Most likely not. According to data from intel they are most likely the same chip binned differently (and cost the same).
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.
13" rMBP, any reason to upgrade to 16 gb RAM?
- Thread starter Mongol
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most likely not. According to data from intel they are most likely the same chip binned differently (and cost the same).
Of course.. the amount of resident apps increase, OSX updates, notification bars, newer memory-hungry applications and so on. 16GB will make your laptop future-proof for around 5 years.
I did read it and if a dual core processor isn't right for your needs then no amount of ram will fix that and vice-versa.
Man, I took Operating Systems years ago, but let me try to explain this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paging
You have to have some understanding of what an instruction cycle is, and what paging is to keep reading.
Let's look at two cases first: first is when RAM is the bottleneck, and second is when CPU is the bottleneck.
So when is an instance of the RAM being the bottleneck of the CPU? This happens when the CPU has to page into virtual memory to get the data it needs. Because hard drive I/O speed is extremely slow compared to CPU clock speed.
Why would a CPU need to page into virtual memory which is stored on the hard drive? This is the issue of data locality. Modern logic boards are equipped with L1, L2, L3 levels of cache. RAM is just another level fo cache between the on-chip memory and hard drive. When data is more local to the CPU, the processing speed is faster (because of the speed of the fetch cycle in the instruction cycle). L1 cache is the most local, while virtual memory in the hard drive is the least local.
What about the opposite situation, where CPU is the bottleneck? This is when the data is all local, but the instructions are still piling up. So we could have all the data needed stored in L1 cache, and L2, L3 and RAM are all empty, but CPU is still running full speed, meaning its the bottleneck.
So why is how many cores there are related to the usefulness of more RAM?
Because RAM is just another level of cache, the speed up that a bigger RAM can provide after a certain point is related to how multi-threaded the CPU unit is. For instance, if we only have one core, and this one core need to access X amount of data relatively frequently to do its instruction cycles. Any RAM and cache you have greater than X will offer very little to no speed improvement for this case.
Now say we have 4 cores, and each core accesses X amount of data frequently for its instruction cycles. Then the useful amount of ram and cache then becomes 4 * X. Of course, this is a simplification, because the "multi-threadedness" of the CPU unit is not just a factor of how many cores it has. But basically, the more multi-threaded the CPU unit is, the more amount of data it wants to be more local, and the more useful a bigger RAM would be.
I hope this was helpful.
Last edited:
i got the new macbook pro today 13"
went with the middle config for $1499
i5\2.4ghz\256ssd\8GB ram
my first mac
i clicked on activity monitor and its says that i'm using almost 2.6GB of memory while doing nothing and 3.5GB when using safari with 5 tabs
thats quite a lot
is that normal? i wanna install parallels with win7 too!
should i just return it and get the one with 16GB of ram
I'm planning on majoring in computer science
what do you guys think? should i get the 16gb?
wanna keep it for at least 3-4years
went with the middle config for $1499
i5\2.4ghz\256ssd\8GB ram
my first mac
i clicked on activity monitor and its says that i'm using almost 2.6GB of memory while doing nothing and 3.5GB when using safari with 5 tabs
thats quite a lot
is that normal? i wanna install parallels with win7 too!
should i just return it and get the one with 16GB of ram
I'm planning on majoring in computer science
what do you guys think? should i get the 16gb?
wanna keep it for at least 3-4years
I'm conflicted. I've heard people (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/10/this-is-the-macbook-pro-to-buy/) say, for the basic user (like myself), to go with the 2.4 ghz, 16 gb ram, that way it's not too expensive and it future-proofs your mac. I plan on keeping this new computer 3-5 years if i can.
But to me from reading this thread it sounds like the 8 gb would be enough. I don't use too many programs now, but I have a 5 and a half year old macbook with 2gb ram now, so maybe it's because I know it'd be slow going.
but the thing is, at work i have a year old mb pro with 8 gb ram, and i think 2.6 ghz. it's a good machine, but yet it still can be slow at times. i guess i expect a lot out of it since my personal machine is so crummy.
I plan on using more programs in the future though, like video editing and photo editing in the future. and who knows what other apps there will come out. probably some random adobe programs as well, perhaps to learn more about building websites etc.
yeah. so i don't know yet.
But to me from reading this thread it sounds like the 8 gb would be enough. I don't use too many programs now, but I have a 5 and a half year old macbook with 2gb ram now, so maybe it's because I know it'd be slow going.
but the thing is, at work i have a year old mb pro with 8 gb ram, and i think 2.6 ghz. it's a good machine, but yet it still can be slow at times. i guess i expect a lot out of it since my personal machine is so crummy.
I plan on using more programs in the future though, like video editing and photo editing in the future. and who knows what other apps there will come out. probably some random adobe programs as well, perhaps to learn more about building websites etc.
yeah. so i don't know yet.
