Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PeteBurgh

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2014
289
663
I think there is a lot of common sense here. I think it’s definitely the case that an awful lot of people who either a) know exactly what they want already or b) would be fine with a base/near base model MacBook Air.

That being said, I am a bit of a large RAM apologist for a couple of reasons. Partly because I see us drifting to a world of less efficient apps - more web apps (the new Photoshop web beta to give an extreme example), more electron/other cross platform apps. I don’t think it’s crazy to imagine a 16GB becoming restrictive sooner rather than later. And partly because I really value longevity - I have often continued using machines for various secondary purposes for 7-10 years, and there RAM really does become a constraint.

My main computer is a 2018 Mac Mini, and I put 64GB in it because…well, why not? It was only £250 to buy the sticks - upgrading was fiddly but not difficult.

What I think is frustrating for us desktop people is that this could be a moot point if only Apple kept the RAM upgradable! I know this is challenging with these more integrated SoCs, but still - it would be nice to have options to take the anxiety away from initial purchases, and limit e-waste on the back end. But alas I don’t expect the forthcoming iMac Pros, Mac Mini Pros (or whatever) to be upgradable.
 

GFLPraxis

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,152
460
With the new MBPs, this question is super-popular on these forums, and I see multiple posts spreading misinformation and FUD about 16Gb models, causing a bunch of people to most likely overspend of panic about their purchases.

There is a lot of misunderstanding how RAM and swap files work and, honestly, it is confusing. You’re not stupid if you take a look at your RAM usage in the Activity Monitor and think you need more because your 32Gb computer is using 25Gb RAM. Because it is complex and confusing and depends on so many factors - and it’s (probably) not your job to know these things.

We also live in the age of bloggers and YouTubers that buy insanely maxed out specs and talk about them. So you see people that even call themselves as “your average consumer” running maxed out $5000 laptops. We live in a max-out culture. And sure, if you have money to spend - why not? I mean, people buy sports cars - so why not computers? I don’t judge. But I don’t think anyone bought a Lamborghini “because they want to get to work faster” (at least I hope not).

Also, remember that with “pro” devices, a lot of people actually use them for some expensive productions where a $1000 or $2000 or $5000 difference is nothing. So if you can cut off 30 seconds of your render - why not?

There’s an old saying that “You can’t have too much RAM”. It’s not really wrong - but it’s also not really true because it implies there is no limit to how much you need. Because while having more than you need is not bad, it doesn’t mean you can’t have enough RAM.



There is a really good reason to get more RAM on your computer and there are some very real and valid scenarios where even 64Gb is not enough. It’s not a conspiracy to get you to spend more - RAM is important. But times have changed from 15 years ago. From super-fast SSDs to the fact that RAM usage isn’t raising so fast like it used to (I swear I use practically the same amount today as I did 7 years ago).

In the ancient days, when you ran out of RAM, you just couldn’t launch apps. Then came a time where you could launch them, but your system became very slow and unresponsive. These days - mostly - your system will work just as fast even when your swap is tens of gigabytes, with bunch of tabs open in your browser and files open in your app, etc.

Of course, people will be: but, but, futreproofing. Because apps require more and more RAM! My Snow Leopard Mac used 4Gb RAM and now this is not enough!

The reality is, things have changed and RAM requirements are not rising as they used to and files are not growing like they used to. The reason is that we’ve reached the limits of our own perception and the hardware is matching our needs much better than it used to - file sizes and memory requirements are growing, but not as nearly as they used to. 8 years ago you needed 8Gb RAM for all but the most demanding Photoshop work, these days you need 8Gb RAM for all but the most demanding Photoshop work. 8 years ago you needed 64 or 128Gb RAM to run a bunch of VMs or render a complex scene with thousands of multimillion 3D objects, today you also need 64 or 128Gb RAM for that.

As disk speeds become insane, the reason for having a bunch of RAM is changing. It’s not to have a responsive computer, it’s to allow workflows that require insane files to be loaded into memory at once.

