For those of you who went with 16gb RAM on your new 14” or 16” MBP.

[armoured]

Though I do suspect that in just general, real-world usage, there's probably people who are as I used to be and think they need more RAM, when the reality is - probably because of how fast swap is these days, you likely won't notice a difference if you don't go looking for it.

...

Would going with more RAM have stopped the swap file, well yes I suppose it would. Would I have noticed much of a difference if I hadn't been looking at Activity Monitor? probably not all that much.

This is a good reminder, really - perhaps a bit of a tendency for all of us to 'fight the last war', worry about the things that last caused us inconvenience and pain even when it's basically been solved. (Not that ram is ever 'solved' entirely but it can be moved to second, third, or lower levels of importance when speccing a new machine).

Example: I'm still using for simple stuff a 4gb macbook air that's seven years or so old - so I have to think about ram for that all the time. But even with oodles of ram it'll still be slow because seven years old and a much slower ssd when swap occurs.

I should probably just get the base model and stop thinking about it...

 

[TrueBlou]

...

This is a good reminder, really - perhaps a bit of a tendency for all of us to 'fight the last war', worry about the things that last caused us inconvenience and pain even when it's basically been solved. (Not that ram is ever 'solved' entirely but it can be moved to second, third, or lower levels of importance when speccing a new machine).

Example: I'm still using for simple stuff a 4gb macbook air that's seven years or so old - so I have to think about ram for that all the time. But even with oodles of ram it'll still be slow because seven years old and a much slower ssd when swap occurs.

I should probably just get the base model and stop thinking about it...

Compared to a 7 year old MacBook, with 4GB of RAM, even the base model M1/M1 Pro/Max will probably go faster than you can keep up

I switched to the M1 Pro, but not necessarily out of complete necessity. The 8GB MBA I have from last year has coped incredibly well, far and away surpassing every expectation I had of it.

Yes, some of my workload has undoubtedly benefited from the upgrade this year, but if I’d had my head in the sand - which is more realistic than my controlling my, ooohhh shiny addiction, I don’t doubt that I could have continued on with it for now.

I have missed the bigger screen sizes, but wouldn’t allow myself to purchase another TouchBar MacBook. So it’s nice to have more real estate again, particularly when I’m coding, and it really is a gorgeous panel. Reading everyone’s opinions on it didn’t prepare me at all for seeing it in the flesh.

It’s rare that I’m actually satisfied with a computer, not completely. I’ll always find something I wish was different. With the MBA, it was just the restriction to two TB ports and the smaller screen, which is certainly not a downside for everyone.

With the new MacBook Pro, I just can’t find anything… so far. Ok, HDMI 2.1 would have been nice, as would a faster SD reader. But if I can’t cope with 4K 60Hz, there’s something very wrong with me….

…. Shut up, I know there’s a lot wrong with me

 

[wilberforce]

This review should encourage those concerned whether 16GB M1 Pro is sufficient for Lightroom use:

 

[5425642]

This review should encourage those concerned whether 16GB M1 Pro is sufficient for Lightroom use:

This is something that many of us trying to tell everyone. The 16GB M1Pro are nothing like the old ones.

 

[Rizzm]

If it's any consolation, the drive read/write speeds are apparently so fast that it may be hard for anyone to notice. I'm sure it depends on the workload of course.

(And this was done on the *half* speed Pro rather than the Max)

 

[TrueBlou]

This is something that many of us trying to tell everyone. The 16GB M1Pro are nothing like the old ones.

Yup, it’s a very different kettle of fish these days. I’ve said before, but what the heck, I’ll say it again. The MBA M1 8GB I’ve lived with this past year thrashed, and I mean thrashed, my iMacs with 24 and 32GB of RAM.

It took me less than a week after getting the M1 Air to sell my iMac, I ultimately even bought an M1 Mini to use as a second server, and it’s just amazing at that.

The new MBP 16” M1 Pro with 16GB Ram I now have just boggles my mind. Clearly the speed of swap when it’s required, is just so fast now that lower amounts of RAM aren’t quite the limiting factor they once were.

Most of my systems have had 32GB as a minimum when possible and 64GB when it was possible. Getting used to the idea that I didn’t actually have to invest in such high amounts took some getting used to.

