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

iBrooker

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 20, 2016
416
214
UK
This is hopefully going to be my last thread before I commit to buy :eek:

What is better? More Ram (from 32GB) or Upgrade CPU option? (on the 8 core machine with 8GB graphics)

More Ram has always made more sense, but now all Macs come with SSDs the swap disk on it would be fast anyway - curious to hear what you think 😓
 
Last edited:
Which CPUs? The i9 from the i7 is a decent upgrade, the better i9 from the i9 is a waste of money...
 
  • Like
Reactions: iBrooker
So the 2.4 GHz i9 over the 2.3GHz i9? I'd strongly recommend the RAM over the slightly higher clock speed if you definitely want one or the other. But make sure you'd actually make use of 64GB before splashing out on it.
 
You don't need either 64GB of RAM or a CPU upgrade. For the type of work you do, you won't make use of it. How do I know: simply because you're asking. 32GB is much more than enough and 2.3 i9 same deal. Get the better graphics card if you do graphics intensive work. If you really want to splurge, get the 2TB solid state drive.
 
If I had to choose between the two, I'd get the RAM. You can't have too much RAM...

Well for $800 64GB is not nearly enough! In August I spent $288 to upgrade my iMac with 64GB of RAM (2 Samsung 32GB modules).

I guess at least the MacBook RAM upgrade prices have dropped a little.. it was $1000 for 64GB the last cycle.. but $800 is still ridiculous.

If you're going to upgrade the RAM stop at 32, unless you like being ripped off.
 
Well for $800 64GB is not nearly enough! In August I spent $288 to upgrade my iMac with 64GB of RAM (2 Samsung 32GB modules).

I guess at least the MacBook RAM upgrade prices have dropped a little.. it was $1000 for 64GB the last cycle.. but it's still ridiculous.

Well, it's the Apple Tax. Not much we can do about it... I paid $1099 for an iPhone and I'm here singing its praises.

[automerge]1573680835[/automerge]
It's unlikely nearly anyone needs 64GB of RAM.

I'm not so sure about that. Last time around people were complaining the MBP maxed out at 16GB - meaning there was demand for 32GB. That was 3 years ago... I think we'll see some software that will benefit not from 64GB, but at least from more than 32GB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iBrooker
Well, it's the Apple Tax. Not much we can do about it...

You can not buy it.

SSD, CPU and GPU upgrade prices have all become much more reasonable, which is one reason why I opted to upgrade all three.

Really, most people around here were expecting a huge "Apple tax" on this new model and predicting 3-4K starting prices. Thankfully they were wrong and we're actually getting the most bang for buck on release day since the 2015 models. Except for the RAM upgrade costs.

By all means upgrade to 32GB if you need it, but 95%of us don't need 64GB, and $800 for that upgrade is robbery.
 
I'm not so sure about that. Last time around people were complaining the MBP maxed out at 16GB - meaning there was demand for 32GB. That was 3 years ago... I think we'll see some software that will benefit not from 64GB, but at least from more than 32GB.
Complaining is the operative word. People need a lot less than they think. MacOS is very efficient with RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trsblader
This is hopefully going to be my last thread before I commit to buy :eek:

What is better? More Ram (from 32GB) or Upgrade CPU option? (on the 8 core machine with 8GB graphics)

More Ram has always made more sense, but now all Macs come with SSDs the swap disk on it would be fast anyway - curious to hear what you think 😓
What does Activity Monitor tell you?
 
What is better? More Ram (from 32GB) or Upgrade CPU option? (on the 8 core machine with 8GB graphics)

Neither. Both are pointless updates for most people. Your CPU can’t efficiently use this much RAM, it would take it over two seconds to scan it through - an astronomical time for CPUs. So it’s only useful as fast cache. I suppose if you want to use dozens of virtual machines and you care about how fast you can switch between them - sure.
 
Neither. Both are pointless updates for most people. Your CPU can’t efficiently use this much RAM, it would take it over two seconds to scan it through - an astronomical time for CPUs. So it’s only useful as fast cache. I suppose if you want to use dozens of virtual machines and you care about how fast you can switch between them - sure.
So when a person uses let's say: Photoshop, After effects, Logic, illustrator, they wouldn't need more than 32GB RAM and the 2.3GHz 8 core cpu and maybe invest in the better GPU?
 
So when a person uses let's say: Photoshop, After effects, Logic, illustrator, they wouldn't need more than 32GB RAM and the 2.3GHz 8 core cpu and maybe invest in the better GPU?

The other day I noticed my iMac using close to 64GB with a bunch Photoshop files open + Adobe Bridge and some other programs running. These big applications will use up more RAM if it's available, but they can run just fine with even 16GB most of the time. So yes, I think 32GB will be plenty and you're better off investing in the CPU and GPU upgrades.
 
