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.
64GB RAM is not a wise buy, and here's why
- Thread starter CM_1986
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes - have used 34Gb
The biggest benefit by far is the performance of VMWare Fusion for me. I had also installed windows 10 on a bootcamp partition but am thinking of deleting that as the windows performance through VMware is so good now (24Gb allocated to it).
With my previous MacBook Pro, it ended up not being that useable using VMWare Fusion with Windows 10
ha I was just curious how many have accessed its capacity yet. I secretly wish I got 64Gb but it was just too expensive.
I’m the same actually...would have gotten 64gb if it didn’t cost 800 extra dollars.
so you're basically running two computers at the same time inside one box. Wow. I never imagined that scenario. I wonder how it games...
sigh yeah that's a bit steep for those rare occasions when its needed
I suspect for gaming, if you spin up multiple VMs you're not going to enjoy the performance, but for building a full virtual network, it'd be very practical for training and lab related learning.
Good idea, just tried Win10 with 2048MB ram, quite slow but I guess I can just bump it up to 4 or something.
I just ordered a new 16" with 32GB of ram.
The fun with VMs is this. Say that without VMs, you'd run your mac with 8 or 16GB. For Windows, it's probably closer to 16GB. So in total, let's say 24GB. So you get yourself a nice 32GB model. Great!
3 years later, the OSses and apps all require more RAM. So your mac definitely runs better with 16GB now and your Windows edges over the 16GB. So your 32GB now isn't sufficient anymore.
Now add several 2-4GB Linux machines that each creep up a few percent and *bam*, 64GB really isn't so extreme anymore.
Another scenario where 64GB RAM are well used and possibly ideal is the production of film or orchestral music with lots of big sample libraries. Using a fast SSD (i.e. Samsung 970 Evo plus or pro) and 64GB RAM (also Samsung) I can compose and record music for complete orchestras and all the individual instruments and sections all in my laptop, with very realistic results.
with just the usual basics open and a few of my CAD apps I instantly go beyond 16gb before even doing anything. I got 32gb and have been watching my use, which is around 24gb doing my 'normal' work, which is before I actually push it..... It is usually the GPU and CPU that I get to 100% use, which is why I maxed both.
huh?
You reference documentation from Fusion 7.0 and it is referencing that a VM CAN benefit from more memory.
What they are warning is that if the VM's memory is to large in relation to the total available RAM, slow downs may be apparent (due to memory swapping.
As an owner of a 64 GB iMac Pro and and 64 GB MacBook Pro, I can verify that more memory makes the VM experience smoother and faster.
The first question is: What are you going to use the computer for?
Then pick the right tool for the job.
I bought an I5 entry level (2.5 GHz, 2 core) MacBook Pro mid 2012 off Ebay with 4 GB RAM & a slow as molasses 5400 rpm 500 GB HDD.
Out of the box I could just about make a sandwich and eat 1/2 of it while the thing was booting up.
I switched out the HDD for a 1 TB Crucial SSD and beefed up the RAM to 8 GB.
Plenty quick for casual use (email, web surfing, YouTube, movies, LibreOffice word processing, spread sheets).
If I was using the MP for professional purposes (cpu & ram hungry adobe applications, video rendering) I would have shelled out more dough for a newer I7 or I9 with at least 16 GB of RAM. But such is not the case.
Also I use the legacy ports and optical superdrive on the mid 2012 MP that are unfortunately not included on the newer Retina model MPs.
Then pick the right tool for the job.
I bought an I5 entry level (2.5 GHz, 2 core) MacBook Pro mid 2012 off Ebay with 4 GB RAM & a slow as molasses 5400 rpm 500 GB HDD.
Out of the box I could just about make a sandwich and eat 1/2 of it while the thing was booting up.
I switched out the HDD for a 1 TB Crucial SSD and beefed up the RAM to 8 GB.
Plenty quick for casual use (email, web surfing, YouTube, movies, LibreOffice word processing, spread sheets).
If I was using the MP for professional purposes (cpu & ram hungry adobe applications, video rendering) I would have shelled out more dough for a newer I7 or I9 with at least 16 GB of RAM. But such is not the case.
Also I use the legacy ports and optical superdrive on the mid 2012 MP that are unfortunately not included on the newer Retina model MPs.
B&H offering $300 off 64gb of ram on the 2.3 i9, 1TB, 8GB Radeon configuration makes me want to just get the extra ram. It’s basically $250 to go from 32 to 64. The question I have is it more worth it to get the faster processor at 2.4. That seems like a smaller upgrade than DOUBLE the ram. I’m a freelance camera operator and editor. I shoot 4K more and more these days and my 2013 MBP is on its last legs. I do video editing, graphics, multiple res outputs for everything. The ram might not be a huge help for that stuff but atleast it will make rendering/squeezing the same video 5 different ways faster.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1520705-REG
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1520705-REG
On the 2015s, it was worth it to go from 2.2 to 2.5 or 2.8. 2.3 to 2.4? Unless there's something else in that processor, I'd stick with 2.3.
And therein lies the reason Apple has made upgrading to 64gb an OPTION when you purchase your computer, and not a required additional charge. Same idea with the CPU options and the storage space.
