I am really torn between 8GB vs. 16GB RAM

[MarkC426]

A computer will always run better with more ram..... ?
I have said before, Apple should have just put 16gb in and be done, no option, one price.

 

[Paul1980]

The computers that came out every year after the year you bought yours will perform better. You can't future proof a computer! It's never been done.

Ive not mentioned that I'm getting 16gb to somehow make my device immune to advancements in technology in the future. Im getting 16gb because Ive made the decision that I want 16gb as it performs better that 8gb. Will I use it to its full potential? probably not. knowing its there is worth the £200 to me. Not sure how this makes anyone dumb.

 

[Sanpete]

"Future proofing" is indeed dumb. 200 dollars for ram isn't going to add the features to the computer that future computers are going to have that will actually render your current computer obsolete, or at the very least - less attractive.

That's not what people usually mean by future proofing. They mean their computer will be better able to handle increased demands of future software, increased photo or video file sizes, etc.

A computer will always run better with more ram..... ?
I have said before, Apple should have just put 16gb in and be done, no option, one price.

Your premise is false, so your conclusion isn't well supported.

 

[1240766]

So in 5 years which will perform better? 8gb or 16gb? Whether that performance is worth $200 is completely down to the individual and their opinion of their needs.

In 5 years I hope to be on the M5

 

[pepinto]

Really, reading the arguments of some people here, maybe Apple is stupid by giving the option of choosing 8Gb or 16Gb of RAM: only 8Gb should be allowed....

Let’s put the things this way:

1- I think that it’s fair to spend 50$ for having the peace of mind that I have a computer that has a state of the art processor and at will not be limited because of the RAM during 4-5-6 years (10$/y)
2- I think that is fair to spend 50$ for the eventual performance improvement due to having the double of RAM (another 10$/y)
3- Maybe, 5 years from now when it’s time to sell this computer 16Gb of RAM will be the standard. Maybe because this computer has 16Gb of RAM it will have some more resell value (+100$ ?), instead of being ignored by the potential buyers. Is anyone purchasing 4Gb RAM Macs nowadays?

This is my rationale for opting for 16Gb of RAM. Already ordered. Silver.

 

[hasanahmad]

So in 5 years which will perform better? 8gb or 16gb? Whether that performance is worth $200 is completely down to the individual and their opinion of their needs.

Considering these are BASE mac devices you will likely sell get a new one in 5 years. Those 10-12 year MacBook pros are all the high end devices

 

[BeatCrazy]

Really, reading the arguments of some people here, maybe Apple is stupid by giving the option of choosing 8Gb or 16Gb of RAM: only 8Gb should be allowed....

Let’s put the things this way:

1- I think that it’s fair to spend 50$ for having the peace of mind that I have a computer that has a state of the art processor and at will not be limited because of the RAM during 4-5-6 years (10$/y)
2- I think that is fair to spend 50$ for the eventual performance improvement due to having the double of RAM (another 10$/y)
3- Maybe, 5 years from now when it’s time to sell this computer 16Gb of RAM will be the standard. Maybe because this computer has 16Gb of RAM it will have some more resell value (+100$ ?), instead of being ignored by the potential buyers. Is anyone purchasing 4Gb RAM Macs nowadays?

This is my rationale for opting for 16Gb of RAM. Already ordered. Silver.

Assumes you keep the computer for 5+ years.
Assumes you will get $100 more in resale value (zero chance)
Assumes you will notice "eventual performance improvement". <- I dunno. I see no performance improvement in my 12" MacBook (2017) w/16GB vs. the 8GB I should have bought.

 

[1BadManVan]

Assumes you keep the computer for 5+ years.
Assumes you will get $100 more in resale value (zero chance)
Assumes you will notice "eventual performance improvement". <- I dunno. I see no performance improvement in my 12" MacBook (2017) w/16GB vs. the 8GB I should have bought.

To be fair, you may have noticed the performance decrease as it aged

 

[pugxiwawa]

Assumes you will notice "eventual performance improvement". <- I dunno. I see no performance improvement in my 12" MacBook (2017) w/16GB vs. the 8GB I should have bought.

