How far have you stress tested Photoshop on the 16GB? Interested in limits. If you added another 20 smart object layers with smart blur effects, and another 10 adjustment layers to the 30 layer file you mentioned, would at that point trying to paint with a complicated 1500px brush cause brush lag? Could you have Indesign and Illustrator files open in background while doing all that? Another 1-2 Photoshop files of same size? Nobody is doing those kinds of reviews. As if everybody only does video editing, browsing and exporting
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
I don't believe you unless you provide evidence.
Neither I’m saying everyone needs more than 16gb.
I’m criticizing the method used by the youtuber test posted, because in my opinion are misleading.
As for me.
Mobile software developer here. I need to have Xcode and Android Studio with an iPhone simulator and a Pixel emulator.
Of course I’m used to have a couple of Safari tabs (one of witch is my youtube music playlist), a couple of Chrome tabs and MS Teams to interact with my colleagues.
While I define my standard workflow “light” (even if I basically needs two vm’s all the time), I can assure you that after a 3-4 hours my machine loses its snappiness.
Navigating inside Xcode’s tabs or interacting with Android Studio became a pain.
Just closing something makes the system behave snappy as should.
I haven’t any screenshot to show, but usually my pressure is yellow.
Also, I have to prove nothing. I decided to stretch my budget and take myself a 16” Pro 32gb/1tb witch gives me some room for a couple of years.
The point is that my work machine (a M1 Mini 16/256), based on MaxTech’s tests, is supposed to have room for at least a Lightroom export (of 50 high res images), a FinalCut export and more without hesitation.
Which is obliviously non true.
I’m not saying (as someone else) that these machine are crappy or constrained by the base amount of ram. The machine itself is perfectly fine, but for my workflow (and for heavier workflows) it will benefit from more memory.
I noticed a significant slow down / delay with just having too many Chrome windows open
(also had a few other apps but they were just open as a first time test thing, no activity) then I went intense into some facebook marketplace tabs and saw it was laggingThis is an experience which i wont see for such a price.
I completly agree salvatore, users with little bit higher bars need 32+ gb ram. The basic users which are used to less fast systems can go for 16 gb. A little bit of old school hdd feeling is something nostalgic.
If i wouldn't know the highest end pcs, i would maybe love the mbp 2021 max 32 gb. I had maybe kept it because i know nothing better. Ok the very slow pwm display with glare is likely a knock out. Anyway. But in terms of system performance it's a matter of your experiences with other systems.
I completly agree salvatore, users with little bit higher bars need 32+ gb ram. The basic users which are used to less fast systems can go for 16 gb. A little bit of old school hdd feeling is something nostalgic.
If i wouldn't know the highest end pcs, i would maybe love the mbp 2021 max 32 gb. I had maybe kept it because i know nothing better
. Ok the very slow pwm display with glare is likely a knock out. Anyway. But in terms of system performance it's a matter of your experiences with other systems.
Last edited:
I honestly don’t know. Do you usually use 1500px brushes? I mean, 1500px brushes can lag even on my Ryzen 32Gb PC, and I don’t think it’s RAM, it’s more likely due to cpu and gpu. I think you will hit a cpu or gpu bottleneck before you hit a RAM bottleneck with these kinds of brush sizes.
As for smart layers, that depends on the document sizes within the smart layers.
This is an experience which i wont see for such a price.
I completly agree salvatore, users with little bit higher bars need 32+ gb ram. The basic users which are used to less fast systems can go for 16 gb. A little bit of old school hdd feeling is something nostalgic.
If i wouldn't know the highest end pcs, i would maybe love the mbp 2021 max 32 gb. I had maybe kept it because i know nothing better
Omg, stop it, nothing on the new M1 Pros has the “old school hdd” feeling - no one is believing you and it’s getting boring. I’ve worked on a 32-core Threadripper workstation with 128Gb RAM and a 5000mbps SSD, I can still tell you that an M1 Air (yup - Air) feels like the most responsive computer I’ve used in regular work. Stop talking nonsense, just stop. Go and use these fantastic Windows machines already and drop this tread.
There is no evidence because what he’s saying is not true. Unless you want it to be true, in that case, sky is the limit - people can believe anything if they really want to.
There are likely people still pumping the gas in their car before they start it and storing their skillets in the oven, just because that’s what they’ve always done. It takes some time to understand that the world has changed.
You are telling me, gasoline powered cars are all but obsolete. Just need some more work done to the charging infrastructure, and they'll go the way of the dinosaurs (which happen to fuel them).
Tim
People should not be burdened with that decision and should usually go one spec above, that has been my opinion for most purchases.
If I am buying a new computer today for serious work and not just because I need to access my mail and browse social media along with some document editing and creation, the base offering of 16 GB is enough for that. I can continue using the same configuration for many years - beyond five even from today. Websites are not going to suddenly require 32 GB in 3 years.