Choices based on your NEEDS is great.
Two points that I’m surprised haven’t been mentioned:
1. The GPU uses RAM for each 5k display connected.
2. The RAM is now DDR4, and much faster even than MBPs from three years ago.
1. The GPU uses RAM for each 5k display connected.
2. The RAM is now DDR4, and much faster even than MBPs from three years ago.
I initially bought a refurb 2.4/32GB/2TB/8GB GPU for £3239 from the UK store, which had an RRP of £3899. I then realised that for £3369 I could get a 2.3/64GB/2TB/8GB GPU, which is RRP £4099, so I did an exchange. 64GB is awesome for VMs and I did think of future-proofing.... 64GB is more future-proof than a few MHz of CPU in my mind.
I have 32 GB in my Mac mini and without VMs running I rarely go over 10 GB. With Windows 10 in a VM it's about 16. No swap file is used even if I'm running three VMs. Do I need 32 GB? Hell no I would be perfectly fine with 16 GB but it was cheap because I installed it myself.
I assume you're talking about the system memory (which is why you mentioned DDR4), but why is that? shouldn't it use the GDDR5 graphic memory?
I still keep my 2007 imac 24" (core 2 duo) in the living room for my kids to do homework. Runs like a champ, which it could use more RAM though as it only thing that seems to be slowing me down as I already put a SSD in it. That being said, if you plan on keeping your MBP for 10+ years like I did, 64GB will pay off over that kind of time. I do consider myself lucky that my imac lasted this long but it's hard to get rid of a perfectly working machine for browsing and schoolwork.
I agree with what most posters said on this thread. People who upgrade to 64GB tend to know that they'd likely be using that amount.
I'm a normal user who doesn't do video editing or use virtual machines, so I'm getting 16GB expecting I will replace the laptop in 3 years. The reason I decide to get 16GB (instead of 8GB) is that I design and code, for this purpose I have to use Chrome (which tends to be a RAM hog). I wouldn't know whether Chrome will use even more RAM within the next 3 years, so 16GB should be a safe enough bet.
If I'm keeping my laptop for more than 3 years or doing rendering/editing/using VMs, I'd have upgraded to 32/64GB.
I'm a normal user who doesn't do video editing or use virtual machines, so I'm getting 16GB expecting I will replace the laptop in 3 years. The reason I decide to get 16GB (instead of 8GB) is that I design and code, for this purpose I have to use Chrome (which tends to be a RAM hog). I wouldn't know whether Chrome will use even more RAM within the next 3 years, so 16GB should be a safe enough bet.
If I'm keeping my laptop for more than 3 years or doing rendering/editing/using VMs, I'd have upgraded to 32/64GB.
I just popped 24 GB of RAM in a 2008 Dell i7 desktop and it actually runs quite well with a couple of small SSDs. Some say that you can put in 48 GB of RAM and I may test this out. It has triple-channel memory and it will take 8 GB DIMMs though there may be a firmware cap at 24 GB. I could use more than 16 GB. Right now I use two MacBook Pros and partition my workload between the two of them. It's a solution.
I'd go with at least 32 GB in my next system. I don't need 64 at this time but it's hard to predict future requirements. I do have a new requirement which is said to require a lot of RAM but I won't find out until I try it out. I'm doing it on a cloud development machine at the moment. Some of it has to be done on a client though.
I see more and more big work being done on the cloud which is an argument that you don't need more RAM. Things continue to improve on macOS as far as apps go. In the past, I had to have Windows for several programs. Then it shrunk down to two. And then I was able to replace those two with macOS programs. So I don't need Windows anymore. The only benefit to Windows is hardware cost.
There are a ton of people here doing video production, big data analysis and other applications that require a lot of computing horsepower. I'm curious as to why these folks haven't moved to doing this on the cloud as you could carry along a lightweight client and only pay for the computing horsepower that you actually use. I suppose that it could be bandwidth or the need to be able to do the work remotely. But it would seem like the Cloud will be the better solution in the future.
I'd go with at least 32 GB in my next system. I don't need 64 at this time but it's hard to predict future requirements. I do have a new requirement which is said to require a lot of RAM but I won't find out until I try it out. I'm doing it on a cloud development machine at the moment. Some of it has to be done on a client though.
I see more and more big work being done on the cloud which is an argument that you don't need more RAM. Things continue to improve on macOS as far as apps go. In the past, I had to have Windows for several programs. Then it shrunk down to two. And then I was able to replace those two with macOS programs. So I don't need Windows anymore. The only benefit to Windows is hardware cost.
There are a ton of people here doing video production, big data analysis and other applications that require a lot of computing horsepower. I'm curious as to why these folks haven't moved to doing this on the cloud as you could carry along a lightweight client and only pay for the computing horsepower that you actually use. I suppose that it could be bandwidth or the need to be able to do the work remotely. But it would seem like the Cloud will be the better solution in the future.
Until the cloud can support 10g Ethernet speeds while you’re connected remotely, folks working on 4k files or above wont give up their local storage. Look at black magic Speedtest to see what kinds of data rates video editors need. That’s all the time, on demand, no hiccups. That’s why what we my next machine will be, it will need at least 2TB internal storage in addition to all my external drives.