Honestly, not to sound rude, I don’t know how you could say for sure you see no improvement w/16GB vs 8GB at all for last 3 years you were using the MacBook, unless you are running both configurations side-by-side for exact same tasks all the time. 8GB might or might not be enough at some point in time but there is no way to know. There must be some reason that you went with 16GB back in 2017 and that fitted your need. Unlike paying for extra storage that you would know for sure if that was used or not, I don’t know how you can just assume you would’ve gotten the exact same experience and satisfaction with lesser ram.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Honestly, not to sound rude, I don’t know how you could say for sure you see no improvement w/16GB vs 8GB at all for last 3 years you were using the MacBook, unless you are running both configurations side-by-side for exact same tasks all the time. 8GB might or might not be enough at some point in time but there is no way to know. There must be some reason that you went with 16GB back in 2017 and that fitted your need. Unlike paying for extra storage that you would know for sure if that was used or not, I don’t know how you can just assume you would’ve gotten the exact same experience and satisfaction with lesser ram.

I base my assessment on this situation: shortly after getting the 16GB model (12" Retina MacBook 2017, 256GB), I bought an 8GB version of the same computer. Every other spec was identical, aside from the RAM difference. I used them side-by-side for at least a year, before ultimately handing off the 8GB to my wife (now her daily driver).

 

[Paul1980]

I base my assessment on this situation: shortly after getting the 16GB model (12" Retina MacBook 2017, 256GB), I bought an 8GB version of the same computer. Every other spec was identical, aside from the RAM difference. I used them side-by-side for at least a year, before ultimately handing off the 8GB to my wife (now her daily driver).

This isn't any surprise as the new M1 8gb and 16gb perform almost identical, especially for everyday use. The performance difference comes when you push the system and then need more memory for multitasking etc. You could run the two systems side by side for years and never see a difference if you're not pushing them hard enough to require over the 8gb.

 

[BeatCrazy]

This isn't any surprise as the new M1 8gb and 16gb perform almost identical, especially for everyday use. The performance difference comes when you push the system and then need more memory for multitasking etc. You could run the two systems side by side for years and never see a difference if you're not pushing them hard enough to require over the 8gb.

Exactly. Which is why my comments above illustrate how I "learned my lesson" and now purchase for what I need today. In a few years, I can upgrade to something way more capable.

When choosing a new M1 mini, because of the sale prices at B&H, upgrading from 8GB to 16GB was actually closer to $300. I don't mind spending extra money, but the situations where I would notice any performance improvement would be rare. I'll take that $300 and put it towards a gen-2 or gen-3 ARM Mac in a few years.

 

[Paul1980]

Exactly. Which is why my comments above illustrate how I "learned my lesson" and now purchase for what I need today. In a few years, I can upgrade to something way more capable.

When choosing a new M1 mini, because of the sale prices at B&H, upgrading from 8GB to 16GB was actually closer to $300. I don't mind spending extra money, but the situations where I would notice any performance improvement would be rare. I'll take that $300 and put it towards a gen-2 or gen-3 ARM Mac in a few years.

That makes sense. I think for some people spending the extra when they don't need it right now feels like some kind of insurance policy for that "what if" in the future. As you said, you learnt your lesson and you know what you want.

 

[fourthtunz]

been there, done that... 8gb no pressure on yellow at all... again, it is at this point a want more than need. The 8gb is handling everything I throw at it. I did start with the 256 disk and changed to the 512, really happy I did. I do notice it to be more snappy with the 512.

Hey are you on the pro or the air? I'd like to know what the SSD performance is on the air
with the 256 SSD vs the 512? could you run blackmagic please?
thanks!

 

[Paul1980]

Hey are you on the pro or the air? I'd like to know what the SSD performance is on the air
with the 256 SSD vs the 512? could you run blackmagic please?
thanks!

Id be interested to know the difference, if there is any.

