the military computer? I adore that thing. “The operator can step backwards in time.…. with MEMORY” SAGE, that’s the ticket.

 

[rmadsen3]

I think it has everything to do with the applications you run. I basically run the standard apps like Safari, Photos, Finder, etc. I’m in no way a power user. And rarely do I run very many apps at the same time. If I were to config a new MacBook Pro today I’d likely choose 16GB for memory.

Web browsers use a ton of RAM. I've got MBP14 with 32GB and even still I watch how many Amazon tabs I keep open in Safari.

 

[GMShadow]

$400 to go from 16 to 32GB is ridiculous, honestly. It's $150 to do that on a lower-tier XPS from Dell, and for the price range the MBPs run in, 32GB tends to be standard in the PC world.

I am aware the Mx chips use on package memory. It's not $250 more expensive.

 

[Marsikus]

Base models give awesome bang for a buck, but upgrades raise price nearly exponentially.
And despite Apple is greedy on specs, they work great even on “little” hardware.

 

[velocityg4]

Can I just say, I love your profile picture. Is that from the old educational film about the military computer? I adore that thing. “The operator can step backwards in time.…. with MEMORY” SAGE, that’s the ticket.

Thanks! I was reading up on computer history and liked the looks of the CDC 6600. It just has personality. So, I searched pictures of it to find a good one.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

Popular or not odds are good someone configuring a machine in the $3K+ range is the same person that will upgrade when there’s a new chip or something else that makes a 10% increase in performance. Never heard of someone that’s interested in tech holding onto a main device for 6-8yrs let alone the poster in this thread who claims 10yrs. If it’s not your primary device outside a phone then maybe but there will always be something to upgrade over if you like tech a 6yrs is a long time let alone 10.

 

[Shirasaki]

It’s unpopular because:
1. It’s still widely believed that macOS can run at very little Ram, which is just untrue. My 16GB ram M1 MacBook Pro 2020 constantly running low on RAM despite not running intensive applications. I just run many applications at the same time. It’s not that hard to lag a machine, even M1. Trust me, it’s not. macOS definitely benefit from more RAM.

2. Ordering issue. BTO is amazing when you don’t need to wait for ages to get one, but a pain if you want a machine Now now now now now. Apple Store usually don’t stock many BTO options except very popular ones, meaning your actual in-stock choices are limited. It’s more on logistic side than anything else really, and there’s nothing else we can do about it.

So yeah. Cost of upgrade is also a factor but Apple has been notorious about it for decades so nothing new there.

 

[profcutter]

Thanks! I was reading up on computer history and liked the looks of the CDC 6600. It just has personality. So, I searched pictures of it to find a good one.

Oh man, you’re gonna love this:

On Guard! The Story of SAGE : IBM Corporation, Military Products Division : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Innovations in computer technology as weapons in the Cold War.

archive.org

 

[PauloSera]

I mean like I get it, it's expensive to pay for, but you're already getting a VERY expensive machine that you're likely going to hold on to for maybe 6-8 years

This how my thought process always works. You have to be conscious of the fact that you are already spending a LOT of money. Spending a little bit more to greatly extend the value of the expensive purchase is a GOOD choice. Trying to spend "as little as possible" on an expensive purchase is never a good choice. To me that's a waste of money.

 

[PauloSera]

It’s unpopular because:
1. It’s still widely believed that macOS can run at very little Ram, which is just untrue.

Of course it can. There are machines running Ventura with 4 GB of RAM. It just runs much better with 8, and even better with 16, and better still with 32, etc. because macOS will use every ounce of RAM you can throw at it. But it will also work brilliantly with small amounts, much better than Windows would for instance.

 

[antiprotest]

If the machine is mainly for emails, browsing, streaming movies and making video calls, the M series + 16GB is plenty, even 8GB. But it's really just because it's expensive. If it's free everybody would be getting 32GB. And some people has to balance the configuration by putting more money into storage. Remember storage is also something that would keep the machine useful some years down the line. If you keep maxing both RAM and storage you could soon get another Mac or iPad altogether so it's usually not done.