But I in no way regret going with 16GB this time. What this thing can do, while remaining perfectly smooth and usable, is just amazing. Yes, some people will require much higher RAM, that’s why it’s an option. But when compared to the Intel systems they’re replacing, RAM is a whole different ball game.

 

[5425642]

Yup, it’s a very different kettle of fish these days. I’ve said before, but what the heck, I’ll say it again. The MBA M1 8GB I’ve lived with this past year thrashed, and I mean thrashed, my iMacs with 24 and 32GB of RAM.

It took me less than a week after getting the M1 Air to sell my iMac, I ultimately even bought an M1 Mini to use as a second server, and it’s just amazing at that.

The new MBP 16” M1 Pro with 16GB Ram I now have just boggles my mind. Clearly the speed of swap when it’s required, is just so fast now that lower amounts of RAM aren’t quite the limiting factor they once were.

Most of my systems have had 32GB as a minimum when possible and 64GB when it was possible. Getting used to the idea that I didn’t actually have to invest in such high amounts took some getting used to.

But I in no way regret going with 16GB this time. What this thing can do, while remaining perfectly smooth and usable, is just amazing. Yes, some people will require much higher RAM, that’s why it’s an option. But when compared to the Intel systems they’re replacing, RAM is a whole different ball game.

Exactly, but the issue here are that some users don't see the difference we have multi review videos that are showing that the 16GB are fine for most users.
If you need 32GB or more of RAM then I guarantee that you know it If your not sure then 16GB of RAM are most likely fine for your needs.

Don't overbuy is something that I use to say, I do have the cash for the 32GB and I was aiming for it but then I did try the 16GB as you and I'll stick with it for two - three years as always and then after that I'll replace it with a new machine and then maybe 32GB is the new 16GB who knows.

 

[TrueBlou]

Exactly, but the issue here are that some users don't see the difference we have multi review videos that are showing that the 16GB are fine for most users.
If you need 32GB or more of RAM then I guarantee that you know it If your not sure then 16GB of RAM are most likely fine for your needs.

Don't overbuy is something that I use to say, I do have the cash for the 32GB and I was aiming for it but then I did try the 16GB as you and I'll stick with it for two - three years as always and then after that I'll replace it with a new machine and then maybe 32GB is the new 16GB who knows.

That's my opinion as well, my workload isn't particularly light, but then it's not always overwhelmingly demanding.
If I'm coding, working on 3D models, or high resolution video, then the extra power is very welcome. But I've found that the 16Gb can meet those demands far better than double, or quadruple the amount of RAM that I used to have in my Intel systems.

If and when the time comes, who knows what Apple have in store for us in the future now that they are unburdened from Intel, then I'll upgrade with more RAM, but based on my current experience, I doubt that I'll go beyond 32GB even then.

 

[reklex]

If it's any consolation, the drive read/write speeds are apparently so fast that it may be hard for anyone to notice. I'm sure it depends on the workload of course.

(And this was done on the *half* speed Pro rather than the Max)

16GB or 32GB I'll be swapping anyway. Don't think the SSD will fail like some people point out but if you're doing 16GB swap on a 16GB RAM laptop with the multitasking that video you should skip 32GB and go to 64GB lmfao

 

[5425642]

16GB or 32GB I'll be swapping anyway. Don't think the SSD will fail like some people point out but if you're doing 16GB swap on a 16GB RAM laptop with the multitasking that video you should skip 32GB and go to 64GB lmfao

Swap will not destroy your ssd for a long time, at my work we do have laptops with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD that are 5+ years old.
This is some kind of myth / hype that has started don't know why but it's as we use to call it now days "false news"

 

[armoured]

Clearly the speed of swap when it’s required, is just so fast now that lower amounts of RAM aren’t quite the limiting factor they once were.

^^This. So up front I'll say: I've been on the fence and waiting to see more info because historically I've always needed to have more than the base amount of ram.

But now, I'll admit, after having read here and some other places: the 16gb will almost certainly be enough for me - mainly due to how good this computers are but particularly that if I do end up getting some swap, the ssds are now fast enough that I'll probably not notice (or be able to live with it).

Note, I'm certainly NOT saying that others don't need 32gb - that's up to them; but my use case is not one that requires massive amounts of ram, just decent amounts.

Similar note - my most demanding is Lightroom and photography, but not professional. And looking at the issue has been complicated by (first) LR going silicon-native relatively late, but also that LR seems to have some RAM usage issues related to graphics acceleration. (I think those issues are real and serious but not likely to be critical in my case).