 

[Booji]

"Future proofing" is indeed dumb. 200 dollars for ram isn't going to add the features to the computer that future computers are going to have that will actually render your current computer obsolete, or at the very least - less attractive.

The problem is the term "Future proofing" which is impossible. It is better to say that you can extend the practical useful life.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I think when people use the term "future proofing" they're simply saying "I might not need 16GB of RAM now... but I might in a few years."

These computers will last a while, right? Who knows what we'll be doing with them in 2025 or 2026. If you end up needing 16GB of RAM then... you'll wish you had spent the extra couple hundred dollars at the time of purchase.

On the flipside... if all these M1 Macs came with 16GB base... we wouldn't be questioning 8GB vs 16GB. We'd already have the maximum.

 

[Herrpod]

I think when people use the term "future proofing" they're simply saying "I might not need 16GB of RAM now... but I might in a few years."

These computers will last a while, right? Who knows what we'll be doing with them in 2025 or 2026. If you end up needing 16GB of RAM then... you'll wish you had spent the extra couple hundred dollars at the time of purchase.

On the flipside... if all these M1 Macs came with 16GB base... we wouldn't be questioning 8GB vs 16GB. We'd already have the maximum.

You'd just have people complaining that 16gb wasn't enough to "future proof" their new computer.

 

[1240766]

People will always complain and justify

 

[Booji]

I think when people use the term "future proofing" they're simply saying "I might not need 16GB of RAM now... but I might in a few years."

These computers will last a while, right? Who knows what we'll be doing with them in 2025 or 2026. If you end up needing 16GB of RAM then... you'll wish you had spent the extra couple hundred dollars at the time of purchase.

On the flipside... if all these M1 Macs came with 16GB base... we wouldn't be questioning 8GB vs 16GB. We'd already have the maximum.

Is RAM really so expensive these days? You would think that the base MBP would at least be 16 and the 8 saved for only the least expensive base models like the Air.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Is RAM really so expensive these days? You would think that the base MBP would at least be 16 and the 8 saved for only the least expensive base models like the Air.

RAM is relatively cheap these days.

Though I'm now sure how Apple's implementation of Unified Memory affects the price.

On the other hand... we know Apple like to use RAM as a price differentiator... $200 here... $200 there... etc.

 

[Booji]

RAM is relatively cheap these days.

Though I'm now sure how Apple's implementation of Unified Memory affects the price.

On the other hand... we know Apple like to use RAM as a price differentiator... $200 here... $200 there... etc.

Personally, I think it is more of a marketing segmentation move by Apple. They can advertise the low price of the 8GB which will be acceptable for light users and 16GB for the power users. The cost being not really that much different - they could easily make 16GB the default and keep it pretty much at a similar cost.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Another perspective.

So many videos or "perspectives" about how swap-to-SSD is bad. All while memory pressure is green! No way that any "wear" on SSDs is going to accelerate its malfunction.

My 32GB iMac Pro would also show a few GB of swap, with just a handful of programs open. Running the same tasks the swap looks identical to my 8GB M1 Mac mini.

 

[||\||]

So many videos or "perspectives" about how swap-to-SSD is bad. All while memory pressure is green! No way that any "wear" on SSDs is going to accelerate its malfunction.

My 32GB iMac Pro would also show a few GB of swap, with just a handful of programs open. Running the same tasks the swap looks identical to my 8GB M1 Mac mini.

This nothing new. MacOS has used aggressive swapping for quite some time.

 

[armoured]

No way that any "wear" on SSDs is going to accelerate its malfunction.

Well, yes and no.

It's a _fact_ that SSDs do degrade over time (and will eventually 'malfunction'). It's just that the timeframes involved are mostly so long that unless it's for some extreme use case, it doesn't make sense to worry about it. (And if you don't know for certain that you are one of those extreme use cases - then you aren't - we're talking about eg some specialised data centre use).

Or more simply, it's pointless to have an SSD and not use it. (It's like having a car and worrying that opening the doors is going to 'use them up.' Well, sure, eventually they might break/wear out, but they're there to be used.)

Any additional 'wear' due to swapping/caching is a rounding error.