People just open up ram threads for the hell of it.
If he wanted any advice he wouldve given some kind of information.
Sorta like opening a thread and just asking: do i need a haircut ? ....
.... But not giving a photo.
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.
16 GB vs 8 GB - Is 16 G overkill?
- Thread starter Omar Comin' Yo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People just open up ram threads for the hell of it.
If he wanted any advice he wouldve given some kind of information.
Sorta like opening a thread and just asking: do i need a haircut ? ....
.... But not giving a photo.
And that's why I ask for more information as needed when I respond to a "do I need" type of thread.
This is just plain wrong. People change, and their computing needs change. For instance, I bought my iMac three years ago. Back then I needed it for basic home use, iPhoto and that sort of stuff, plus I wanted it to double as an external display for my PC that I used for work.
Well, fast forward three years, I now find myself looking at self-employment, and need a development server for Sharepoint, Dynamics and Service Center. Well, I was negotiating prices with HP and Dell for their small business servers when I realized that what I really need is something with a minimum of 32 GB RAM that can run 3-4 Windows VM's somewhat nicely. And hey presto, take out the 4 x 2 GB modules from my iMac and replace them with 4 x 8 GB modules and I have just that. So, being able to upgrade to make the computer suit my current needs saved me a lot of money. And since upgrades are out of the question with ne new retina mqcbooks, maxing it out *might* do the same for OP a few years down the road.
So, my advice still stands. If you can afford it and think that you might want it, just go for it. As for maxing out everything else, well, your call. It's just that it is easy to stick an external disk in a USB-port or use cloud storage if you need more disk space and the difference between a baseline and maxed out CPU will not be that significant in three years time. Having too little RAM might however make it impossible to run some piece of software, whereas a slow CPU just makes it a bit more tedious. Also, you really can't have "too much RAM", since the OS will aleays use it for something, such as I/O cacheing and whatnot. Whereas if you spend megabucks on a huge SSD that never gets more than 25 % usage you have effectively wasted your money. Sure, in light use the difference between 8 and 16 GB RAM might be so small that it is basically not even measureable, but it would still be there...
I feel like that's just a risk. A smart buyer will buy what they need and buy what they need again when the time arise. There's no reason to tie up capital because of a chance you might need it in three years.
However, again like I said it's not a simple choice. I don't see why only 16gb ram is considered future proofing and not a bigger ssd and faster proc. who knows how big files might be in the future. Who knows how much more proc power you need to eve. Surf the web. Perhaps you picked up a photoshop hobby. You really should account for all possibility and buy the 3.2k laptop
You can never have too much RAM.
That said, I went for the 8 GB in my rMBP because that was the model on sale. Will I regret it down the line? We'll see. This is only my third Mac laptop purchase -- the first was a 12" PowerBook I bought in 2003, the second was a 15" MacBook Pro I bought in 2008. If you do the math that means each of my previous two laptops have lasted 5-6 years before ultimately being replaced. I was, however, able to extend their lives by upgrading RAM and HD.
So one question is whether my rMBP will last me 5-6 years without the ability to upgrade the RAM.
On the other hand, another question is: will it need to? Maybe something cool will come along in 2-3 years and I'll sell the rMBP while it still has some sort of resale value, and upgrade to whatever is the latest and greatest. Just like we don't worry about not being able to upgrade the memory in our iPhones or iPads because we really don't care -- we sell them and replace them after a few years. Are Apple laptops heading in that direction too?
That said, I went for the 8 GB in my rMBP because that was the model on sale. Will I regret it down the line? We'll see. This is only my third Mac laptop purchase -- the first was a 12" PowerBook I bought in 2003, the second was a 15" MacBook Pro I bought in 2008. If you do the math that means each of my previous two laptops have lasted 5-6 years before ultimately being replaced. I was, however, able to extend their lives by upgrading RAM and HD.
So one question is whether my rMBP will last me 5-6 years without the ability to upgrade the RAM.
On the other hand, another question is: will it need to? Maybe something cool will come along in 2-3 years and I'll sell the rMBP while it still has some sort of resale value, and upgrade to whatever is the latest and greatest. Just like we don't worry about not being able to upgrade the memory in our iPhones or iPads because we really don't care -- we sell them and replace them after a few years. Are Apple laptops heading in that direction too?