You don’t need 32Gb RAM for lots of browser tabs. Swap is very efficient and you can open tons of tabs with 8Gb too.

You don’t need to keep your swap file at 0.

You don’t need 32Gb RAM because ”it’s shared memory” - shared memory doesn’t work that way.

You don’t need to buy 32 or 64Gb RAM because you intend to keep your computer for 6-7 years, because your GPU or CPU or other parts of the computer will be way more of a bottleneck than RAM after that time (assuming anything is a bottleneck for your workflow in that time). Your 16Gb RAM MBP will be just fine in 6 years, and nice and fast and if it won’t - it probably won’t be because of RAM.

There are valid, realistic reasons to need 32 or 64Gb RAM. If you have them - you know it. And you most likely already have it in your previous computer because you can’t do your work without it. And you know the reason you need it is not futureproofing or browsing or documents.

Or you have money to throw around and just like big numbers. Perfectly good reason. It’s fine to get 32Gb or 64Gb if you can. Guess what - 64 is better than 32 and 32 is better than 16.


So, if you know you need more than 16Gb RAM…. You know and most likely - you already have it. But, to be honest, you probably don’t. You probably don‘t need an M1 MAX either - but that’s another topic. Now, do you want it? That’s a different thing. Go ahead and get it if you want it. But don’t justify it with any other reason - because some people might panic and seriously overspend on already expensive computers (and just for the record, not that it’s important but before someone assumes I’m trying to comfort myself: I could afford more and if I needed it, I wouldn’t think twice about getting it).

Anyway, here’s a nice video, if you doubt me:


I mostly agree with you on principal, but I think you are slightly underrating RAM growth. I still think you're right- 16 GB is plenty for the average user. I'm debating whether I would need 16 or 32 GB. I use an 8 GB M1 MacBook Air for work, and 8 GB is enough for my daily usage except it's completely insufficient to run even a single VM. (Yes, I can run a Windows ARM VM, but it slows down with any serious usage and I can't run games; I've seen benchmarks showing a 16 GB M1 MacBook Air has like 5-10x better VM gaming performance than the 8 GB one.)


Your statement that 8 GB roughly handles the same workload as it did 8 years ago...I think that might be true in the Mac world, but not the Windows world. Or even the Intel Mac world. M1 Macs have heavily reduced the need for RAM, which is what gives that impression. Apple implemented memory compression in Mavericks and the M1 Mac's high RAM speed / low latency has made it incredibly effective has made it incredibly effective, and I think MacOS uses less RAM in general.

So modern day MacOS apps use less RAM than they did 8 years ago, which counteracts app size creep. This is less true in Windows.


The problem is, of course, that if you run Windows in a VM...it's a RAM hog.


I'm personally debating between 16 GB and 32 GB. I'm leaning towards 32 GB purely because I'm thinking of doing some Windows VM gaming. On the flip side, I might not even grab the MBP for now because it's hard to justify upgrading from my work-provided MacBook Air and my 2014 15" MBP is still decent for the gaming I do (like Overwatch) on it.
 

AFK

Suspended
Oct 31, 2021
67
58
the metaverse
To sum up what the OP said: you don’t need 32GB or 64GB of RAM until you need it.
In my own case, I have the 64GB because I know my applications will use up all of them.
yup. but u cant deny that it's much more fun shooting the poo with random internet friends than summing it up like that. <3 the internet.

im sure the marketing effect that the "pro" label has on ppl doesnt escape the brains at apple, but apple segments their market for a good reason. so i think we can all agree the minimum spec 13" mbp / air with 8gb ram is plenty for the non-pros.

taking the new 14/16" as the baseline, the thesis is, is 16gb enough even for the most demanding "pro" users given that demo in the maxtech video? and should you as a "pro" who leverages your tools to earn a living be better off with saving $400? that's a more interesting questions.

look at it this way. i watch a lot of youtube home repair videos and the pros dont use cheap tools for their trade because they know in the long run it will ultimately save them time, money -- and a big one for me -- frustration, stress, buyer's remorse.

im talking about real pros. not pro-wannabes lol. either u can deduct this on your taxes or your work can buy you one. as a pro, can u justify the extra $400 to yourself or make a compelling enough case to your boss?

better hope your boss hasn't seen the maxtech video.
 
