Well, you put out a number - 99%. Provide the data to back up that explicit figure.
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.
PSA: you probably don’t need 32 or 64Gb RAM unless you know you need it.
- Thread starter aevan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macbook pro ram
- Sort by reaction score
Well, you put out a number - 99%. Provide the data to back up that explicit figure.
Lies, damned lies and all that! The lived experience of using a computer can't really be told through all these tests. To most people, they're just meaningless numbers. In a sense, it's like a car...you know already that Apple is a Mercedes or a BMW. You don't need to know all the numbers for what the engine does. You just need to drive it.
I hate meaningless numbers. They try to suggest the the person providing them has more precise information than others. 99% of what population? All computer users? All photoshop users? All professional photoshop users? All readers of this forum?
I have less confidence in an argument when it includes unsubstantiated assertions.
I completely agree with you about resale value. Higher config machines can be harder to sell and you definitely don’t get your money back. But I don’t buy my computers thinking about resale value. I buy them to use them.
I also agree about buying the top-spec model. I’ve never bought the highest config for my computers, phones, or other gadgets. I kept my new MBP at 512 for the SSD and didn’t upgrade to 64GB of RAM.
I’ll disagree with you on feeling being stuck with a computer years later. I’ve never felt this way. I personally would rather use my computer for as long as possible and at least four or five years, which is why I get the config I feel will last me that long. If I only got the base RAM in 2012, I definitely wouldn’t have been able to use that computer as long as I did. This time around I’m spending more on my new Mac than I ever have. But it’s okay, it will last me four or five years and will be worth it for me.
Ok, sorry, I don't have proof for 1%. But since you're obviously a man of science, lets do an experiment:
A Photoshop (2022 version, latest update) CMYK 2m by 1m file with a 300dpi resolution, 16-bit (23622x11811 pixels) and has 30 fully filled layers takes roughly 11Gb of RAM. 50 history levels filled. Of course, you could go much more, you could add adjustment layers, smart objects - sure.
For people who work with these sizes, if they don't also run another heavy app alongside it - 8Gb RAM is still perfectly usable and 16Gb is great.
Now, of all Photoshop users, how many would you say edit these 200 megapixel files? Again - 200 megapixel files. Just for reference, a $4000 (body only) Canon EOS R5 has 45 megapixels. Another example, a professional comic book illustrator, on the other hand, usually works with files that go up to 8000x5000 pixels roughly. Usually much smaller, but ok, let's go big.
So, again, I will ask you again - how many people do you think edit 200 megapixel RAW photos? I'd say 1% is generous, but ok, you take a guess. And yup, these people need more than 8Gb, but 16Gb is more than enough.
For Photoshop, for the vast majority of users, including various types of professionals, 16Gb RAM is enough.
So why do professional photographers buy 32 or 64 or 128Gb RAM? Because money is not an issue and they work with insane file sizes all the time - and they are certainly not browsing these forums. They also buy 8Tb drives - so, why not get that, too? After all - if you think you need 32Gb RAM for photo editing, you should also get an 8Gb drive as well - you'll need it for those 200Mp files.
Again, sure, you can always get more and if you're a professional, you will just buy whatever is the maximum every few years because it will pay itself off. But coming to an enthusiast forum and telling people they need more than 16Gb RAM for Photoshop?
Come on, man.
Last edited:
There is one thing to be aware of.
If you to memory use, you certainly will see that part of the used memory is "compressed memory". And this doesn't come for free in terms of the performance, there is a penalty, although helps to fight memory pressure. When there are plenty of memory, macOS will not compress. And running the same things on 16GB and on 64GB will show different memory used. And the one on 64gb is a correct one )
Although, I have to admit, whole story with memory compression is done very well. But it is not of free, there is a performance penalty.
If you to memory use, you certainly will see that part of the used memory is "compressed memory". And this doesn't come for free in terms of the performance, there is a penalty, although helps to fight memory pressure. When there are plenty of memory, macOS will not compress. And running the same things on 16GB and on 64GB will show different memory used. And the one on 64gb is a correct one )
Although, I have to admit, whole story with memory compression is done very well. But it is not of free, there is a performance penalty.
Not really true. I have seen Youtuber(wedding photographer) going with 32GB of RAM and he literally went to Lightroom and exported some 50 pics, did some basic corrections, grading and his macbook used 23Gb of RAM with Lightroom. So he concluded that is why he went with 32Gb and happy to overpay.