Eventually all the pro products are going to need 16GB. And when I mean eventually, I mean by the end of this year or the next. Photoshop needs 8GB for the 3D tools I believe? Anyway, I only have 4GB and it nags me about the video RAM all the time.
Like I wrote
Everybody should just strap a macpro to their backs. In case you need more precious ram!
Last edited:
Yes - if you fit enough to start with (the OP's exact point). How much is enough? Well if you max it you can't have tried any harder and you will maximize the life of the machine, whatever it maybe.
On the other hand, if you're only doing surfing, basic apps, you're not speeding yup the computer or decreasing the crashes. That is if you're not using all the ram, its just sitting there, not helping or hindering you.
It is up to the OS to use the RAM, the user should most certainly not need to bother about that. And every halfway decent OS will use every last bit of RAM that is available for caching stuff and other "bookkeeping" under the hood.
----------
Because CPU will not be a limiting factor. Everything that can be done on the maxed out CPU can be done with the base model CPU as well, it's just that some things are a bit more tedious. Ditto with storage, you can have a backbag full of external drive with you and plug them in as needed, or get a few petabytes of cloud storage from Amazon if you feel that you need to have a personal copy of Youtube...
RAM however is a different story. If something needs more than 8 GB of RAM, you're SOL. It either won't work at all, or it will be completely useless since all the machine will ever do is swap, swap and swap.
----------
Well, maybe that would not be very convenient, but sure, if you feel that you need or will need more than 16 gigs of RAM you will need to look elsewhere.
Agreed, but my point is, if someone is using just Safari and mail.app, then you're going to see zero difference if the person has 8gb or 16gb of ram
To answer some of the questions..
These are the program I use regularly:
Final Draft
Scrivener
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Excel
Movie Magic Screenwriter
Quick Time
Master Writer
The occasional game (Gone Home, C&C Generals, etc)
These are programs I sometimes use
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe InDesign
iMove
Final Cut Pro
I decided to go with the rPro because a spec'd up Air is the same price and you don't get the nicer screen.
These are the program I use regularly:
Final Draft
Scrivener
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Excel
Movie Magic Screenwriter
Quick Time
Master Writer
The occasional game (Gone Home, C&C Generals, etc)
These are programs I sometimes use
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe InDesign
iMove
Final Cut Pro
I decided to go with the rPro because a spec'd up Air is the same price and you don't get the nicer screen.
Last edited:
I bought the 8GB because I wanted running heavy scientific algorithms. WHAT?
What you read is correct. To me, it isn't worth paying more for something that isn't upgradeable. 16GB would be really nice, but I can fill the entire 16GB as easy as I fill 8GB. I would get a real gain if I could have 64GB or even 128GB.
On classic Macbooks you could see this kind of performance bump. A 2010 Macbook White was equipped with 2GB, but it supports up to 16GB, a 8x spec bump on RAM. THIS would be awesome. Switching from 8 to 16 is not really exciting.
----------------------
EDIT: If you can afford 16GB, go ahead. I'm also planning upgrading my 2010-Mini to 16GB and SSD some time. This will make it perform some tasks (like VM-ing) better than my rMBP. I'm just saying 8GB to 16GB is not what we could call a "quantum jump" on performance like it would be if it was 8GB to 64GB.
What you read is correct. To me, it isn't worth paying more for something that isn't upgradeable. 16GB would be really nice, but I can fill the entire 16GB as easy as I fill 8GB. I would get a real gain if I could have 64GB or even 128GB.
On classic Macbooks you could see this kind of performance bump. A 2010 Macbook White was equipped with 2GB, but it supports up to 16GB, a 8x spec bump on RAM. THIS would be awesome. Switching from 8 to 16 is not really exciting.
----------------------
EDIT: If you can afford 16GB, go ahead. I'm also planning upgrading my 2010-Mini to 16GB and SSD some time. This will make it perform some tasks (like VM-ing) better than my rMBP. I'm just saying 8GB to 16GB is not what we could call a "quantum jump" on performance like it would be if it was 8GB to 64GB.
