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

[armoured]

I have a 4 GB GTX 1050 Ti and the normal RAM usage on the video card is 40-60% with 3x4k and two programs that use the GPU regularly. It was actually difficult picking a GPU to support 3x4k as GPU specs are a bit on the vague side as to what they can support but it's pretty obvious that you're not going to run 3x4k when there are only 2 video outs. I suspect that I got something that's pretty close to the minimum card. Getting a more expensive card is no guarantee of support either.

In general, there's no downside to more RAM.

How are you monitoring the video card ram usage? What are your programs that exercise the GPU? (And I've suffered the same experience of trying to figure out what a card would support - and I probably overbought my gpu card and would only ever use its 4gb dedicated gpu ram if I took up serious gaming, which is not my thing; now it sits in a drawer because nvidia and I don't notice any difference)

But your numbers support my point really: you're running a pretty maximal screen setup - three 4K monitors - and some specialised programs, and you're on average ONLY using about 2gb of video card memory.

Given that the macbook air only supports the internal and one external monitor (acc to apple specs), the amount of video memory 'saved' is going to be nothing like the 8gb dedicated the other user had - again, except maybe in some exceptional use cases. (Or to guess, his 8gb dedicated video card was probably way more than needed on for video ram)

Again, I'm still on the side that apart from up-front cost, there's no downside to more ram and for serious users, a good idea (within reason). But that also doesn't mean everyone who runs even the single (supported) large external monitor will need that extra 8gb - and a pretty large proportion of laptop users rarely use external screens at all. (Even though I'd still get the extra memory myself)

 

[pshufd]

How are you monitoring the video card ram usage? What are your programs that exercise the GPU? (And I've suffered the same experience of trying to figure out what a card would support - and I probably overbought my gpu card and would only ever use its 4gb dedicated gpu ram if I took up serious gaming, which is not my thing; now it sits in a drawer because nvidia and I don't notice any difference)

But your numbers support my point really: you're running a pretty maximal screen setup - three 4K monitors - and some specialised programs, and you're on average ONLY using about 2gb of video card memory.

Given that the macbook air only supports the internal and one external monitor (acc to apple specs), the amount of video memory 'saved' is going to be nothing like the 8gb dedicated the other user had - again, except maybe in some exceptional use cases. (Or to guess, his 8gb dedicated video card was probably way more than needed on for video ram)

Again, I'm still on the side that apart from up-front cost, there's no downside to more ram and for serious users, a good idea (within reason). But that also doesn't mean everyone who runs even the single (supported) large external monitor will need that extra 8gb - and a pretty large proportion of laptop users rarely use external screens at all. (Even though I'd still get the extra memory myself)

I'm running two trading programs, Active Trade Pro and Think or Swim. I use Think or Swim to generate about 90 realtime charts on one monitor and Active Trader Pro to scan for algorithmic trading setups. The third monitor just has office stuff and I run a couple of virtual machines to do unrelated tasks. I don't do any gaming.

I found an open hardware monitor program on Windows and it provides a ton of hardware information on the CPU, GPU and lots of other hardware pieces. One really nice thing is that it gives you temperature and resource usage.

If you are actually using the GPU for non-monitor related stuff, say mining bitcoin or you have some big, parallel, FP-intensive scientific application, then you might actually need more on-board GPU RAM.

Having more RAM is better than less, though. 3x4k is restrictive in how any charts I can display and I've thought about going 5k or more. The main issue would be desk space at this time though the 5k iMac would make for an interesting experiment.

 

[hendrilei]

Consider the covenience or future upgrade possibility if needed, and of course the cost to upgrade

I have mba 4gb ram, and i made a mistake without considering the upgradable factor. And now, using outlook and excel practically render my mba useless for this regular tasks

 

[pshufd]

Consider the covenience or future upgrade possibility if needed, and of course the cost to upgrade

I have mba 4gb ram, and i made a mistake without considering the upgradable factor. And now, using outlook and excel practically render my mba useless for this regular tasks

I have a 2007 MacBook Pro 15 and I could be using it now if it weren't for the 6 GB RAM limitation. I have a 2008 Dell XPS with similar RAM limitations. These things have slow CPUs but could be used in a cluster or for display purposes.

 

[InwardMomentum]

This is now my main ram usage... I think i need more RAM , 10 Desktop open at all time , I really love my 1 4k 40inch screen with my 4 1080p monitor. all of them have 2 desktop open for more screenspace. Switching from a PC usage. This machine is unstoppable for me. I dont even feel lag, that is why i want to test on 16GB what is the difference.