 

[Realityck]

Looking at buying a Macbook pro 2021 16,2" or possibly waiting for the 2023 version. Everything is clear to me but one detail: why is the 32gb internal memory option so unpopular? I mean like I get it, it's expensive to pay for, but you're already getting a VERY expensive machine that you're likely going to hold on to for maybe 6-8 years, and you're fine with having just 16gb? How would that be enough in a few years even when every damn app turns into electron and using hundreds of mb's?

Am I missing something? Will 16gb be just fine and I'm just overestimating what will be needed a few years from now or what?

There is no popularity with installed memory unless you are trying to imply people opt for the cheapest configuration.

Obviously 16 GB allows enough of the system and multiple apps to be opened with rarely swap used back to SSD. 8GB is too little IMHO. I found that out back using a 2012 15" Retina MBP w/256 SSD/16GB RAM and the system size in RAM has grown a lot since.

I replaced that 2012 15" Retina MBP with a 16" M1 Max MBP that comes with 32GB RAM/1 TB SSD standard. Yes I keep MBP laptops a long time. Yes that 9 years!

 

[Marsikus]

It’s still widely believed that macOS can run at very little Ram, which is just untrue.

My minimalistic MBP 2017 with dual-core processor performs quite well with 8GB RAM.
And the whole configuration is well-balanced: small processor, small RAM, small disk - no crashes, never overheats.

However, when most of the model lineup starts with 8 GB in 2022, that is some kind of eye-rolling moment anyway.

 

[Shirasaki]

Of course it can. There are machines running Ventura with 4 GB of RAM. It just runs much better with 8, and even better with 16, and better still with 32, etc. because macOS will use every ounce of RAM you can throw at it. But it will also work brilliantly with small amounts, much better than Windows would for instance.

4GB of Ram for Ventura? Some of those oldest Intel MacBooks? It can run of course, but how great would that be? I doubt it would be super great. And I am not sure how “much better than Windows” achieved. On my personal Windows PC with Core i5-9300H and 16GB of RAM the responsiveness is good for the hardware, whereas adjacent MacBook Pro I mentioned in last post gets stuck here and there more often than I like. Beach ball is not a rare occurrence. 4GB 2014 Intel MacBook Air already struggle to run Big Sur, even after closing out background programs and whatnot.

Yes, it’s my personal experience and by no means it is representative, but I’d fight against every claim on YouTube saying 8GB is enough for macOS unless your workload is mostly single task. I have no idea how they edit videos on 8GB MacBook Air and get comparable result with MacBook Pro.

 

[hoo-man-b-ing]

Remember that the cross section of folks on Macrumors is not only not representative of the global population but that their computing needs may be very different from your own.

Personally, I wanted 32GB RAM back on my 2016 15” MacBook Pro for coding/containerization/search/ML/gaming, but that wasn’t an option so I reluctantly settled for 16 since I needed a new laptop then. It was painfully slow for me by the time I traded it in for a 2021 16” with 64GB RAM, but I’m glad I waited.

There are tons of scenarios that benefit from heaps (ha!) of RAM, but a relatively small percentage of the Macrumors (and even global) population may engage with them to warrant the extra cost. Besides, psychologically RAM may be an easy thing to deprioritize for folks, thinking:
“Well, I want something fast so I definitely need a fast CPU”
“And of course I need graphics performance for my games/work”
“And sure I need a place to store all of my work and games, so I better get a big enough drive“
“And I want a good amount of RAM, but it’s expensive and maybe the least important concern for me. Besides, I can always swap to these super fast disks if I need to.”

For some folks, 8GB meets their expectations. Some of those folks may be swapping like bananas and bottlenecking on RAM, but it’s really a question of priorities/needs and if they’re cool with that level of performance then that just frees them up to save that money or spend it on something that matters more to them.

 

[boswald]

It's overkill for most people and too expensive. Just a guess. I tend to take whatever the current standard is and double it (8GB > 16GB) for breathing room.

 

[Saturn1217]

It's not just that you have to pay for it. It's that it is not a stock option on any of the M1Pro machines. That means usually (but not always) you need to buy directly from Apple and miss out on significant discounts which SHOULD be there for a year old computer.

That being said, I have a 16gb 14" M1Pro. I thought 32gb would be overkill. It is not. I don't do anything intensive on my computer but I do like to multitask and I develop in Chrome (yeah I know it is a memory hog). My next machine will have >16gb of ram for sure.