Last edited:
w/ PCI-e storage and the fact that I don't think there really is much you can do that'll take up 8GB of memory simultaneously unless you run more than 1 VM, I don't think it's a problem. your examples are faulty. if i need more storage, i should ahve to carry multiple hard drives with less performance? How is that difference than using SWAP? It's an inconvenience.
Using your example as well, ya proc will just take longer to do it, how is that different than swap?
None of these programms are very demanding except for fcp or maybe ps.
Fcp is a pro app so i am not sure how u can just use it sometimes.
If u plan on editing 4k, 4:4:4 video, then no macbook will cut it.
Ull have to get a macpro then. (no joke this time)
Even with uncompressed 4:2:2 1080HD no current available macbook will be all too happy.
More ram is not gonna make any real difference either.
A maxed out 15" might help though.
If u are handling compressed video then any macbook will work just fine. No more ram needed.
Would be helpfull to know bitrate/compression format/camera type.
The only scenario where 16gb might come in handy would be mass handling raw files from a nikon D800 or the like in ps.
I edit large amounts (several gigs) of raw files from my D610 in lightroom and sometimes ps.
Works very smooth with very little delay on my rmbp.
But even my mini with only 4gig and hdd can handle this very well.
Seeing your program usage i quess u r tryin to get into film.
I strongly suggest u consider a macpro base model (2700,-) and then upgrade it later when things develop.
And please dont abuse your macbook with video games.
I agree...
I have the same use and the 16GB is worth it. If you only run OSX without VM's and are just doing office/email/browsing then 8GB would be enough
I use Final Cut for fun. Cut up films. footage. recut trailers. I am not editing 4k footage. I do not think a Mac Pro is necessary.
I have used a Canon EOS 7D and Canon 60D in the past with my old computer.
I am not sure what camera I will be using this year. A friend owns a Nikon D5200, which is pretty solid, which is what we have been using as of late.
I am leaning towards the GH3. Don't want to break the bank for a camera.
Last edited:
My experience is exactly the opposite. The RAM upgrade from 8 GB to 16 GB removed almost all (80-90 percent) beach balls regarding WebKit-based browsers and other applications like VMs, Xcode and so on. Early-2011, 17" Quad Core i7, 2.2 GHz.
The GH3 has a reputation.
But consider: Its a crop sensor, u have to get lenses, its still quite expensive and once you are dedicated to a system its inconvinient to change. (Crop lenses also have low resale value)
The GH3 records >70bit internally so files should be larger.
When it comes to other peoples footage its hard to tell.
All Nikons have uncompressed hdmi out and canons record raw with magic lantern.
The D5200s internal bitrate is super low and should be no problem on any macbook.
What computer have u used so far and how did it do?
In any case I dont see much benefit with 16gb in a macbook.
Take the extra 200,- and invest in good lenses.
Lenses dont lose their value like macbooks and camerabodies do.
I have a rmbp because i am always on the move.
If that wouldnt be the case I'd take a very close look at the new macpro.
Its optimized for video editing with fcp and if u dont edit 4k then the base model should be perfect.
U can also upgrade later so its much more future proof.
Anand, in his review of the first ever Retina MacBook, said:
"To be honest, for most usage models, that [8GB of Memory] will likely last you for the life of the machine ... assuming you don't keep the machine for 10 years. The other thing about memory is that you'll likely run into processor bottlenecks and GPU bottlenecks before you run out of system memory."
I doubt you need 16GB. Put the $180 to better use.
"To be honest, for most usage models, that [8GB of Memory] will likely last you for the life of the machine ... assuming you don't keep the machine for 10 years. The other thing about memory is that you'll likely run into processor bottlenecks and GPU bottlenecks before you run out of system memory."
I doubt you need 16GB. Put the $180 to better use.
Because most things simply won't run if you don't have enough memory. They will run with an underpowered CPU, albeit a bit slower.
PCI-e is not a solution here, access times are still calculated in milliseconds, whereas RAM access times are calculated in nanoseconds. The difference in magnitude is times 1000000 (one million). OK, this does not paint an entirely correct picture, but still, real-world access speeds are 100-200 times faster for RAM vs. disk. So no, you can't make up for insufficient RAM with swap. It just won't work, since everything becomes hundreds of times slower if they should work at all.