If your are wondering, My usage of the computer is for stock trading, all with Windows program running with Crossover with little to no bug.

Trying to swap my mac mini 8gb for a 16gb one now. But i think i will be more in luck when M1X will come out ( to get like 24gb ) Also, i am Using 50% of the CPU at all time when i trade. Maybe ill push it more , with more Desktop and Program open.

 

[pshufd]

This is now my main ram usage... I think i need more RAM , 10 Desktop open at all time , I really love my 1 4k 40inch screen with my 4 1080p monitor. all of them have 2 desktop open for more screenspace. Switching from a PC usage. This machine is unstoppable for me. I dont even feel lag, that is why i want to test on 16GB what is the difference.

If your are wondering, My usage of the computer is for stock trading, all with Windows program running with Crossover with little to no bug.

Trying to swap my mac mini 8gb for a 16gb one now. lol But i think i will be more in luck when M1X will come out. Using 50% of the CPU at all time too.

The indication is that you don't. 5 GB is a lot of SWAP but the green indication probably means that you rarely run multiple programs at the same time. That macOS is using 1.8 GB for cache means that it thinks that you'll get better responsiveness from having certain files cached than programs in RAM.

We got 16 and it will be more than enough for my daughter unless she starts running stuff that we didn't anticipate. And the cached files will probably be fairly high. I personally prefer a high cached number as it means that your extra RAM is being put to use.

 

[armoured]

I have mba 4gb ram, and i made a mistake without considering the upgradable factor. And now, using outlook and excel practically render my mba useless for this regular tasks

Same. Granted mine is long enough in the tooth and fine for basic stuff, so I continue to use it - but I'd get much better use out of it if I'd bought it with 8gb; would definitely NOT be usable full time, just for the light stuff.

(I love this wee thing - it's the 11" screen, and I know it never got a lot of love, but the form factor is great for portability)

 

[pshufd]

Same. Granted mine is long enough in the tooth and fine for basic stuff, so I continue to use it - but I'd get much better use out of it if I'd bought it with 8gb; would definitely NOT be usable full time, just for the light stuff.

(I love this wee thing - it's the 11" screen, and I know it never got a lot of love, but the form factor is great for portability)

I'm stunned by how small the MBA 13.3 is. It looks like a feather compared to my 15 inch.

 

[InwardMomentum]

The indication is that you don't. 5 GB is a lot of SWAP but the green indication probably means that you rarely run multiple programs at the same time. That macOS is using 1.8 GB for cache means that it thinks that you'll get better responsiveness from having certain files cached than programs in RAM.

We got 16 and it will be more than enough for my daughter unless she starts running stuff that we didn't anticipate. And the cached files will probably be fairly high. I personally prefer a high cached number as it means that your extra RAM is being put to use.

Just manage to go in the Yellow. Well , With the new Windows on arm, from parallel open too I guess i really need more ram for what i want to do.

Manage to make it lag too

 

[JeepGuy]

I have a 2007 MacBook Pro 15 and I could be using it now if it weren't for the 6 GB RAM limitation. I have a 2008 Dell XPS with similar RAM limitations. These things have slow CPUs but could be used in a cluster or for display purposes.

I have a few old laptops that I still use, 17" HP Elitebook G1 (i7 640m) 8gb ram with a Quadro FX2800, it was almost unusable until I put an SSD in it, now it happily runs Windows 10 PRO(20h2), I use this with the Corel Draw 2020 to run my laser engraver. My place is like Jurassic Park for laptops.

 

[pshufd]

I went to install two programs that I use for trading on my daughters MBA 16/1 and RAM usage was 8 GB and file cache was over 7. So the system uses the additional RAM, even if you don't really need the extra 8.

 

[hendrilei]

I'm stunned by how small the MBA 13.3 is. It looks like a feather compared to my 15 inch.

In my opinion, not that 8Gb is small, at that time, but nowadays, most software need lots of resources. It’s crazy

 

[Rck1984]

Just manage to go in the Yellow. Well , With the new Windows on arm, from parallel open too I guess i really need more ram for what i want to do.

Manage to make it lag too

If you're into virtualisation, get more RAM.

Just another general note on this 8GB vs 16GB discussion. Maybe an obvious one, but it also depends if its your primary machine, or a complementary device. For me, my MacBook Air is a (perfect) complimentary device. For serious horsepower and more screen real estate, I have a stationary machine with dual displays.