Last edited:

ursbraem

macrumors newbie
Jun 20, 2011
17
6
The only thing* that needs a lot of resources on my machine (2016 MBP with 16GB) is Docker Desktop with ddev. To run php CMS projects (TYPO3, Craft CMS) locally.

What about that?

And, I never bothered to ask, any recommendation on the docker settings? I've attached a screenshot :)

---

* apart from chrome when visiting any news website (manic laughter)
 

Attachments

  • CleanShot 2021-11-01 at 17.12.13@2x.png
    CleanShot 2021-11-01 at 17.12.13@2x.png
    71.2 KB · Views: 95

tpfang56

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2021
183
328
As someone just getting into web and software development, I really can’t determine what I need. It really seems to vary depending on how heavy your apps are, what tools you use, etc.

16gb on my MBA is enough for now though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosh.jinton

chrisdazzo

macrumors 65816
Apr 11, 2006
1,204
1,493
Mountains
I'm buying the next-gen iMac with 32GB of RAM, not because I may actually ever need all of it, but because I can and I think I need the overhead for Plex, Adobe apps, and virtualized Windows games via Porting Kit. Consumerism! What's a $400 upgrade over a couple years? (Not much in the grand scheme.)
 

Pro Apple Silicon

Suspended
Oct 1, 2021
361
426
I'm buying the next-gen iMac with 32GB of RAM, not because I may actually ever need all of it, but because I can and I think I need the overhead for Plex, Adobe apps, and virtualized Windows games via Porting Kit. Consumerism! What's a $400 upgrade over a couple years? (Not much in the grand scheme.)
None of those use cases need 32 GB of RAM. I run a Plex server that has 8 GB. I've done plenty of Adobe work on machines with 16. And games certainly don't need it.
 

Larabee119

Suspended
Sep 16, 2014
225
386
im talking about real pros. not pro-wannabes lol. either u can deduct this on your taxes or your work can buy you one. as a pro, can u justify the extra $400 to yourself or make a compelling enough case to your boss?

better hope your boss hasn't seen the maxtech video.

All those are tax deductible. It also saves me $80 of electricity bill compare to my power hungry PC (5950x + RTX 3090 and a 6900XT for hackintosh + 128GB of RAM). 80 x 12 x 3 = $2880, hopefully the resell value still hold at 50% after 3 years then I have 2250 + 2880 = $5130. I have my MacBook Pro 16 basically for free + tax deduction on the year I bought it to double the value.

And as of last month, I look at my boss every time I wash my face in the morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GCC

Sanpete

macrumors 68040
Nov 17, 2016
3,695
1,665
Utah
Videos / opinions like the one from Max Tech really confuse me. What I wonder is: Does the Mac Mini struggle in this use case because the M1 is not powerful enough, or because there is not enough Ram and the SSD is not fast enough for swapping in this machine? And how comes Max Tech doesn't seem to have those problems when he's clearly pushing the MBPs over their RAM-limits?
Size of files matters, a classic case of what to consider when deciding how much RAM you need. And some applications need more RAM than others to run well.

That said, the M1 Pro/Max is a lot more powerful than the M1, and no doubt able to handle RAM restrictions better.
 

adamk77

Suspended
Jan 6, 2008
566
211
Size of files matters, a classic case of what to consider when deciding how much RAM you need. And some applications need more RAM than others to run well.