Most of my systems have had 32GB as a minimum when possible and 64GB when it was possible. Getting used to the idea that I didn’t actually have to invest in such high amounts took some getting used to.

^^Again, this - just taking me time to get comfortable that I won't seriously regret going with 16gb when I've mostly had to go above baseline in the past.

But when compared to the Intel systems they’re replacing, RAM is a whole different ball game.

I actually think this discussion has been made more complicated by some over-the-top claims early on, in terms similar to the phrasing you used here (but to be explicit - I am NOT saying you're making such a weird claim).

Here's the difference:
-Reasonable claim ('weak form'): having marginally less RAM than ideal on apple silicon machines is a 'different ball game' - not noticeable most of the time and/or a reasonable trade-off because the systems and SSD swapping is so much faster than before. Details of how much a given user will notice depend on usage profiles but you may be surprised that the penalty for active swapping is quite a bit lower.

-Over-the-top magic sauce claim ('strong form'): you can get away with much less RAM on apple silicon machines because RAM is totally different and they use dramatically less memory than before. I call this the 'magic sauce' claim because when looked at carefully, it literally is a claim of some secret magic sauce that Apple has not claimed, is not documented in any of the APIs or other subsystems that would need to use it for this to work.

On the second one, there are somewhat more complicated or well-researched arguments about unified memory and vram with a lot of hand-waving, but sorry - they just don't hold up or show what they claim to. RAM is RAM. THere's no magic sauce: just that (as intended and well documented) really fast swapping - ie. really fast SSDs - significantly reduces the penalty of swapping memory, and enough so that it can seem magical.

 

[TrueBlou]

Swap will not destroy your ssd for a long time, at my work we do have laptops with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD that are 5+ years old.
This is some kind of myth / hype that has started don't know why but it's as we use to call it now days "false news"

Assuming Apple are still using Toshiba for their NAND chips, they are rated at ~3000 read write cycles. Which (at a fairly unrealistic, for many people, full write per day) equates to 8 years of service.

And that’s the figure the company feels comfortable to guarantee, there’s always going to be exception’s, nothing is 100% infallible. But realistically, the NAND chips will likely outlive the useful life of the laptop for most users.

I have really old SSD’s in some of my systems with far worse specs than modern chips, which get a pretty good hammering, especially in my server, and it’s been in reliable operation now for over 7 years, I’m not particularly worried about the lifespan of the chips in the MacBook.

 

[TrueBlou]

^^This. So up front I'll say: I've been on the fence and waiting to see more info because historically I've always needed to have more than the base amount of ram.

But now, I'll admit, after having read here and some other places: the 16gb will almost certainly be enough for me - mainly due to how good this computers are but particularly that if I do end up getting some swap, the ssds are now fast enough that I'll probably not notice (or be able to live with it).

Note, I'm certainly NOT saying that others don't need 32gb - that's up to them; but my use case is not one that requires massive amounts of ram, just decent amounts.

Similar note - my most demanding is Lightroom and photography, but not professional. And looking at the issue has been complicated by (first) LR going silicon-native relatively late, but also that LR seems to have some RAM usage issues related to graphics acceleration. (I think those issues are real and serious but not likely to be critical in my case).

^^Again, this - just taking me time to get comfortable that I won't seriously regret going with 16gb when I've mostly had to go above baseline in the past.

I actually think this discussion has been made more complicated by some over-the-top claims early on, in terms similar to the phrasing you used here (but to be explicit - I am NOT saying you're making such a weird claim).

Here's the difference:
-Reasonable claim ('weak form'): having marginally less RAM than ideal on apple silicon machines is a 'different ball game' - not noticeable most of the time and/or a reasonable trade-off because the systems and SSD swapping is so much faster than before. Details of how much a given user will notice depend on usage profiles but you may be surprised that the penalty for active swapping is quite a bit lower.

-Over-the-top magic sauce claim ('strong form'): you can get away with much less RAM on apple silicon machines because RAM is totally different and they use dramatically less memory than before. I call this the 'magic sauce' claim because when looked at carefully, it literally is a claim of some secret magic sauce that Apple has not claimed, is not documented in any of the APIs or other subsystems that would need to use it for this to work.

