For people who believe 64GB memory is too much. It's possibly not.

[arw]

Thanks. Are you able to substantiate what you’re saying though?
Hope you can understand, it’s very hard to believe that with 75GB memory used the machine will behave the same with just 16GM of RAM.

Gladly. Overall, it is a complicated topic.
Again, there are plenty of use cases where more RAM is highly beneficial and you never can have too much RAM.
But imho, your screenshot and description do not substantiate how much RAM is actually required but only how much is used just because it's there.

I was referring to the statement "I've got nothing open!" and I assume your wife meant there weren't any actual files opened and I therefore limited my response to "the given scenario".

1. Cached files (18.62 GB): Those are recently used files. They could contain a 18 GB movie file that your wife has opened in the current user session. Unless you need to open that movie again at lightspeed in the current session, the cached file serves no purpose at all. A system with less RAM would not behave any different.
2. Adobe XD (11.36 GB): Those are mostly temporary cache files from closed projects that haven't been cleared. Not the program code itself. If you don't re-open these projects again in the current session, they serve no purpose. A system with less RAM would not behave any different when creating a new project because XD would not allow to keep ~10 GB of unnecessary cache files in the first place but purge them.

Let me explain what I mean with (2) using Photoshop as an example:
I have no files opened anymore, yet it occupies over 17 GB cache files from a finished and closed project.

If I don't edit said project again in the current session, the cached files serve no purpose.
You can force to remove unnecessary cache files by clicking "Photoshop > About Photoshop..." while keeping the option key pressed. This results in ~15 GB less RAM usage:

For system with limited RAM ressources, Photoshop does this purging by itself more frequently.
So a system with less RAM would not behave any different when creating new projects.

I hope you see where I'm getting at. With your screenshot and the information of no opened files, the used RAM does not automatically indicate the system or apps actually require keeping all of that stuff in the RAM, just that it is kept in there because you still have plenty free.

 

[kschendel]

I’m trying to dispel the myth going on on these forums that 16GB of unified memory is enough for everything.

I haven't seen anyone sensible say that. What is said, and I agree with, is that 16GB is plenty for lots of users and use cases. The same people, if at all sensible, will add that memory size should be chosen according to the use case. Someone using CC apps casually and occasionally doesn't need 64GB of memory if they are willing to wait a little tiny bit. An intensive user shouldn't settle for 16GB.

16 GB is enough for "most people", because most people aren't intensive users. I am typing this on a M2 Air with 16 GB, and I'm 99% sure I could have got by with 8 GB for daily use. It's the occasional build box use that I wanted 16 GB for.

 

[257Loner]

I've got a question, folks. How much RAM do these applications require?

 

[boss.king]

I've got a question, folks. How much RAM do these applications require?
View attachment 2334304

How long is a piece of string?

It all depends. Taking Firefox as an example, it could be extremely light, less than a gig, or it could be 10+GB. It's about how you use it.

 

[257Loner]

How long is a piece of string?

It all depends. Taking Firefox as an example, it could be extremely light, less than a gig, or it could be 10+GB. It's about how you use it.

So no matter how much RAM I buy, Firefox will hog all of it?

 

[MRxROBOT]

So no matter how much RAM I buy, Firefox will hog all of it?

That's not what they said. Your use case is individual to you. For instance, I could have a couple dozen tabs open across a couple windows and be using 10GB of RAM. You could be using half a dozen on less demanding sites and only be using 2GB of RAM.

 

[boss.king]

So no matter how much RAM I buy, Firefox will hog all of it?

Not at all. Like I said before and MRxROBOT said above, it's based on what you actually do with the app. Not all websites are the same. Not all tasks on all websites are the same. For example, this Macrumors tab is taking 200mb in Safari. A Reddit tab I have open is at 780mb. They're both essentially just message boards, but they use different amounts of RAM.

Think of the RAM like space on your desk. On a small desk, you'll run out of space quickly and need to put some things away to make space other things. On a bigger desk, you can have more things out before you run out of space. If your desk is really big (i.e. lots of RAM) you may never fill it up before you decide to clear it and start again. Writing a sticky note to yourself does not take up as much space as playing a game of chess. It all depends on the amount of space you need for each task and how much you can leave out before you have to put things away.