If I want to do anything that will tax the system resources:
- a VM open (with some software running inside it, too)
- a browser with 20 tabs
- another browser with 10 tabs
- some Word documents
- some PDF documents
- an app or two for notes
etc.
and I imagine that I may use the computer for even more than this, I should spend and get the 32 GB to have peace of mind. I cannot sell my computer in 6 months or 1 year and get a new one with 32 GB. People sound like they have nothing else to do in their lives on internet forums, sometimes.
Telling people that hey, get 16 GB today and if you feel the pinch two years later, get 32 GB at the time is an utterly unproductive advice for the user. They likely have no idea how disruptive this is to prepare a computer for trade-in and get a new computer when you rely on that one computer for the job.
It is baffling, to the point of sounding preposterous, when people try to police other people out of buying a better spec computer as if that better spec is getting financed out of their pockets instead of the buyers'.
In 2011, I got a 4 GB RAM MBP. I bought 4 GB because I knew I will upgrade to 8 GB or 16 GB the moment the warranty gets over. It would not have been okay for use for 7 years if I had not upgraded the RAM myself to 16 GB the next year when the warranty was over. Today, when the RAM is hardwired because of numb-nut, money-minded lunatics in the Apple management team (not talking of advantages to said integration for the M1 series but since 2012), people have to account for the life of their computer at the time of purchase because they simply cannot upgrade later. The advice thrown about like free coffee to just upgrade the computer to a new model is not as easy as it seems - for those who use that machine primarily and for those whose time is of any essence.
Sure, if all I use my computer for is browse the internet and some music and videos and edit or view Microsoft documents, I can make do with just my iPhone for a while. But, for anyone making a living with the computers, anyone working on those machines for hours a day, they simply cannot just up and go trade-in.
- They have to plan things in advance
- They have make arrangements for delivering on their commitments to their clients (for the duration of disruption)
Even when in countries where the new machine comes first and then they send their trade-in, there is a disruption - they have to install their software, customise the new computer to the way they want to. It isn't going to fly that hey, restore your backups. People may not want to do that when buying a new machine, and would probably want to take the time to install things fresh and shuffle their workflow a bit.
So, the question is not of requirement. The question is indeed of future-proofing, for the duration they intend to keep the computer.
If I know I will upgrade in 2 years, no matter what, I will go with 16 GB today (if I do not need the M1 Max). But, because I want to keep the computer for 5 years and not bother with anything, I will go with 32 GB today. That way, I may not feel like I want a new computer before 5 years, and I can finance other things in life with the money. If I have kids, I never know what expense might come up when. Have to account for everything.
Armchair advice of upgrading annually or biennially or more simply does not fly for everyone and as such, must not be doled out to everyone. That particular advice is only helpful for the ones who are not relying on their computer for everything.
Last edited:
I will probably keep this computer (when I manage to finally get my hands on it) for 4-5 years, and I expect 16Gb to be enough for my needs and programs that I use in that time. Can’t speak for others, but my point about upgrading was not that you should upgrade every few years, rather that if in two or three years the hardware you have becomes inadequate - why do you think it will be because of RAM? What if, suddenly, you start working on projects that require more cpu or gpu power? What if a killer feature appears that requires new hardware? Why do you think “getting more RAM then you need today” will future-proof you, and not getting a better cpu or gpu? How do you know you will not suddenly need an M1 Max? For example, if you’re a Zbrush artist, you only need cpu power - but suddenly, these plugins that use the gpu started showing up, what if in 3 years having a beefy gpu suddenly increases your capabilities? So is the advice, then, just max out everything? No? Just the RAM? Why the RAM? It’s a performance vector, just like anything - having a certain amount will improve or decrease your performance in the same way a certain gpu choice will improve or decrease your performance. In fact, currently, for the wide spectrum of 3D software, a hypothetical M1 Max with 16Gb RAM would be faster than an M1 Pro with 32. So, again, why the RAM and not, say, better CPU or more SSD space? How is it that everyone seems to be able to predict their needs there precisely and not overspend, but only with RAM there is this FOMO vibe going on?
Last edited:
@aevan You’re right, performance is no more a vertical. It’s going in all directions - RAM, SSD, GPU, CPU. And a general trend is towards engaging GPU power. It shouldn’t be looked at from only the perspective of having/ getting more RAM. Along with, we do need complementing CPU, GPU and SSD to work together for a fast and smooth user experience.
Just getting more RAM will not benefit the ones who are also using the processor and graphics and hit a limit on graphics or processing prowess. However, getting more RAM will benefit those who aren’t using processor or graphics intensive software but are simply opening a room-full of apps for purposes. They will not need more/ faster graphics or CPU but should just get more RAM to allow for smoother navigation and use of all those open apps and tabs without reloading, is my opinion.
