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.
Is 8GB of RAM Enough for MacBook Pro?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
However, bear in mind that after factoring in the extra $200 for 16GB, an M3 Pro model with 18GB and several other extra features is only $200 more at $1,999.
That's exactly how to get you. MBkHD literally just did a short about this on YouTube the other day. It is ridiculous
That's exactly how to get you. MBkHD literally just did a short about this on YouTube the other day. It is ridiculous
You're just fishing for people to support your theory. It's useless.
Answer is clear There's no debate here. And nobody is sitting here talking about people who's checking mail everyday. Stop wasting your time.
Except the slot-based RAM design is much slower than Apple's approach.
?? Apple's UMA RAM is faster, period. Apple RAM does cost more of course. But the overall speed of computing matters, and UMA RAM makes a difference; one of the reasons M-series chips perform so well. You are comparing Apples and oranges.
Mac OS and apps have always evolved to prefer more RAM over time. It started with 128k in 1984 and has continued steadily. Mac OS will allow computing using lesser RAM, but lesser RAM is limiting.
I was actually using a patcher and running later operating systems, and was still fine. Once a computer gets that old it should be replaced anyway really.
How well would a 16 GB Windows virtual machine run on an 8 GB M1 mini?
Flash latency is measured in microseconds. DRAM latency is measured in nanoseconds.
It almost sounds like you're saying that Apple SSD access is faster than Intel DRAM access. That can't be true though.
Last edited:
Many professionals don’t need to run virtual machines. That’s a pretty niche thing, not exactly something everyone does… If you have a demanding workflow you think would be better served by 16GB of RAM, then get the RAM configuration you want, nobody’s saying people shouldn’t get higher RAM models. Some are gatekeeping “pro computers” as computers with 16GB or higher of RAM, but that just doesn’t make any sense. Plenty of professionals use 8GB of RAM, and find it to be more than enough for their workflows.
I went with 32 GB for my last 3 Macs. The largest machines I've used had 1.4 tb of RAM (Exadata).
My reply, though, was question the appearance of the poster thinking that 8 GB of Apple Silicon RAM performs as well as 16 GB of Intel RAM with the implication that Apple Silicon flash storage is faster than Intel CPU DRAM.
My experience is that he’s right that 8GBs of M-Series RAM feels just as fast as 16GB of Intel RAM, if not faster. The M-Series chips use the RAM more efficiently. Of course, a M-Series chip with 16GB of RAM is yet faster for certain tasks, but I believe macOS on the M-Series chips now uses the same technologies that Apple’s employed on iOS to make more efficient use of RAM, and it results in much better performance, even with less RAM.
So you are saying that Apple Silicon flash is faster than Intel DRAM? An Apple Silicon system may just feel faster because the CPU can just do more work in the same amount of time. But may not actually be faster once you get a CPU that has as much compute horsepower. That is the speed of the CPU masks the latency of swap. Obviously there are limitations on this masking we've all seen examples of where memory pressure is in the red. I have limitations on what I can run on my M1 mini with 16 GB which is why I went with 32 GB on subsequent Macs.
I have a Windows desktop with 128 GB of RAM and I've played with running 5 virtual machines at a time and it handled it without problems. It is nice to be able to buy cheap RAM.
I’m saying that in my experience, 8GB of RAM on M-Series chips performs on par with 16GB on Intel. Perhaps there are some tasks where the 16GB would perform better, but not any that I think a lot of professional users would notice. And everything I’ve seen is that Apple’s Unified Memory system is faster than DRAM. And Intel doesn’t even make DRAM anymore.
I can't recall when they last made it.
But I was referring to Intel CPUs accessing DRAM on a motherboard as opposed to Apple Silicon.
Programs which require frequent CPU access on a regular basis for a long time are bad fits for a heavy swap environment. Which is mainly my workload.
I do believe that Unified Memory is faster in that case. And as I’ve said before, I’m not saying nobody needs 16GB or higher of RAM, in fact, I’m glad to see options all the way up to 128GB of RAM now on the MacBook Pros, I think that’s quite impressive. I’d never need anything even close to that. I just think there’s a place for a cheaper 8GB RAM option for those of us who don’t need 16GB. 👍🏻
?? It seems we are talking about different things. I have been saying nothing about Win, or about 8GB Ram on Mac being like 16 GB RAM on Intel, or about SSDs or other mass storage (except to say paging to disk is to be avoided by installing adequate RAM).
What I said was "Apple's UMA RAM is faster, period." And it is, because physics. Apple places the RAM on-chip in physical close proximity to CPU/GPU processes. In addition to physically closer proximity to processors, Apple's Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) saves some steps as multiple coprocessors share the RAM. It is faster.
I am one of thoe "Pros" and I can confirm that 8Gb is not enough. I am a sysadmin for my company but I'm starting to build detailed reports for upper management.
For this type of work I usually have a word processor open, a browser with 5/10 Tabs referencing internal systems and online articles, my outlook email and MS To Do, this entire thing uses around 10Gb of ram.
So no, 8Gb on a "pro" marketed machine is simply not enough.
Didn't you get your Apple Pro Certificate?
Then you get a 16gb Mac. On the other hand, I’m the kind of pro where 8gb has worked. But the conclusion isn’t therefore 8gb on a Pro machine isn’t enough. You get the amount of Ram needed.
Edit update: again, I think some folks are just a little too hung up on the name "Pro". Imagine if this line were called "MacBook B, or MacBook II". Now, do you think B or II requires RAM to start at 16gb?
Last edited:
I don't necessarily disagree with that. But all along, most of the arguments here is that (1) a machine called Pro should not begin at 8gb.
That's different argument from (2) whether the cost of about $200 to go from 8gb to 16gb is reasonable.
Or, whether (3) an 8gb MacBook Pro base model ought to cost $1,600.
Those are 3 different arguments.
Argument #1 has generally gone in the direction of this: because the machine is a pro-level machine, it should not begin at 8gb because that's not enough RAM for pro-level work. That's basically what the overall argument on that side has been.
Again, that point is different from arguments #2 and #3 listed above.
Update: so what's the cost of going from built-in 8gb to 16gb (factory upgrade, not one done by oneself) on an somewhat equivalent Windows machine? I don't have enough experience with PCs to know, although I do use one at work?
Last edited:
I batch edit high resolution photos in LR and 4k videos with FCP or DVR using layers and effects and I have 0 issue
I have the base model M2 Air