So, in a nutshell, in doesn't make sense to take 16GB Ram with a dual-core 13" MBP? I don't know whether I should spend the 200 bucks for it or not.
Just make sure you assign enough memory on the host. I believe the formula is whatever the recommended physical host OS/VMS plus 256MB per VM.
So if the host OS/VMS requires 1GB and you have 4 VM's, you need at least 2GB on the host. Then I would recommend 2GB at min for each VM, unless it runs some flavor of linux then you could go with a smaller amount.
For VM's, it's always best to run on a fast RAID system, like RAID 10.
----------
Since I'm not running VM's, I'll most likely go with 8GB.
Take your current Mac, do everything you think you will do on your new one. See how much memory utilization you have.
Now install Mavericks (if you can), do the same test. Has memory utilization decreased? Do you have sufficient memory capacity remaining?
If you have 4GB now and you are only 50-60% utlization, then 8GB is fine. If you are pushing 90-100%, 8GB will still be fine. However, that might sway you more to 16GB if you plan on adding additional memory intensive apps.
----------
Does that MBP have an SSD drive?
I find that running either a Fusion Drive or dedicated SSD is fast. Problem is, you start getting used to that fast speed.
Find a MacBook/Pro with the first Intel chip (Core Solo/Duo). You'll see what you used to think was fast and now is very slow.
It all depends on your usage. If you like to keep several programs running (but not actively using the CPU) at the same time, then the RAM can be a benefit. Or if you use programs that don't use the CPU heavily, but do have to load large files into memory to manipulate them: editing high-Megapixel RAW images. multi-layer Photoshop files, putting together long video files in iMovie. All of these things benefit from being able to use RAM.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Iris graphics will use up to 1 GB of your RAM. Mavericks is *great* at memory management, so 8GB should last you a good long time depending on what you are doing, but do keep it in mind.
You could look at it financially...
Scenario #1: You get the "Best" Base model (2.6i5/8/512) for $1799. You happily use it for 3 years, at which point it starts not being enough for your needs. You sell it on eBay for $400 (random lowball guess based on what 2009 models are listed for). TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) for 3 years = $1399 (1799-400), or $466/year.
Scenario #2: You start with the "Best" Base model and upgrade it to 16 GB of RAM for an additional $200. The extra RAM means it works for you for 4 years until the processors or graphics or something else causes you to decide to sell it and upgrade. You sell it on eBay for $300 (another lowball guess). TCO for 4 years is $1699, or $424/year.
If you don't bother selling it at the end of its lifespan (it breaks, or you give it to family, or use it for some other purpose) you are looking at $599/year for 3 years on the "Best" Base model, or $499/year for the upgraded model.
This type of calculation is based on a couple assumptions though:
- The computer remains functional for the estimated time frames.
- That lack of RAM is the primary reason you choose to replace the computer.
If it's not the lack of RAM that causes the need for replacement, then the cost of the extra RAM won't extend the usable life of the computer, and may not help you get more money when selling it. If after 3 years you want to replace it because the screen is too small, or the Iris graphics aren't fast enough, or the processor isn't fast enough, or there are new 48 hours batteries, etc., then you financially, you aren't getting a benefit.
That said, in the past couple decades of computer use, it's been my experience that for day-to-day use, having enough RAM makes the biggest impact on the responsiveness of the computer. Speed of the storage is a close second, but the new PCIe SSDs mean that you probably aren't going to be able to upgrade the storage speed without replacing the computer.
Since PCIe SSD storage seems to be more than 10 times faster than HD, if you do swap memory to the SSD it won't have as much impact as swapping to the HD.
TLDR version: It's a gamble, just like AppleCare - is $200 now going to give me 1-2 more years of usability on this computer? If it does, then it's probably cost effective to do so. If it doesn't, and I have to replace the computer at the same time regardless of 8 vs 16 GB of RAM, then it was a waste of money.
Thank you for this detailed post.
Okay, I would say, I want to replace the MBP in 3-4 years. This would be a good cycle, I guess.
I want to run 1 Windows 7 (or 8, I don't know yet) in a VM, to do some Word, Excel and Matlab / Simulink stuff as it would run natively like Bootcamp.
Maybe I will try a bit of music production software like Ableton or Reason.
The decision is soo hard?! :/
Okay, I would say, I want to replace the MBP in 3-4 years. This would be a good cycle, I guess.
I want to run 1 Windows 7 (or 8, I don't know yet) in a VM, to do some Word, Excel and Matlab / Simulink stuff as it would run natively like Bootcamp.
Maybe I will try a bit of music production software like Ableton or Reason.
The decision is soo hard?! :/
Trust me, I know!