The more you use Firefox and the more you load, the bigger its cache will get in RAM. Macs are really good at managing RAM so that if the cache gets too big, it'll boot out some stuff you likely won't need to make space for new things. If you have loads and loads of space (RAM), it will keep more stuff around (use more RAM).

 

[saudor]

I’m trying to dispel the myth going on on these forums that 16GB of unified memory is enough for everything. Maybe people haven’t really experienced serious swapping? Have they bought into the idea that unified memory is somehow special? It’s been proven it’s not. Swapping on a super-fast SSD is still swapping.

You're wasting your time though. People who think 8gb is enough will never agree regardless of how many gigs of SSD they swap. For many, it doesn't even matter because they're going to upgrade in 1-2 years and unless they're using extreme swap (10-20gb), the SSD will easily last those 1-2 years. For the average joe, 16 is enough though.

Same with battery cycles in phones (another heated argument). For most it doesn't matter because they'll just upgrade their phones in 1-2 years.

 

[seek3r]

My wife's iMac memory usage under: "I've got nothing open!"

I don't know why she said that; clearly, she's got everything open.

I saw several people here concerned about having "wasted" or "idle" memory, when opting for 32 or 64GB with a new Mac. I believe there is no such thing, really, as "wasted" memory, under specialist professional use, with a 64GB config and under.
View attachment 2334107

You only actually have 6.73 GB in active use, the rest is cached data. Dont get me wrong, the OS using tons of available memory to keep caches alive is a good thing, but you’re not actively using 75 GB, you’re using less than 7.

 

[chrfr]

You only actually have 6.73 GB in active use, the rest is cached data. Dont get me wrong, the OS using tons of available memory to keep caches alive is a good thing, but you’re not actively using 75 GB, you’re using less than 7.

Wired memory is memory that is in use and cannot be cached, typically the OS itself; it's not the only memory that's actively in use.

View memory usage in Activity Monitor on Mac

In Activity Monitor, view the amount of system memory being used on your Mac, including physical, compressed, wired, and app memory.

support.apple.com

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Wasn't sure if I should have posted here but just opened another thread asking for advice on whether 64gb on a M2 Studio Max is more than enough for Photoshop/Illustrator as a full time artist... or if the 96gb is worth it ... sounds like my gut feeling of the 38core 96gb Max is the way to go with the Ultra being out of budget range. 🤔
(currently on M2 pro mini 32gb ram)

Get the 96 GB. It will run smoother for a longer life cycle. I did. IMO it is nuts to intentionally sub-optimize a pricey M2 Max.

 

[Gloor]

I'd dare to say that even 32GB would work. Unified memory is great because GPU gets access to that so in your case she wouldn't not be limited to 16gb but rather have a bigger chunk from that 32gb.
I know for a fact that unless she requests more ram then she doesn't need it. People who do need it almost always know that they need it because they've been doing something for a long time so they know the tech side (even on a basic level) too.

There are tests on youtube to show that 32gb on M-Macs show almost zero difference vs 64 and more. And those specialised tasks that do require more are the ones you would know about (as mentioned).

And for original question - the macs are designed to use all the ram they can. So if the system has 16gb or 1024gb the result is the same - the system will throw everything in it because it doesn't want to leave resources unused. That doesn't mean its smart to go crazy. From your example, I would do tests with 32gb and see where it takes me. Also, don't obsess about swapping - that happens sooner or later on everything (again, plenty of tests online).
Save your money and buy the machine she actually needs rather than wasting money. The money you save can be used in the future on an update that will help her further down the line.

Thanks so much for your comment and explanation of caching as well.
I’m a big proponent of getting as much memory as it’s reasonably possible.

I’m trying to dispel the myth going on on these forums that 16GB of unified memory is enough for everything. Maybe people haven’t really experienced serious swapping? Have they bought into the idea that unified memory is somehow special? It’s been proven it’s not. Swapping on a super-fast SSD is still swapping.

Agree that 64GB could’ve probably worked in my wife’s scenario, however she now has 16GB dedicated for VRAM on top of 128GB RAM, which Mac Studio won’t have. So it should be 96GB or above when she goes for the Studio.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I'd dare to say that even 32GB would work. Unified memory is great because GPU gets access to that so in your case she wouldn't not be limited to 16gb but rather have a bigger chunk from that 32gb.
I know for a fact that unless she requests more ram then she doesn't need it. People who do need it almost always know that they need it because they've been doing something for a long time so they know the tech side (even on a basic level) too.