That said, the M1 Pro/Max is a lot more powerful than the M1, and no doubt able to handle RAM restrictions better.
You think so? I've a feeling that the new M1 Pro/Max won't make a difference unless RAM capacity is increased. If the app isn't able to load the file on the original M1, it's probably not optimized for ARM or is not written in a way to efficiently buffer the reads.
 
Last edited:

ctjack

macrumors 68000
Mar 8, 2020
1,546
1,566
That said, the M1 Pro/Max is a lot more powerful than the M1, and no doubt able to handle RAM restrictions better.
They are only powerful in multi-core because of more cores. Single thread score is still on par with M1. Going by M1Pro or Max then you are only paying for multicore and GPU if that matters to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6

AFK

Suspended
Oct 31, 2021
67
58
the metaverse
Maybe I can ask a question here for my specific scenario: I've got a MP with 96GB and a MBP 2018 with 32GB as my work-machines. Wondering if I can "downgrade" to 16GB with the new MBP. So I opened up two CAD-files and one InDesign-file - each around 8GB of Ram - on a M1 Mac Mini with 16GB. The Mini compressed and swapped the Ram, going from one file to the other felt slow and at one point InDesign crashed. My MP doesn't have any problems with that neither does my MBP - even though it might melt and throttle while doing that and then crash for that reason.

Videos / opinions like the one from Max Tech really confuse me. What I wonder is: Does the Mac Mini struggle in this use case because the M1 is not powerful enough, or because there is not enough Ram and the SSD is not fast enough for swapping in this machine? And how comes Max Tech doesn't seem to have those problems when he's clearly pushing the MBPs over their RAM-limits?

u were on beastly 96gb and 32gb for good reasons, i assume. so go w/ the 64gb.

mini is struggling because it doesnt have enough ram lol. constantly dealing with paging probably playing ping-pong with itself.

you're a prime candidate for more ram. maxtech video wasn't meant for you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Argoduck

Sanpete

macrumors 68040
Nov 17, 2016
3,695
1,665
Utah
You think so? I've a feeling that the new M1 Pro/Max won't make a difference unless RAM capacity is increased. If the app isn't able to load the file on the original M1, it's probably not optimized for ARM or is not written in a way to efficiently buffer the reads.
They are only powerful in multi-core because of more cores. Single thread score is still on par with M1. Going by M1Pro or Max then you are only paying for multicore and GPU if that matters to you.
The M1 Pro/Max has much better bandwidth for memory usage. Benchmarks typically avoid testing RAM usage limits.
 

agent mac

macrumors member
Oct 9, 2007
94
144
You absolutely DON'T need to believe youtubers, especially the MaxTech.
One has to have critical thinking ability: this video makes no sense except one thing.
It is useful to know: that you are doing only one task at a time then you should buy 16GB and save your money.
But the reality is very different. You don't use Lightroom with Photoshop open at the same time.
You either us one of them, or if you opened both then the PRO doing that is switching back and forth between photoshop, lightroom and probably some video editing software. That is how you know how your RAM works.
Are you sitting still like MaxTech and staring at the percentage graph while your video is rendering in FCPX? C'mon, if i wanted to read a news, drink coffee, take a walk then i would stick with my MBP 2012 - i had to do, because while rendering it was frozen hard so no browsing.
Are you buying new MBP to watch how it renders? Most people will just go browsing on the same laptop, this is what he never shown us.
You saw that yellow memory pressure? I seee it everyday on my 8GB Air and I know for a fact that browsing at yellow zone causes lags and stutters all over there. While 32 GB is in low green zone.

Also stop telling about fast SSDs and swap on it. Don't lie to yourself. Any more or less in the know person knows that SSD have huge latency to read/write, then it has speed only for sequential read/write of large files at 7GB/s.
RAM has a speed of 40GB+/s and has lower latency and doesn't care about the size of your files.
What does it give it to you? Well just try it yourself, try to copy big bunch of small 100-200Kb files from ssd to ssd and then see what was the speed. Current SSDs have VERY low speed of writing for small files. What is SSD swap we all talking about? Go find your system swap files: they are small sizes but a lot of them.
View attachment 1899240
Here is the latest samsung 980 Pro. Good luck with 87/205 MB/s read/write speeds to be on par with your RAM when swapping.

