That's what I had "wear" in quotes
To use your analogy, every time you open your car door, it causes "wear", but not enough to stop using it, or expect it to malfunction over the normal/expected life of your car. Just like your SSD.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am really torn between 8GB vs. 16GB RAM
- Thread starter Booji
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To use your analogy, every time you open your car door, it causes "wear", but not enough to stop using it, or expect it to malfunction over the normal/expected life of your car. Just like your SSD.That's what I had "wear" in quotes
Exactly, I think we're in agreement.
And don't SSDs have some sort of "wear-leveling" as to not have the same portion of the flash rewritten over and over in a harmful manner?
I'm sure Apple has thought of this for us.
I'm sure Apple has thought of this for us.
My personal opinion is that no one should pay $200 for 8gb extra of ram unless it's gold plated or something.
Yes, and that's where the "malfunction" part comes in. Eventually, you run out of cells to use because they are all wear-leveled to the maximum allowed. If you consistently run 16GB workloads on an 8GB machine, you will get there a lot faster than normal.
I saw a torture test where they constantly banged on SSDs for a solid 18 months until they finally died.
The conclusion was it would take over 100 years for the drives to be ruined under "normal" circumstances.
Granted that was just one test... but SSDs seem pretty durable.
Also... don't Macs always use some swap already? Even if you have plenty of RAM? So have there been many cases of Mac SSDs simply wearing out from swap usage?
Macs with SSDs and 8GB of RAM have been sold for years. I'm unaware of any major problems because of this.
If problems never materialize then great, but what I stated is still true. How quickly it reaches max wear-leveling is up for debate.
It seems to me that controllers and general electronic failures occur before ssd cell problems arise anyways.
Very good point, 8gb on SSDs have been running clockwork for years....if anything it keeps getting better...
Yes. I'm planning on getting a 16gb air. But the 'wear' on the ssd is the furthest thing from my mind, just performance under higher memory loads.
For additional swap to have a significant impact on ssd life, it would have to be enormously problematic - ie the user would go mad from slowdowns long before the ssd would be the issue.
Last edited:
Please have in mind write durability depends on the NAND flash chips used. You got single-level cell (SLC), multi-level cell (MLC), triple-level cell (TLC) and quad-level cell (QLC).
SLC has the highest write endurance and highest price. It only have a high state or a low state (1-bit, 1 or 0).
MLC is less reliable and have between 10-20 times less write endurance compared to SLC but doubles the capacity in the same size by increasing the number of states it can be in (2-bit, 11, 01, 00 or 01). The Samsung 970 Pro uses this for example.
TLC takes it a step further yet again by going 3-bit, even less reliability and another order of magnitude worse write endurance. This is what most drives uses today. If you buy a TLC drive it needs to be of high capacity (1TB+) to mitigate its much lower reliability and write endurance.
QLC is basically toilet paper (4-bit) and is the one time use laughing stock of NAND flash but it is cheap as chips. Only buy the 2TB+ version of any SSD drive using it to mitigate the worst write endurance in the industry.
My old Apple SSD is using MLC but I have no idea what the newer stuff uses.
SLC has the highest write endurance and highest price. It only have a high state or a low state (1-bit, 1 or 0).
MLC is less reliable and have between 10-20 times less write endurance compared to SLC but doubles the capacity in the same size by increasing the number of states it can be in (2-bit, 11, 01, 00 or 01). The Samsung 970 Pro uses this for example.
TLC takes it a step further yet again by going 3-bit, even less reliability and another order of magnitude worse write endurance. This is what most drives uses today. If you buy a TLC drive it needs to be of high capacity (1TB+) to mitigate its much lower reliability and write endurance.
QLC is basically toilet paper (4-bit) and is the one time use laughing stock of NAND flash but it is cheap as chips. Only buy the 2TB+ version of any SSD drive using it to mitigate the worst write endurance in the industry.
My old Apple SSD is using MLC but I have no idea what the newer stuff uses.
My current boot disk (1tb evo) has been in use for 6 years and still shows 99% life.
Bonus of a Mac Pro, I keep adding additional ssd’s and never delete anything (literally)..... ?
Bonus of a Mac Pro, I keep adding additional ssd’s and never delete anything (literally)..... ?
Yes I think the SSD wear is a moot point given today's technology
In my area the 8/256 MBP is starting to be offered at 1299. The 16GB model goes to 1679 and is out of stock. I'd choose the 8GB offer, it's great, all reviews show that even in high loads performs well. I have only seen a case when exporting a 8K RED video the 8GB model was slower but I doubt this case is used normally unless video professional editors.