There are tests on youtube to show that 32gb on M-Macs show almost zero difference vs 64 and more. And those specialised tasks that do require more are the ones you would know about (as mentioned).

And for original question - the macs are designed to use all the ram they can. So if the system has 16gb or 1024gb the result is the same - the system will throw everything in it because it doesn't want to leave resources unused. That doesn't mean its smart to go crazy. From your example, I would do tests with 32gb and see where it takes me. Also, don't obsess about swapping - that happens sooner or later on everything (again, plenty of tests online).
Save your money and buy the machine she actually needs rather than wasting money. The money you save can be used in the future on an update that will help her further down the line.

Of course less RAM will "work," the Mac OS does a great job managing memory. But it is like putting cheapo tires on a Ferrari. Less RAM limits the capability of the expensive computer to compute.

 

[Gloor]

Of course less RAM will "work," the Mac OS does a great job managing memory. But it is like putting cheapo tires on a Ferrari. Less RAM limits the capability of the expensive computer to compute.

nonsense - unless a task really needs it then what you are saying is not based on facts.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

I think it really depends. I couldn't justify the price upgrade from 32 GB to 64 GB, when I'll likely be replacing this machine by the time 32 GB feels like it's hindering me. And at that time, 64 GB should be cheaper.

Most users should have 16 GB now, imo. 8 GB is... as painful as the 16 GB storage in iPhone 6S.

 

[JustAnExpat]

So no matter how much RAM I buy, Firefox will hog all of it?

No. Different websites require different amount of RAM. A Software as a Service website, such as Microsoft 365, will require a whole lot of RAM (a couple of GBs). A website that's a collection of text and still pictures, and looks like it was coded in the late 1990's, would use almost nothing (a couple of MBs at best).

For the other apps listed that are opened (with the black mark on the bottom of the application):

Notes: Almost nothing. Depends on what you keep in there, but probably less then 300 MB.
Mail: I would guess about 300 MB at most. Since mail isn't accessed all the time, expect it to get sent to swap when it's not in used.

Outlook: Probably 1GB or more (why two mail clients open at once?). Microsoft products aren't known for being memory efficient.

Word/ Preview/ Powerpoint: Depends on the file you have open. Large detailed files will result in more RAM, smaller files will require less RAM.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Thanks. Are you able to substantiate what you’re saying though?
Hope you can understand, it’s very hard to believe that with 75GB memory used the machine will behave the same with just 16GM of RAM.
Also, what about 8GB? You must have some kind of calculation on how you’ve arrived at 16GB. Hope your calculation isn’t “it’s enough for most people”.

Because it isn't really "using" 75 GB.

macOS is claiming memory to fill it up for caching - and will release it when an app actually needs it.

You have "Swap Used 0" so you're fine. On my 16 GB work laptop, I regularly see "Memory Used: 15 GB", yet it is just as responsive as my personal system with 32 GB, with its "Memory Used: 28 GB".

Yes, 8 GB is too little. On the bargain-basement M1 iMac I have in the kitchen, it *DOES* have swap used regularly.

But at present, with "regular home use" (not running Adobe products as your wife is) 16 GB is "fine" for the overwhelming majority of people. 32 GB is fine for even power users at the moment. 64 GB, for anyone who isn't working with huge data sets specifically (like Adobe users) is overkill.

Spec the exact same system with 32 GB of RAM, and I bet your wife wouldn't even notice the difference. Note: If she starts working on significantly bigger files than are currently open she might - but she definitely doesn't "have nothing open" with XD taking up 11 GB of RAM.

 

[sumarlidason]

At the end of the day, the more memory you have - the more data you can use & cache from disk at once; the more responsive your system will be. No one can refute that, it would be equivalent to saying we don’t need disk caching. Further the larger memory systems have wider bandwidth aka faster memory. What you need and what you can have come down to your budget - and these folks screaming ‘You don’t need that much memory’ are on a tighter budget. They are probably on to something, but no one needs a Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS, BMW i7, or a Tesla MS Plaid either... Buy what you want & enjoy.

