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.
2 GB vs. 3 GB RAM
- Thread starter badnazzz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
3GB is nice, but 2GB is most likely plenty. 1GB is not enough for me, but I just upgraded to 2GB and it's great. At any given time, I have open:
FireFox with 10 or 12 tabs
iTunes
Parallels with 1 or 2 apps (256 MB dedicated to Parallels XP)
Adium
Stickies
3 widgets
FireWorks MX 2004*
Transmit
Quicksilver
Google Notifier
TextMate
1 or 2 other odd apps
* = Rosetta app
Even with all that open, I still have plenty of free memory. I would not be able to justify the expense for 3GB. Some people can, but I'm a pretty demanding user and 2GB is enough for me.
FireFox with 10 or 12 tabs
iTunes
Parallels with 1 or 2 apps (256 MB dedicated to Parallels XP)
Adium
Stickies
3 widgets
FireWorks MX 2004*
Transmit
Quicksilver
Google Notifier
TextMate
1 or 2 other odd apps
* = Rosetta app
Even with all that open, I still have plenty of free memory. I would not be able to justify the expense for 3GB. Some people can, but I'm a pretty demanding user and 2GB is enough for me.
Well I am a video editor and 2 GB has always been enough but I just don't want to be kicking myself in the head 3 months down the line, when there is the release of something that works better having 3 GB. I appreciate the quick responses
It's always better to have more RAM with video editing. The extra $575...that's your call. If you're doing that much video editing - might it be better on a desktop?
I too have considered this. I have an MBP with 2GB of RAM, and the only thing I've noticed where the extra GB would come in handy though and that would be when running Parallels. Other than that, 2GBs seems to be quite sufficient.
Plus, at this stage in the game, I cannot justify +1GB for +$500.
Plus, at this stage in the game, I cannot justify +1GB for +$500.
I'd hold off. Eventually a 2gb chip won't be so expensive, and until then, 2gb should be plenty. If you need a really powerful machine, you might want to opt for a Mac Pro anyways.
^^^Agreed, in a short time, maybe even less than 1/2yr, the price could drop in half, by then you'll want to sell the current laptop, and get the much better Santa Rosa/Merom line up anyway
, which may support 4GB or more of faster DDR2 RAM, which would make a more noticeable difference in speed, even if not that great.That being said, from this link @barefeats:
http://www.barefeats.com/quad09.html
"Lloyd feels that anything over 8GB is wasted. Yet, in the case of active multiple applications, each of which can use over 3GB, I say you can never be too thin, too rich or have too much memory. We also observed that, when we were just using Photoshop CS2 to edit a 1GB sample, OS X (Tiger) used the remaining memory as a disk cache, saving us hits on the scratch disk.
What's the least you should get? I say no less than 2GB. Even if you are a gamer that runs one thing at a time, apps like World of Warcraft want over 1GB just for themselves. Add what OS X wants, and you are already over 1.5GB. You do NOT want to be constantly doing virtually memory hits. "
I think that eventually Apple will upgrade the ROM and allow the MBP to access 4 GB of RAM... probably sometime around the release of Lepoard. Just a sneaky suspicion.
But right now, I'd get 2GB and then upgrade when 4 GB will be accessable.
But right now, I'd get 2GB and then upgrade when 4 GB will be accessable.
I'd get 3 GB.
I have 2 GB and am already paging out because of shoddy programming. Still trying to find the leaky app.
I have 2 GB and am already paging out because of shoddy programming. Still trying to find the leaky app.
While I think that you would be fine with 2GB of RAM, you can truly never have too much RAM in my opinion. So for your stated uses, you may be better off with 3GB.
Does this mean it would be impossible for Apple/Intel to allow 3GB+ with a firmware/software update in the future?
I'm currently in the process of choosing my mac, and am int he same position. All I know is that I will get 2gb and maybe 3gb, but the price jump is quite large. That said for the all in one experience of knowing you have a decent machine for a few years would be great. Its the same thing as whether it is worth upgrading the processor. Most people have said leave the chip at 2.13 and up the ram to 3gig.
IMO its bettere to upgrade the processor then the ram. I get by with no problems with 1 gig. 2 gig for todays world imo is enough for the average user. Upgrading the processor is much easier now, then later, and doing so yourself voids your warrenty. Now, with RAM, the prices tend to drop for a bit and its VERY easy to add RAM to a computer later on down the road on your own without voiding the warrenty. It takes 10 minutes max to install.
Neither are really worth doing unless you are using this for work and need every last bit of performance and that any additional cost will easily be offset by the performance boost. Any highend configuration or upgrade is never going to be worth the money unless you are pushing the hardware past it's limits consistantly.
He he, thats the thing though, knowing the limits is difficult. THis will be a work machine, and since I'm a designer its just a question of whether to get the extra gb. I havent found any benchmarks for Adobe between the 2 so its difficult to judge (ence all the questions!)
I generally have the whole of Adobe CS open to work in throughout the day. Today (seenas I change my mind everyday) I thought perhaps I should get the 24" iMac with 2gb RAM and maybe up it to 3 later if the software demands it. My other option is to go for the 20" maxed out, as both of these are roughly the same price. Its a tough choice!
I read somewhere that with FCP it will actually work better with 2 x 1GB sticks because of the way they feed off of each other (i don't know the technical term- sorry.) If you're considering the 3GB for FCP-- then definitely do some more research. I'm pretty sure I found it on this forum-- but that was a couple of months ago. . .
From what I have read it says that there can be slight differences and that paired ram is good, but obviously 3gb is going to be faster than 2 when using so many apps (at least thats what the threads say!)
As a designer the screen is also a big issue for me, but I have to say I'm totally wavering. I know CS3 will fly on the Intels once it is out. I'm tempted to max out the RAM and graphics card and get the 20", but the graphics card in the 24 is supposed to be better, and as I mentioned before, I could run the 24 with 2gb for a while and then if needed drop another stick in later down the line to bring it up to 3gb. I'm going to go think some more!
You don't have to, I just read in a few places that the card in the 20" is not as good as the 24".