On the second one, there are somewhat more complicated or well-researched arguments about unified memory and vram with a lot of hand-waving, but sorry - they just don't hold up or show what they claim to. RAM is RAM. THere's no magic sauce: just that (as intended and well documented) really fast swapping - ie. really fast SSDs - significantly reduces the penalty of swapping memory, and enough so that it can seem magical.

No arguments from me there. When I say RAM is a whole different ball game with Apple Silicon, I certainly don’t mean there’s any magic to it, or that the RAM requirements of the operating system and/or applications has changed in any way - it has not.

But with swap being so significantly faster than we used to have, that’s where the difference is really made. With such fast drives and much higher throughput, we see a much lower impact of using the swap. Which in general just makes the entire system faster and more capable than the similarly specified Intel based MacBooks we were used to.

 

[bxs]

It is pretty difficult parsing all the memory numbers, and often they do not "add up." Real memory is not what it sounds, it includes virtual memory, some of the memory may be compressed, and some of the memory swapped, also at a different points in time the memory moves from one category to another as the system (and Lightroom) shuffle the memory around.

The main point is the dramatically higher memory pressure with the GPU enabled for lightroom. The memory pressure is very dynamic - a minute later Lightroom releases memory and drops back down to green, and the system readjusts the memory allocations.

If you wish to see real physical memory being held/used by a process then use the Terminal top command.

mem Physical memory footprint of the process.

 

[armoured]

No arguments from me there. When I say RAM is a whole different ball game with Apple Silicon, I certainly don’t mean there’s any magic to it, or that the RAM requirements of the operating system and/or applications has changed in any way - it has not.

Exactly - my intent wasn't to pick on your phrasing (or imply you'd said there was magic), but that some of the commentary had crossed from "It's so much faster that it's like magic" to "It actually is magic."

SSDs getting a lot faster (and to be fair with lots of other improvements) explains it; no magic needed.

But with swap being so significantly faster than we used to have, that’s where the difference is really made. With such fast drives and much higher throughput, we see a much lower impact of using the swap. Which in general just makes the entire system faster and more capable than the similarly specified Intel based MacBooks we were used to.

Again, exactly. I've mentioned before but 'standard' advice for those who wanted best bang/buck performance improvement (most users) was 'moar RAM!' In HDD days, that was pretty damn accurate. Then it morphed into "SSD for system disk, then moar RAM." It really was a large step change from hdd to ssd.

And 'much, much faster SSD' may not be as superficially dramatic as the switch to SSD, but has roughly the same implications.

 

[wilberforce]

Here is another review about using 16GB vs 32GB with base MPB for Lightroom, Photoshop etc.

TL,DR: The base 14" MPB does fine, but 32GB is faster if you frequently deal with very large files (like big panorama stitches). Makes sense. (In which case, he shows that it is better to have more RAM than more cores.)

 

[PeterLC]

This review (not mine) claims there's only 10-20% performance difference between 16GB and 32GB RAM on 16"s under what it calls heavy load.

All very good information but I DO have confusion with you saying that the speed of the MBP's is 'crazy' and then a few moments later, when comparing this silicon to what the Intel model would do, as also being 'crazy'. One time seems to be 'crazy' in a good way and the other as 'crazy' in a bad way. How about just telling us what you actually mean, as in 'crazy fast' or 'amazingly slow' or some other descriptor to have readers / listeners know exactly which end of the spectrum that you actually are referring to.

 

[Appltsla]

I’m looking at ordering a personal MacBook Pro to replace my personal 2014 mbp as well. Mainly using it for software development. Looking at 14 inch 32 gb ram, but it seems like wait is till late December for non-16gb. Not sure if it will be enough.

My company just ordered every engineer M1 max with 64gb rams. That’s like few hundred of them. We are using git with monorepo with a humongous code base. Fresh compilations take an hour and circle of death is common occurrence. Still waiting on the new mbps which are coming end of November.

For personal usage, it’s mainly for side projects. Probably not going to use nearly as much ram. 64gb probably an overkill but 16gb seems a bit on the low side.

 

[kirk.vino]

Swap will not destroy your ssd for a long time, at my work we do have laptops with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD that are 5+ years old.
This is some kind of myth / hype that has started don't know why but it's as we use to call it now days "false news"

Ditto! I still have my MacBook Air that I’ve been using since 2014! It has 4GB! of RAM and a 256GB SSD. It has never failed even once (that SSD was almost completely full most of the time too). I’ve finally replaced it with a 14” MacBook Pro (10/16, 16 GB Ram, 1TB).