 

[JustAnExpat]

For me, 64GB is too small, I can't understand why Apple is so fond of 64GB and 256GB ipad and skip 128GB directly.

We're talking RAM, not storage space There's no iPads with 64GB of Ram.

 

[Feek]

Zero memory pressure, nothing to see here.

 

[AlmightyKang]

I've got a workstation with 1.5TB of RAM at work for running simulation loads on.

As always, it depends what you do. 8Gb Mac Mini covers my personal needs perfectly.

 

[Andrey84]

You only actually have 6.73 GB in active use, the rest is cached data.

Please don't spread false information on forums!

Memory Used: The amount of RAM being used. To the right, you can see where the memory is allocated.

• App Memory: The amount of memory being used by apps. (66.47GB)
• Wired Memory: Memory required by the system to operate. This memory can’t be cached and must stay in RAM, so it’s not available to other apps. (6.73GB)
• Compressed: The amount of memory that has been compressed to make more RAM available. (0.14GB)

source

 

[Andrey84]

And if you had 1TB of RAM, the computer would likely be using into the hundreds of gigs.

This is unlikely to be true. Can you prove this?

With zero memory pressure, only 142MB memory compressed, 0 swap, why would a system with 128GB of RAM consume less memory than a system with 1TB?

I believe that as far as our scenario goes (moderate professional use), this iMac has infinite RAM.

blowing money on something you don't need seems kinda dumb and wasteful

I don't remember me or anyone in this thread suggesting that, so where is this coming from?

We got 128GB because this used iMac already came with 128GB. To be honest, if it didn't, I would've still installed 128GB anyway, because it's only £300. If I'd saved £150, compared to 64GB, what is the more useful thing can I do with these £150, compared to having extra 64GB of RAM in a professional machine used daily for year to come?

If I were sure the extra 64GB were a waste, it's one thing. But I'm not. And so far nobody has provided definite proof.

 

[Andrey84]

Thank you for engaging in a meaningful way and for spending time on your reply.

They could contain a 18 GB movie file that your wife has opened in the current user session

Well, no, it doesn't contain a movie file. She doesn't download films.

Those are mostly temporary cache files from closed projects that haven't been cleared.

Nope, also not true for her scenario. She has just one project going on at the moment. She has one massive application flow file, which she works on using Adobe XD.

I fully understand what you're getting at, but both your main assumptions were wrong, unfortunately.

That screenshot is just normal use, there are no hidden wasteful massive files which can magically just free up 25GB.

Now, I agree that RAM needed is different to RAM used.

However, I haven't learned anything new here to prove she doesn't need at least 75GB of RAM, if she doesn't want any lags when switching between applications. I did learn about RAM caching. This is actually a separate line in Activity Monitor called 'Cached Files', which is 18.62GB, on top of the 75GB used.

A system with less RAM would not behave any different.

Do you know that for sure? Opening a professional file, even an excel spreadsheet, can take ages sometimes - I personally don't know if it's due to it being on SSD rather than in memory, or it's the processing of the file, or network days, do you?

 

[boss.king]

This is unlikely to be true. Can you prove this?

With zero memory pressure, only 142MB memory compressed, 0 swap, why would a system with 128GB of RAM consume less memory than a system with 1TB?

I believe that as far as our scenario goes (moderate professional use), this iMac has infinite RAM.

Prove what? I'm not making some exaggerated claim, this is simply how modern RAM management works. The computer will use as much as you let it (while also reserving a buffer for new stuff). A 1TB machine can cache more stuff in RAM, and so it will, it's as simple as that.

The machine in your screenshot isn't really actively using all that much RAM at all, it's basically just got a bunch of stuff waiting to be reopened. If it had more RAM, it would be able to keep more stuff waiting to be reopened while maintaining a healthy buffer. Assuming the computer doesn't get shut down often, it could easily hit hundreds of GB of cached files.

I don't remember me or anyone in this thread suggesting that, so where is this coming from?

You in general, not you specifically. Context helps. Read the very next sentence of that post: "That's not to say it's not needed in this case, but just showing a screenshot with more than 64GB in use is proof of nothing."

RAM costs money, and a lot of it when you buy it from Apple. Buying 64 or 128GB with Apple's markups for someone who won't see any difference in performance from a 16 or 32GB machine — that's objectively wasteful.