 

[hendrilei]

I have a few old laptops that I still use, 17" HP Elitebook G1 (i7 640m) 8gb ram with a Quadro FX2800, it was almost unusable until I put an SSD in it, now it happily runs Windows 10 PRO(20h2), I use this with the Corel Draw 2020 to run my laser engraver. My place is like Jurassic Park for laptops.

Yes, if it’s still with hdd, upgrade to ssd will give a huge diff. Not to become super computer -_-, but at least passable than before

 

[Rck1984]

In my opinion, not that 8Gb is small, at that time, but nowadays, most software need lots of resources. It’s crazy

Then again, you're basing your opinion on the "previous" systems.
RAM might still be RAM in a sense of the amount needed, but on the M1 its definitely more optimised, efficient and faster.

 

[hendrilei]

Then again, you're basing your opinion on the "previous" systems.
RAM might still be RAM in a sense of the amount needed, but on the M1 its definitely more optimised, efficient and faster.

I agree, chips, os management hold important rule for the efficiency. MacOS vs Windows clearly has diff efficiency on their OS management. But still, for me personally, no matter how efficient one OS is, hardware is important to be maintained in certain level depend on the work we do with the computer. At least for me, big RAM never to be a mistake LOL

 

[Rck1984]

I agree, chips, os management hold important rule for the efficiency. MacOS vs Windows clearly has diff efficiency on their OS management. But still, for me personally, no matter how efficient one OS is, hardware is important to be maintained in certain level depend on the work we do with the computer. At least for me, big RAM never to be a mistake LOL

Well, 'never a mistake' depends on a few things. If money is of no concern at all, then sure grab as much RAM and storage as you possibly can.

I mean, it's like you have to transport 4 people and instead of buying a minivan, you're getting a touring bus instead. Just because you might have to transport more than 5 people in a far future. Better buy that touring bus, because you never know right?

Obviously I'm exaggerating quite a bit now. But if something is not needed, it's such a waste to waste quite a bit of money on it, just because you might need it in some years. I'd rather get rid of that minivan, and buy a brand new touring bus with all the bells and whistles if I do need it at that moment, years later.

But hey, not everybody has to agree with me. I respect everyones opinion

 

[pshufd]

Well, 'never a mistake' depends on a few things. If money is of no concern at all, then sure grab as much RAM and storage as you possibly can.

I mean, it's like you have to transport 4 people and instead of buying a minivan, you're getting a touring bus instead. Just because you might have to transport more than 5 people in a far future. Better buy that touring bus, because you never know right?

Obviously I'm exaggerating quite a bit now. But if something is not needed, it's such a waste to waste quite a bit of money on it, just because you might need it in some years.

But hey, not everybody has to agree with me. I respect everyones opinion

There are people that make that decision to buy a bigger vehicle.

Of course there's the solution of renting a vehicle if you need more passenger space.

The analogy today is the cloud if you need more capacity. But it may be hard to use or too expensive for your use case.

 

[JeepGuy]

Well, 'never a mistake' depends on a few things. If money is of no concern at all, then sure grab as much RAM and storage as you possibly can.

I mean, it's like you have to transport 4 people and instead of buying a minivan, you're getting a touring bus instead. Just because you might have to transport more than 5 people in a far future. Better buy that touring bus, because you never know right?

Obviously I'm exaggerating quite a bit now. But if something is not needed, it's such a waste to waste quite a bit of money on it, just because you might need it in some years. I'd rather get rid of that minivan, and buy a brand new touring bus with all the bells and whistles if I do need it at that moment, years later.

But hey, not everybody has to agree with me. I respect everyones opinion

I think 8gb is more like a Honda civic, and 16gb is more like a Honda Odyssey, both will get you from A to B, but one is more comfortable.

 

[pldelisle]

I think 8gb is more like a Honda civic, and 16gb is more like a Honda Odyssey, both will get you from A to B, but one is more comfortable.

Definitively, after 57 pages debating, people starts to run out of analogies...

 

[hendrilei]

Well, 'never a mistake' depends on a few things. If money is of no concern at all, then sure grab as much RAM and storage as you possibly can.

I mean, it's like you have to transport 4 people and instead of buying a minivan, you're getting a touring bus instead. Just because you might have to transport more than 5 people in a far future. Better buy that touring bus, because you never know right?