 

[cbascue]

Just an interesting note: When I did the trade in calculation on the Apple store site, they valued my 16gb Macbook Pro 2020 the same as the 8gb version 2020

 

[Ethosik]

On the second one, there are somewhat more complicated or well-researched arguments about unified memory and vram with a lot of hand-waving, but sorry - they just don't hold up or show what they claim to. RAM is RAM. THere's no magic sauce: just that (as intended and well documented) really fast swapping - ie. really fast SSDs - significantly reduces the penalty of swapping memory, and enough so that it can seem magical.

While on one hand, RAM is RAM is RAM that is one way to look at it. However, we have seen Intel macs and even Intel Windows systems not be as effective with MORE memory than these new M1 systems. That could just be Apple significantly changed how memory works with these new systems and new macOS that gets toggled when paired with Apple Silicon, or in the case of Windows comparisons that Windows could be significantly inefficient with memory.

While we can look at this as "RAM is RAM", both have 16GB but the Mac is definitely FAR more superior. So I don't think its crazy when people say "16GB of RAM feels like 32GB on Intel". We are getting into a semantic war/technicalities/nerdiness war here when people say these things. Of course I don't think people actually think 16 == 32. Just the FEEL and USAGE of the device is what people mean when they say these things.

And if you REALLY want to get into the weeds here. 16GB of RAM is NOT always 16GB equal. You need to look at the CAS latency and timings and all those things. 8GB of DDR2 RAM is not the same as 8GB of DDR5 RAM. RAM is more than just the "space".

 

[armoured]

While on one hand, RAM is RAM is RAM that is one way to look at it. However, we have seen Intel macs and even Intel Windows systems not be as effective with MORE memory than these new M1 systems. That could just be Apple significantly changed how memory works with these new systems and new macOS that gets toggled when paired with Apple Silicon

This is exactly what I mean by handwaving - you're referring here to some 'significant change', that's also toggled on and off, when Apple itself has made no such claim. There's no mechanism that anyone is aware of that would have such an impact (at least compared to previous apple systems).

What Apple has said is that there is the unified memory (advantageous in some circumstances), and that having the memory on the system-as-a-chip and the Apple SSD subsystem makes it very, very fast.

And this is a well-known thing - the faster the disk access, the less penalty of having to use disk cache. Make the ssd disk cache very fast, that can explain it.

No need for 'magic beans' at all. Now, if you show me the magic beans - okay. But Occam's razor here is: we know the memory and SSD are very fast; we know that makes penalty of 'less memory' much less painful; Apple has not claimed there are magic beans; those first two together are enough to explain (probably) the improved performance; and therefore - there probably are not any magic beans.

And if you REALLY want to get into the weeds here. 16GB of RAM is NOT always 16GB equal. You need to look at the CAS latency and timings and all those things. 8GB of DDR2 RAM is not the same as 8GB of DDR5 RAM. RAM is more than just the "space".

Yes. And depending on the load and task, very fast ssd compensates for (reduces penalty of) having less-than-ideal amount of memory.

Still no magic beans.

 

[Ethosik]

This is exactly what I mean by handwaving - you're referring here to some 'significant change', that's also toggled on and off, when Apple itself has made no such claim. There's no mechanism that anyone is aware of that would have such an impact (at least compared to previous apple systems).

What Apple has said is that there is the unified memory (advantageous in some circumstances), and that having the memory on the system-as-a-chip and the Apple SSD subsystem makes it very, very fast.

And this is a well-known thing - the faster the disk access, the less penalty of having to use disk cache. Make the ssd disk cache very fast, that can explain it.

No need for 'magic beans' at all. Now, if you show me the magic beans - okay. But Occam's razor here is: we know the memory and SSD are very fast; we know that makes penalty of 'less memory' much less painful; Apple has not claimed there are magic beans; those first two together are enough to explain (probably) the improved performance; and therefore - there probably are not any magic beans.

Yes. And depending on the load and task, very fast ssd compensates for (reduces penalty of) having less-than-ideal amount of memory.

Still no magic beans.

Then please explain to me why my Intel iMac with 128GB of RAM is not as effective as my M1 Mac mini with only a pitiful 16GB of RAM?