You don't need either 64GB of RAM or a CPU upgrade. For the type of work you do, you won't make use of it. How do I know: simply because you're asking. 32GB is much more than enough and 2.3 i9 same deal. Get the better graphics card if you do graphics intensive work. If you really want to splurge, get the 2TB solid state drive.
Brutally honest. I like
 
Brutally honest. I like

We could be brutally honest and say we don't really need Macs HAHA!

I ended up with 64GB instead of CPU upgrade. Why? See:


And:

 
His test was on the 2018 version which had thermal throttling issues. There is no way to be certain if the new MacBook Pro will as well, BUT it is a completely redesigned heatsink and cooling system.Still think 64GB of RAM is crazy. Editing 4K I never even use over 12GB of RAM. But that's FCP X Maybe Premiere Pro is a memory hog.

We could be brutally honest and say we don't really need Macs HAHA!

I ended up with 64GB instead of CPU upgrade. Why? See:


And:

 
  • Like
Reactions: CE3 and iBrooker
His test was on the 2018 version which had thermal throttling issues. There is no way to be certain if the new MacBook Pro will as well, BUT it is a completely redesigned heatsink and cooling system.Still think 64GB of RAM is crazy. Editing 4K I never even use over 12GB of RAM. But that's FCP X Maybe Premiere Pro is a memory hog.

I will see how it goes when it gets here, if it feels overkill I will return and get 32GB. Hopefully by then the reviews will be out and we may have more clues as to whether CPU upgrade is worth it :D
 
Well for $800 64GB is not nearly enough! In August I spent $288 to upgrade my iMac with 64GB of RAM (2 Samsung 32GB modules).

I guess at least the MacBook RAM upgrade prices have dropped a little.. it was $1000 for 64GB the last cycle.. but $800 is still ridiculous.

If you're going to upgrade the RAM stop at 32, unless you like being ripped off.
Yes it’s expensive but overall the mbp is fairly priced so I would take the plunge on 64gb. If you do heavy graphics work the more RAM you have the better will be.
Since you can’t upgrade the storage and RAM later, I would try to get as much as you can possibly afford.
[automerge]1573710233[/automerge]
Wait... Is 16GB of RAM enough for Photoshop? Should I have gone for 32GB?
If you can, go for 64gb.
 
Wait... Is 16GB of RAM enough for Photoshop? Should I have gone for 32GB?

i used to run finalcut/PS back in college in 2008 with a 4gb iMac. 16 is plenty but I would consider getting 32 at this point to future-proof yourself. It’s always nice to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
 
So when a person uses let's say: Photoshop, After effects, Logic, illustrator, they wouldn't need more than 32GB RAM and the 2.3GHz 8 core cpu and maybe invest in the better GPU?

It is a difficult question to answer. For example, I do have some idea about how photoshop works (I have watched a number of talks by one of its principal programmers where he discusses memory management), and it seem that it will use as much RAM as it can for undo/redo functionality. So I can clearly imagine it being able to "fill out" 64GB RAM. But do you actually need 64GB RAM for Photoshop and will it give you any benefits? I doubt it, but it is impossible to know without running a benchmark based on your use case.

There are two basic ways how RAM is used. The first one is what I'd call "working memory" — this is fitting all the data the CPU is working on right now. Imagine it as having things you need on your work desk. If you have a very small desk, you'd constantly need to run between your workspace and the warehouse, and your productivity will take a big dive. This is the most important reason to have more RAM and that is where people say that it affects your performance.

The second one is using RAM as a cache. Say you have a humongous work desk, so you can put all the items there you need for multiple workflows. This way you can quickly switch from one workflow to another, without having to go to the warehouse. But the important thing here is that you are only working with a small portion of the items at a given time. If fact, you couldn't do all these workflows simultaneously because you are simply lacking the hands to do them :)

It is similar for CPUs. The CPU in the MBP has two memory controllers, with summary total bandwidth of approx 30Gb/s. What this means that it cannot use the entirety of the memory as working memory (it is just not fast enough) — and has to use portions of RAM at a time. But then again you can use all the excess RAM to "preload" things — after all accessing RAM is still much quicker than loading data from disk. You are not necessarily gaining performance, but you might be improving your latency (time that you need to wait for things to happen). The question is now: will you notice this n practice or is the latency already hidden by something else? One often quoted example where I don't think that more RAM will do much good is browsing. People often say "oh, I have 50 tabs open, I need more RAM". But the funny thing is that the visual animation of switching a browser tab takes much longer than it takes to load that same tab from the SSD cache. So if you "workflow" is switching browser tabs 10 times per second, you might get a noticeable difference with more RAM. In a more normal situation — probably not. As always, you need to try it out.

As for your usage (Photoshop, After Effects etc.), I personally think that the sweet spot might be at 32GB RAM + 2.3 8-core CPU. I doubt that you will benefit much from 8GB GPU, but then again I am not a graphics professional and I don't really know how well these tools can use the GPU RAM.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.