Considering that M1 chip is crazy powerful and is completely capable of handling memory hungry professional applications, 16GB is a wise choice. Otherwise, your ram will keep being a limiting factor in your workflow. Getting 8gb ram is like doing injustice to the M1 chip.
Also, with 16GB your future workflow will become more advanced in the future (if it isn't already) because the mental block of not having enough ram will be removed and you will be able to do stuff not possible on a 8 GB variant.
And when you will upgrade and sell your macbook ~5 years down the road, it will be much easier to sell the 16 gb one (+ it will sell for like 100$ more). In 2025 all the apps will be optimized for apple silicon and M1 chip will remain fast enough for semi-professional usage (considering how fast it currently is when running optimized apps) but 8GB ram won't be enough, especially on future generations of macOSes.
Also, with 16GB your future workflow will become more advanced in the future (if it isn't already) because the mental block of not having enough ram will be removed and you will be able to do stuff not possible on a 8 GB variant.
And when you will upgrade and sell your macbook ~5 years down the road, it will be much easier to sell the 16 gb one (+ it will sell for like 100$ more). In 2025 all the apps will be optimized for apple silicon and M1 chip will remain fast enough for semi-professional usage (considering how fast it currently is when running optimized apps) but 8GB ram won't be enough, especially on future generations of macOSes.
People that are wasting their money on 16GB of RAM they'll never use (and that in fact will increase their power consumption a notch, and potentially reduce their battery life, if anything) would be much better off spending that money on AppleCare and planning to sell the macbook in 2 years to upgrade to the current model. 12 months of AppleCare remaining on a device will be a much larger purchase incentive than 16GB of RAM, and you don't have to worry about the mythical "future-proofing" aspect if you know you can take advantage of the latest and greatest model every couple of years anyway (if you want).
But people are wired the way they are wired. So many on here with justifications like the "keyboard feels better" for going with the MBP over the Air, when really it's as simple as wanting the "Pro" label on the bottom of the screen. lol.
Most people will be fine with 8GB of memory in M1 Macs. In fact, most users utilize in the upper 4GB of RAM to 6GB RAM. The Mac OS does an excellent job at memory swapping with the SSD in those rare occurrences if more RAM comes in play. The only people that require 16GB of RAM or more are those who do heavy audio/video editing, their MACs that are setup as servers, if they have a Windows Gaming Computer only to play computer games, and if they plan to keep their computer for a long time.
My only gripe is that several people here post screenshots of their Mac's memory usage in activity monitor. They show programs that have memory leakages, web browsers that show many ads on websites, unoptimized websites, and with 100s of web browsers tabs open, and etc. Even with those issues, a Mac with 16GB RAM will show memory swap and high memory pressure in the activity monitor.
More ram is better ALWAYS. The M1 machines should have been released with fixed amount of ram, with only storage options if they are designed for the low end user. In the same way an iPhone or iPad has different storage options.
Why would you under spec a machine knowing you would have to replace it in a couple of years (throwaway culture....)
This thread gets funnier all the time, 30 pages of indecision...... ?
Anything that is non-upgradable you should always get the highest spec.
Plus when you look at how ‘little‘ power they use, it’s ridiculous.
This is why I have a love and hate relationship with this thread, haha. Got the 16/512 (previously had the 8/256), one thing I do notice with the 16GB is that my base amount of RAM usage is about 8-10GB with no swap. With the 8GB I saw swap for sure, but never red memory pressure. The price difference is about $400, still debating...
Can you imagine 5 years from now 16GB being a requirement if you just want to use Word/Pages? People have been saying "8GB will be useless in a few years" for many many years now.
Yes. Will 16GB of RAM make you run just as fast as the M5 processor even on 8GB of RAM? Doubtful.
On the other hand, if you're a user that never uses above 8gb and just uses internet word excel mail etc - frankly you're not going to notice the speed difference of M5 anyway, and probably dumb to upgrade anyway.
Interesting. I had a chance to test 16gb but returned it without opening as everything pointed to 8gb being fine and swap memory being fine. So you are thinking of going back to 8gb ram?
Also, off topic, but when I returned the 16gb I was feeling prideful that I hadn't opened it and it could be processed quickly and go back into stock ready for someone else .... but as soon the rep got it he said he had to open it, boot it up to check the serial number. And then it has to go back to HQ to be completely repacked. Also, the box and plug and charge all have to be recycled ie. the charge block and plug are melted down. Im sure that's what he said.
Its the last time I worry about not opening.
Last edited:
Also remember if you plan on keeping it for a few years and try to sell it the 16gb will have better resale than an 8gb machine. 16 is the gold standard now. 4 years or so might be 32.