==================
TLDR: Current 32GB is nowadays 16GB. 16GB is a bare minimum like the 8GB was before.
I’m weighing up which configuration to buy myself at the moment. I don’t really need much power, and my key factor is that my primary requirement is for a large screen, thus the 16inch laptop. But of course, you still start reading a few reviews to make sure you don’t buy something inappropriate, and you soon find yourself disappearing down rabbit holes. Or whole warrens, even 😀.
And so yesterday I found myself using the system monitor thing for the first time, gazing in wonder at memory pressure that I don’t really pretend to understand other than at a surface level. I opened lots of apps, ran X plane in the background, had YouTube reviewers silently competing to out cool each other. And my memory pressure stayed reassuringly low and green (on a high spec Ed 2015 iMac with 16GB). But even so, it still swapped memory. It didn’t need to, but it did. So, CTJack, it seems that however much spare RAM you have, our machines will still do a bit of swapping, because they’re designed to do that!

Update! There is a stock model Pro with 16GB coming in to Newcastle tomorrow. So I think I'm going to have it, and start to enjoy using it for what I need, rather than carry on obsessing and possibly spend more than I need to and then have to wait six weeks. I think?:)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ctjack

Larabee119

Suspended
Sep 16, 2014
225
386
After people saying the video posted isn’t realistic I’m starting to have doubts.

Maybe if someone could tell me based on my usage? I don’t use it for work but use it for creative hobbies and media consumption. So mostly:

Photoshop, FTP clients, Safari, Handbrake, Sublime, Twitter/Tweetbot, Grids, XLD, Folx, WhatsApp. Handbrake I’d usually run on its own.

Sometimes I might use MS Teams or Outlook but rarely.
That depends on how hard you push those apps. I work with lots lf heavy Photoshop composition and the file size is around 8-9GB. So everytime I load one file, it’s 10GB of RAM goes bye bye.
And samething for illustrator work with RAM usage hover around 7-8GB all the time.
I also have a capture one library that’s about 660GB opened and sometimes it eats up to 9GB RAM
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJTC

smirking

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,939
4,008
Silicon Valley
But there is no test where they use docker to spin up several containers and have VScode running with some extensions that can hog things all while having like 15 tabs open from the errors you had to google... this is my workflow, it tends to be heavy, wish they would cover it instead of a bunch of video apps.

Well, this is the danger of any of us giving advice about RAM. I'm primarily a back-end dev and have a fairly heavy workflow that worked beautifully on only 8GB, but yet someone else with a much lighter use case discovered that MS Teams drags his entire system down if he's only got 8GB.

I do believe everyone who says they're struggling on only 8GB or 16GB of RAM despite having a lighter workflow than me. I just believe it's for specific reasons rather than because 8 or 16GB is no longer enough for anyone with more than a few tabs open.
 
Last edited:

smirking

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,939
4,008
Silicon Valley
I thought MacRumors already established that 8GB of RAM is all you need.

Nobody's saying 8GB is all you need. Some people are pushing back on the early 2000's mindset of RAM anxiety. Tests and people have found that 8GB actually works quite well for the average user (Intel machines included). A lot has changed since then when it really did seem to be that you needed to bump up your RAM every 4 years or fall behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6

AirThis

macrumors 6502a
Mar 6, 2012
518
14
To determine the amount of RAM needed, just use the tools Apple provided with your computer! This isn't rocket science...

Memory Pressure:

- Green: you're fine. Do nothing.
- Beige/Yellow: you might gain some performance by adding memory.
- Red: you don't have enough memory.

The verdict below is crystal clear: 16GB simply isn't enough memory.

1635794502686.png
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.