I'm bouncing back and forth between 8 and 16 so hard it's starting to make me dizzy.
Everything I read tells me that unless you know you will run serious RAM hungry apps, that 8GB will be plenty for a few years. A few years from now, even if 8GB of RAM is starting to be a bottleneck, there will be other great reasons to sell and upgrade your rMBP: better screens, batteries, graphics & processors. The glued in batteries will be starting to show their age at 3-4 years, and will cost $200 to be replaced by Apple.
If you go for one of the stock builds, you can go into any Apple Store to pick it up, or have it replaced under AppleCare. The BTO option means more waiting.
On the other hand, I've seen what happens when you run low on RAM, and it sucks. Granted, swapping will be much faster on an SSD with ~700 MB/s benchmarks than with a ~60 MB/s HD... So despite all the logical reasons to stick with 8GB, I keep thinking about dropping the extra $200 for the RAM. And if I'm buying the RAM, why not drop another $200 for the 2.8 GHz i7? Just to make sure that I get the life I want out of the system...
But then I think again about the longevity of the Iris GPU, will faster & larger SSDs be cheaper in 5 years? And the battery... Battery tech keeps improving and we know the battery in the computer will probably be at 75% capacity by that time. Is it better to plan on replacing after 3 years just because?
Jane! Stop this crazy thing... I'm getting dizzy.
Haha, glad to know I'm not alone in this. I go to bed thinking, screw it, just get the 16 GB and sleep soundly knowing the machine is maxed. Then I wake up in the morning, saying "Hmm, do I *really* need 8 GB?". Then I think, "If only the price difference were only $100, it'd be a no-brainer.". Then I think, "Well, the price difference between $200 and a no-brainer $100, is only $100.". And the cycle starts all over again...
My last laptop I maxxed out the specs. This time around, I'm not doing it. If for 95% of your usage 8GB is enough, I would just stick with that.
If you are in Photoshop or Lightroom or have large VMs commonly open on a day to day basis, I think it's worth it to upgrade to 16GB ram. Otherwise, for occasional use, I don't think there's a need.
If you are in Photoshop or Lightroom or have large VMs commonly open on a day to day basis, I think it's worth it to upgrade to 16GB ram. Otherwise, for occasional use, I don't think there's a need.
Yup!
That's it, I'll get the 16, just to be sure. (Time passes.) Is it really worth the extra money? And it'll mean I'm buying a BTO and can just drive to the Apple store to pick it up... And after 3-4 years, I'll probably want to spend another $200 on the battery replacement. And by that time, there'll be much better technology and I'm fooling myself into thinking that I won't want a newer one. My last Macbook lasted over 6 years, and it only stopped because of the HD failing. I could still be using it today and it only has 3GB of RAM. I could use the saved money to get an external BluRay or DVD drive, or maybe a new AirPort Time Capsule...
OK, that settles it, I'll get the stock 2.6/8/512. (Time passes.) But what will my RAM usage really be like? If I start running out of RAM, I'll be so pissed! It's only $200 extra... And if I'm getting a BTO machine, I might as well upgrade to the i7 to be sure. Battery life isn't a huge deal, as I'll be near power most of the places I'm planning on using it. I've never regretted maxing out the RAM on any machine I've purchased. I've seen so many slow systems due to not having enough RAM. Hell, just the OS and a browser window use up 3.5 GB from what people are saying. Add in iMovie, and iPhoto or another photo editor, or other iWork/iLife apps and keeping them open... It sure seems like I could push above 8 GB and get some performance benefits. Maybe not huge, but some...
OK, the 16GB for sure...
I'm still debating. I plan on using Photoshop/Illustrator, Windows 7 in a VM and then just some general university and business work. I've gone along fine for the past 3 years with 4GB in the desktop computer I built myself (apart from a bit of lag here and there when running multiple programs), so still a bit unsure how much I would use.
And the kicker is that I'm using a 2010 MBA right now with "only" 4 GB, and it's not really that bad. I get a little frustrated using LR sometimes but not that much either. What I really want the upgrade for is a faster processor, longer battery life, and Retina Display. My MBA only gets 3-4 hours of battery life. Hard to believe how far battery life has come in just 3 years.
I pretty much went through the same thought process as you. But I ended up going with 8GB RAM. I did get the i7, though.
I didn't want to buy for the future, as I'll definitely replace this thing in less than 3 years. And I really didn't want to spend the extra money and have unnecessary RAM.
I'm happy with my decision. For a brief moment, I thought about cancelling my order and upping the RAM, but nah. I feel that my i7/8GB/256GB config is completely optimized for my uses.
But it is true that even with just OS and Safari, the usage is around 4 gigs of RAM. I will definitely be interested to take note of my RAM usage under my normal workload, but I'm not concerned at all.