In reality, Lightroom worked good on my old 8Gb 2012 rMBP 13 and it works well with 8GB M1 Air now. You don't really need 32Gb for lightroom unless you are really stressing it out.
If you allow, macOS will pile up this trash into RAM forever, as long as it has access to greater RAM sizes - which don't really mean that you need THAT much.
"99%" is obviously a figure of speech. Not meant to be taken literally. There are lots of figures of speech not meant to be taken literally. If they had said 97.3%, then that would have meant a precise figure that should be based on data.
Actually there’s zero proof that Gates ever made that statement, the rumor and legend notwhithstanding.
I am not talking about file cache. I am talking about one particular case, memory compression. macOS starts to compress when there is a memory pressure. And this helps to overcome memory deficit, but at cost. and cost heavily depends on memory use pattern.
Everybody should understand that paradigm “os should not leave memory unused” does not mean that all that used memory is a junk. decently working OS fills free memory with file cache, speeding up IO subsystem. and that also gives performance benefits. But not that dramatic with modern SSD though.
But in case of macos, there is also difference between compressed and uncompressed memory. and memory compression slows down memory access, as simple as that. One story is when you directly grab the byte from memory, another when you need to decompress and copy memory page and grab the byte.
if space allows, macOS goes with uncompressed, if not - with compressed. But it is not a junk ) and while for some workloads compression has minimal impact of performance, with others it might kill it. It all depends on memory use pattern.
But in case of macos, there is also difference between compressed and uncompressed memory. and memory compression slows down memory access, as simple as that. One story is when you directly grab the byte from memory, another when you need to decompress and copy memory page and grab the byte.
if space allows, macOS goes with uncompressed, if not - with compressed. But it is not a junk ) and while for some workloads compression has minimal impact of performance, with others it might kill it. It all depends on memory use pattern.
Well, my 'every few years' delve into the Macrumors community is almost over. I hoovered up info and finally upgraded from my iPhone X about a week ago. And this morning, after watching far too many insipid YouTubers, as well as a few really good ones, I've bought an M1 Pro 16" 16GB/1TB stock configuration laptop from the local (90minute drive) apple store. All I have to do is go and collect it tomorrow morning and I'm all set. Then when the new 27" iMacs come out in a few months we'll be all upgraded for a few years. For me, really happy that it's the laptop that I need, probably more than I need but screen size was the number one driver, and that it will do everything I need for enough years that blowing an extra £800 on Max and/or more RAM and/or bigger SSD was all unnecessary.
I'd like to say thank you to Aevan for this really useful thread, and thank you to all the members here who bring a bit of grounded advice to the table. It's all too easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole, suddenly losing sight of the woods for the trees. Now I've got my laptop I can just actually use the thing and get out a bit more with the dogs
I'd like to say thank you to Aevan for this really useful thread, and thank you to all the members here who bring a bit of grounded advice to the table. It's all too easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole, suddenly losing sight of the woods for the trees. Now I've got my laptop I can just actually use the thing and get out a bit more with the dogs
OS should never use so much memory like on the 16 gb model. It slows down then. I have never seen such an extensive ram usage like on mac os. 4-5 gbyte used for a mac with stock os config, without any addtional apps started, if you start the browser with a few tabs open, it goes up to 12-13 gbytes + 1.3 gbytes reserved.
I can open a lot more tabs on windows 11 and it's using only 7.5 of 32 gbytes ram. No slow down.
I can open a lot more tabs on windows 11 and it's using only 7.5 of 32 gbytes ram. No slow down.
Well, my 'every few years' delve into the Macrumors community is almost over. I hoovered up info and finally upgraded from my iPhone X about a week ago. And this morning, after watching far too many insipid YouTubers, as well as a few really good ones, I've bought an M1 Pro 16" 16GB/1TB stock configuration laptop from the local (90minute drive) apple store. All I have to do is go and collect it tomorrow morning and I'm all set. Then when the new 27" iMacs come out in a few months we'll be all upgraded for a few years. For me, really happy that it's the laptop that I need, probably more than I need but screen size was the number one driver, and that it will do everything I need for enough years that blowing an extra £800 on Max and/or more RAM and/or bigger SSD was all unnecessary.