RAM is NOT RAM. You REALLY need to get into the weeds here when you want to compare it. Get to the hardware level. What is the CAS latency and timings of the RAM in the Intel system vs the Apple Silicon version? Get to the software level. How is the operating system handling it? Is there a difference between the x86 and arm64 binaries that treat memory differently? From the windows perspective, is the memory overclocked or not? How is the operating system handling memory on a low level? Could all those legacy libraries and backwards support be hurting performance in some way? Also need to determine how the individual applications are managing memory. Is it doing a lot of "transactions" where the CAS latency and timing DO matter?

My point was, people do not actually think 16 GB is MORE SPACE than 32GB. Just it WORKS and FEELS better than 32GB on Intel. We are not waving our hands around, its proven not just by us but MANY MANY others than 16GB M1 performs better than a 32GB Intel system. I even ditched my Intel iMac which had 128GB of RAM on it since my M1 16GB was better! Now I do find tech a nice hobby and am quite interested in the inner workings of things, but unfortunately I have three jobs so my time to dig into ALL THE CONNECTIONS from the hardware to the OS to even the application usage of memory and even comparing x86 vs arm64 binaries to see if memory optimization is different. I just don't have the time.

Edit: You keep referring to "magic beans" but it could very well be x86 binaries vs arm64 binaries. In fact iPad and iPhone handles memory different than the Intel macs before. Same macOS version with even FAR MORE MEMORY Intel 128GB vs M1 16GB and my M1 feels far superior in every way. SOMETHING is clearly different with how Apple Silicon works with memory. No hand waving here, you can see the results yourself on dozens of videos or if you had an Intel system right next to you.

 

[armoured]

Then please explain to me why my Intel iMac with 128GB of RAM is not as effective as my M1 Mac mini with only a pitiful 16GB of RAM?
...
My point was, people do not actually think 16 GB is MORE SPACE than 32GB. Just it WORKS and FEELS better than 32GB on Intel.

Because it's faster. Is there some answer that's really needed more than that?

If you want a tiny bit more detail: in both cases, the relative advantage of having the extra memory was outweighed by the faster systems, and probably because user tasks actually did not task / need all that extra memory.

We are not waving our hands around, its proven not just by us but MANY MANY others than 16GB M1 performs better than a 32GB Intel system.

Saying it's faster is not the hand-waving part - it's saying that there's 'something else we don't know about, can't describe, have no evidence of, but believe that it must be the explanation' that is the handwaving.

"Proven that it performs better" is sufficiently explained by saying the M1 memory and SSDs are ... faster. That's what performance means in this context.

Edit: You keep referring to "magic beans" but it could very well be x86 binaries vs arm64 binaries. In fact iPad and iPhone handles memory different than the Intel macs before. Same macOS version with even FAR MORE MEMORY Intel 128GB vs M1 16GB and my M1 feels far superior in every way.

"It could very well be" = handwaving and magic beans.

 

[Ethosik]

Because it's faster. Is there some answer that's really needed more than that?

If you want a tiny bit more detail: in both cases, the relative advantage of having the extra memory was outweighed by the faster systems, and probably because user tasks actually did not task / need all that extra memory.


Saying it's faster is not the hand-waving part - it's saying that there's 'something else we don't know about, can't describe, have no evidence of, but believe that it must be the explanation' that is the handwaving.

"Proven that it performs better" is sufficiently explained by saying the M1 memory and SSDs are ... faster. That's what performance means in this context.

"It could very well be" = handwaving and magic beans.

And you just proved my point I was trying to make. 16GB of RAM is FASTER than the 32GB in the older Intel models....THUS...now follow me here....leading to people saying "16GB of RAM FEELS like 32GB of RAM". We are not sprouting magic beans here....YOU just proved what we are saying.

And you are right, I did not need 128GB of RAM but I got it from "recommendations". I do 1080p video editing and even at 4k60 my M1 Mac mini smokes my Intel iMac.

EDIT: I will also say this, we come from a legacy way of thinking back when we had 5400rpm drives in our laptops and maybe in our desktops at times too. With much slower memory those days in DDR2 days. So having much higher RAM was preferred. But everything is so ridiculously fast now that we don't need to make those same adjustments we used to make. Thus leading us to now re-think how much RAM is needed in our systems. I would bet you I would definitely need that 128GB RAM if I was still using 5400rpm drives for my video editing.