Obviously I'm exaggerating quite a bit now. But if something is not needed, it's such a waste to waste quite a bit of money on it, just because you might need it in some years. I'd rather get rid of that minivan, and buy a brand new touring bus with all the bells and whistles if I do need it at that moment, years later.

But hey, not everybody has to agree with me. I respect everyones opinion

Again, agree, that’s why my first post is to point out the capability for future upgrade and the cost of that

If it’s un-upgradable, or it will cost much more if we upgrade later on than the pre-installed higher ram, than we really need to consider spend more for now, but work for longer time. If I use    devices, average 5 years is the minimum lifespan before I start to look for a new one, and    is always expensive or over-price for some people.

 

[Ethosik]

Yes, and I didn't mean to suggest this isn't true, video ram usage (whether iGPU or dGPU) increases with size and number of monitors - and with on-board ram being used for video, it's going to reduce the amount of onboard ram available for system and applications.

Perhaps less relevant in the current M1s as basically only two monitor support (or one more in the mini? too lazy to look it up).

My point again is that it's not 1:1 replacement with dGPU ram - for many uses, the 8gb of discrete memory will be unutilised a lot of the time unless using specific programs and tasks. And that 'just' driving monitors is not the big driver of GPU memory usage - it's programs that are doing a lot more in the GPU's dedicated ram than just putting up screen data (like some games), even accounting for eg some video buffering. (Of course, add a lot of very large monitors and it starts to add up)

On the M1, that 'extra' 8gb of system ram (compared to an 8-8 on-board/dGPU ram system) will be available to system and to all apps (or for GPU-specific tasks) as needed - much better most of the time.

(And I'm making no claims about how much memory someone might need for some M2 machine with twelve monitors or something. Deal with that when we get to it)

That is not what matters. Even if it only takes up 500 MB of video memory, that is still 500 LESS that the system has with M1. GPU and System RAM are the SAME now.

I wanted to replace my 8GB of system RAM and 8GB of GPU iMac, so I chose 16GB of RAM. Was I using all 8GB? Not sure. 4K resolution and 2560x1440 would definitely take up GPU just by being connected. Let alone the video editing, I am not sure how much GPU that was using too.

 

[alien3dx]

That is not what matters. Even if it only takes up 500 MB of video memory, that is still 500 LESS that the system has with M1. GPU and System RAM are the SAME now.

I wanted to replace my 8GB of system RAM and 8GB of GPU iMac, so I chose 16GB of RAM. Was I using all 8GB? Not sure. 4K resolution and 2560x1440 would definitely take up GPU just by being connected. Let alone the video editing, I am not sure how much GPU that was using too.

You think make over complicated.

Normal laptop gpu mostly using share ram but mostly they will reserve 1 GB ram . Most gaming will required 2 GB ram either share or not. Share ram gpu dan cpu are not new thing.

Macbook m1 - don't show RAM GPU Usage
iMac Intel 2017 - don't show RAM GPU Usage
iMac Intel 2017 cum EGPU - show ram GPU Usage.
** I'm not sure if you have and graphic card in your old iMac should can be seen.

The main point as been told or normally by other in video editing

1. Most have slow scrubbing or maybe term playback when editing. Those scrubbing maybe slow if you had multi layer contain a lot of thing.

2. Use extra ram drive as scratch disk

Set up scratch disks

Learn how to set up and manage scratch disks in Photoshop.

helpx.adobe.com

3. Slow rendering video. Most YouTuber only render short movie clip 10 minute maybe while other real life may make wedding video, company profile video, small 20 minute video which take higher resources compare to YouTuber. In old time 2 hour , even 8 hours is common but nowadays even 10 minute also people tend to be "hulk rage" .

4. Conclusion, use the right tools . Edit your video on MacBook and render it your iMac which more powerful. Separate process even slow a bit.

 

[darngooddesign]

I think another way to look at it is based on how the M1s rely on using the drive when you run out of RAM. If you can't guarantee that you will always have around 50GB free on your drive then get the 16GB. This is for people who follow the 'more RAM is always better' advice without understanding why it helps them.

 

[pshufd]

I think another way to look at it is based on how the M1s rely on using the drive when you run out of RAM. If you can't guarantee that you will always have around 50GB free on your drive then get the 16GB. This is for people who follow the 'more RAM is always better' advice without understanding why it helps them.

I had a look at one of the teardowns and it had two SSD pieces. A small one and a large one. I wonder if it can direct more swap to one of them to improve overall performance of the storage subsystem.