I'd like to say thank you to Aevan for this really useful thread, and thank you to all the members here who bring a bit of grounded advice to the table. It's all too easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole, suddenly losing sight of the woods for the trees. Now I've got my laptop I can just actually use the thing and get out a bit more with the dogs
See you in the next few years then 🙂 Glad this helped. As someone who has two dogs, I certainly apreciate some quality time with the little rascals.
Enjoy your awesome laptop!
Please ignore them, they have been claiming this stuff for days, then how PC laptops, Intel CPU, Windows are better - I guess they just feel really bad about these new Pros. Their claim a 16Gb Mac slows down while surfing has no basis in reality (an 8Gb Mac is good for that). Trust me, you’ll forget all about that when you start using your Mac.
And how many multiple VM's are we talking about here? Because for common VM usage, 16G is still probably enough. Normally (for me), when using multiple VM's for development, those VM's are really just docker containers running one service each as part of a stack.
I had the WindowServer process run wild on me the other day, using about half the total memory, and if anything there was a barely perceivable lag on some things. My VM's should never need half my total resources.
@aevan
Trust me. I have seen the slow down of 16 gb models with my own eyes. And i have compared Windows 11 with mac os 12 ram usage. Who has the experience you or me? And who is using a fast desktop pc for comparison? If you only use this macs, of course you don't know what fast means.
I will never understand why some users who have obviously no idea about the problems saying this is not true, because it's not in their favour, the "mighty" 16 gb mac they own is untouchable. Btw the problem i mentioned has been documented by many websites.
Trust me
. I have seen the slow down of 16 gb models with my own eyes. And i have compared Windows 11 with mac os 12 ram usage. Who has the experience you or me? And who is using a fast desktop pc for comparison? If you only use this macs, of course you don't know what fast means.I will never understand why some users who have obviously no idea about the problems saying this is not true, because it's not in their favour, the "mighty" 16 gb mac they own is untouchable
. Btw the problem i mentioned has been documented by many websites.@aevan
Trust me
I will never understand why some users who have obviously no idea about the problems saying this is not true, because it's not in their favour, the "mighty" 16 gb mac they own is untouchable
Links to documented cases?
Users Reporting 'Memory Leak' Issues After Updating to macOS Monterey
Some users who recently upgraded to macOS Monterey are experiencing a bug known as a "memory leak," a scenario in which a specific macOS...
www.macrumors.com
Never seen this meesage "run out of application memory", but mac os is using much more memory as windows and is slowing down, if the ram usage is close to the maximum physical ram capacity.
Users Reporting 'Memory Leak' Issues After Updating to macOS Monterey
Some users who recently upgraded to macOS Monterey are experiencing a bug known as a "memory leak," a scenario in which a specific macOS...
Never seen this meesage "run out of application memory", but mac os is using much more memory as windows and is slowing down, if the ram usage is close to the maximum physical ram capacity.
That's a memory leak bug in a specific version of macOS which will soon be fixed. Using this to justify purchasing extra RAM is crazy.
There's a lot of issues with people using Electron based apps like MS Teams / Messenger / What's App. These apps create way too much excessive RAM And CPU Usage, my advice would be get the PWAs for now because the "native" apps are full of performance issues that cause terrible battery life.
I own a 14 with 16GB of RAM and it's more than enough for what I do, however if I open up these 3 apps at the same time they basically go crazy.
I own a 14 with 16GB of RAM and it's more than enough for what I do, however if I open up these 3 apps at the same time they basically go crazy.
macOS is using maximum RAM for performance reasons. Discarding memory happens almost instant so there is no harm in using a lot of memory as long as it can be freed immediately when applications needs it.
It is the exact reason why you can't look at free memory as a way to determine if you need more RAM.
@aevan
Trust me
I will never understand why some users who have obviously no idea about the problems saying this is not true, because it's not in their favour, the "mighty" 16 gb mac they own is untouchable
Please show us a video where the 16Gb slows down with some browser windows open using Safari and the video is constructed in such a way we can make sure the result is true.
If Windows doesn't use all available RAM as fast as possible it's a poorly designed operating system. There is almost no cost to using all the memory.
It's really a stupid advice.
My mom can afford buying the maximum configuration but she only do web-surfing and reading email. She don't need 64Gb of RAM in the next 10 years.