RAM is not exactly as consequential as it was some years ago in absolute terms, but, nonetheless, RAM is still RAM and having adequate amount of it will eke out smoother performance than if the operating system was forced to use disk space on account of low RAM. That difference of speeds is narrowing, but it is my understanding that it still has a distance to go, and till that happens, the people who do consume RAM whether knowingly or unknowingly, will benefit from ample of it.
Just getting more RAM will not benefit the ones who are also using the processor and graphics and hit a limit on graphics or processing prowess. However, getting more RAM will benefit those who aren’t using processor or graphics intensive software but are simply opening a room-full of apps for purposes. They will not need more/ faster graphics or CPU but should just get more RAM to allow for smoother navigation and use of all those open apps and tabs without reloading, is my opinion.
RAM is not exactly as consequential as it was some years ago in absolute terms, but, nonetheless, RAM is still RAM and having adequate amount of it will eke out smoother performance than if the operating system was forced to use disk space on account of low RAM. That difference of speeds is narrowing, but it is my understanding that it still has a distance to go, and till that happens, the people who do consume RAM whether knowingly or unknowingly, will benefit from ample of it.
This is where I disagree a bit, I don’t think you need 32Gb RAM for smoother navigation with lots of apps open, 16Gb will be fine for that. You need 32Gb for large projects where you open these really big files - and having more means your performance in these apps is significantly increased. If you’re worried just about having a smooth system (even with lots of apps and big documents open), 16Gb will be fine for most people. I think this (fear of not having a smooth and responsive system) is what makes many people here buy more RAM then they need - and this is what this thread is about.
People who actually need more RAM (they certainly exist) are not buying it to have a “smooth system” (they would have it with less), they are buying large amounts of RAM to get better performance in their workflows. But that depends on the workflow, as I said, and it also requires you to look at the gpu and cpu upgrades, too.
Of course, this is just my opinion - but it does seem corroborated by a lot of multi-app tests on 16Gb M1 devices you can find online (not talking about export speeds or render times, a lot of them actually show how good the navigation and system performance is with many things open and large swap files - and, it’s very smooth).
Last edited:
It seems I have erred in being clear, though I think I might have come across clearly when I talked about opening tabs without reloading.
When I said “smooth system” I did mean what you are saying - ability to load as much as possible in RAM.
@zhenya
The work stations
. Which cpus please? I think they are using overpriced old XX cores cpus with low clock speeds and old architecture. Nothing special in terms of single core and up to 8 core multicore performance. Servers are using the same old crap . Please dont compare this with modern cpus like the 12900K which dominates the m1 pro/max.@macintoshmac
You are right more ram will not increase the speed. Even on M1 Max with 32 gb i have seen much more delay than on my 5900X system. The 12900K is far ahead in terms of snapiness.
I think the M1 Pro/Max is slower because they have no L3 cache.
Last edited:
Here is where I disagree with you. Switching between inactive apps can be perceived to be smooth independently of the amount of ram.
And basically is what these YouTubers are proving: a 16gb machine is able to keep open and switch between an astonishing number of complex applications.
My point is that, other than switching between them one should also interact and use them to really prove that no more ram is needed.
And while you are right explaining that big files (e.g. very complex PSD's) need more ram to basically be opened without having to pay a big performance hit for the Virtual Memory usage, You should also take in account that summing multiple instances of less memory hungry application can make the system into the same loading condition as the big files case.
Because Virtual Memory always comes at performance prices, even on these ultra fast SSDs, and the more you need to store memory pages inside the more it will hit on performance.
Also, I understand that target of your advice are normal people who really will not benefit from more ram.
(A casual user can just close one or two application if occasionally notice slowness, or can simply reboot the machine to regain its speed)
But you should be fair to non try to convince that no one needs more ram, or only 1-2% needs, because these are professional grade machine, and productivity is a concern.
@zhenya
The work stations
@macintoshmac
You are right more ram will not increase the speed. Even on M1 Max with 32 gb i have seen much more delay than on my 5900X system. The 12900K is far ahead in terms of snapiness.
Well, we are talking about a laptop with a total power draw of 140W.
If a 241W 12900K cannot dominate this chip, it will mean very bad things for Intel.
Also, you should not make these kind of comparison. Not everyone can choice between a PC and a MAC.
I cannot make use of Xcode in windows and hence I will earn 0€ if I switch to a dominating machine.
Whole world is moving towards ARM
Even Cray is building supercomputers on ARM. X86 with its CISC legacy is a past. It is not easy going away past, but past.
MS didn’t invest money for development of emulation of x86 on ARM for legacy software just because they don’t know what to do with money, but because they need it for transition to ARM.
Not quite like that
it is fast if you decompress once and reuse. If you are going through decompression overhead for every byte (think of random memory access), they it will be dozens times slower than simple load from memory. Of course, it is extreme case. Of course, in real life, you pattern will be somewhere in between, depending on the case. But it is wrong proclaim it is free and non-noticeable. It really depends on the case.