8Gb vs 16Gb of ram

[Uplift]

If your current usage isn't even close to 8 GB, then 16 GB is a waste of money. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that having an extra 8 GB will increase the resale value of the machine tremendously because it won't. That extra 8 GB won't be worth even close to $200 in a year from now. It'll be worth like $50. Anything that's made with flash memory will not hold its resale value because the price of flash is rapidly decreasing. Anybody who needs 16 GB of memory in their laptop won't be buying a used one. I think some people are trying to justify their waste of $200 by saying things like "don't get the RAM you need now, get the RAM you need in 4 years". How many people who just bought a RMBP are still going to have it and not the latest model in 4 years? Honestly...

Oooo some common sense.

I use lots of powerful software: Photoshop, Cinema 4D, Logic Studio and 8GB ram is enough, i never feel like i need more and my system is never strained. I am disappointed the RAM isn't upgradable but i still went for 8GB because i know i would struggle to use it, even in a couple of years.

At this moment i have Photoshop with a large document open, Pages, Outlook, Chrome (6 tabs), Twitter app.. 3.98GB free.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

I think 'most people' that you mentioned must re-think to buy a rMBP. I personally agree with kvnfo. I mean, if you can buy something expensive (>$2000), you must be able to spend a little bit more.

If you can't, that's like buying a ferrari but you can't afford the fuel . RAM is better, because it is only one time purchase.

That is the most inane analogy I have heard. It would be like saying if you were buying a F459 and you do not like convertibles and driving with the roof down and saying hey you already spent $250k why not just buy the convertible, bespoke paint and an extra set of wheels since you already spent that much.

Hell since you with all those options you are already above the base price of a F599 so you might as well buy that, but hell if you are going to tour around in a third of a million dollar vehicle you might as well make it the best one right?

If you can spend 200 extra on RAM you can also spend the money to buy the 2.6 version and since you already spent that much you might as well get the top end CPU and since you got the top end CPU you might as well get the SSD upgrade too right?

 

[zerotiu]

That is the most inane analogy I have heard. It would be like saying if you were buying a F459 and you do not like convertibles and driving with the roof down and saying hey you already spent $250k why not just buy the convertible, bespoke paint and an extra set of wheels since you already spent that much.

Hell since you with all those options you are already above the base price of a F599 so you might as well buy that, but hell if you are going to tour around in a third of a million dollar vehicle you might as well make it the best one right?

If you can spend 200 extra on RAM you can also spend the money to buy the 2.6 version and since you already spent that much you might as well get the top end CPU and since you got the top end CPU you might as well get the SSD upgrade too right?

I don't mind to spend 10% more from the item's original price. If the price is 250,000.. I don't mind spending 25,000 more. I don't know, maybe it it just my habit. I always watch my saving for luxury items, the value must be 2x from what I will spend (except for houses LOL) . So if a F599 costs more than 275,000, I won't buy it. That's what I mean. It doesn't mean that I will buy the highest model

At here the retina costs around SGD 3,000, I don't mind to spend 3,300. Since 16GB RAM is SGD 240, it's okay for me.

This is the post that I commented :

It's, 180 dollars you could spend on something you want or need. Getting 16GB of RAM for most people is the same as setting the money on fire.

US price for retina is $2,199 , 16GB RAM according to Apple is $200 (it's even more expensive). How can someone purchase $2,199 and cannot afford to lose more $180? He/she should re-think to buy $2,199 stuffs. Oh come on! $180 is considered small price for someone who can afford that price!

I don't say that he/she cannot afford it, but maybe...it is better to choose 8GB instead of 16GB or safe more money.

 

[surjavarman]

I need some help here. I got the base rMBP and I haven't rebooted this thing for a couple of days now. The activity monitor shows that I have 0 bytes page outs over the last couple of days. And during my daily routine I almost never saw my free RAM drop below 3gigs.

When I look at my usage now and 4 years ago, well I am basically using the same programs. Here and there I added an extra app or plugin to be more productive but I am basically doing the same things like 4 years ago (mainly webbrowsing, mail, movies, music, text editing). In the future I am thinking of doing some mild photography and gaming. Although not simultaneously. I btw did notice that when I was using SL on one of the older macs that it rarely needed more than 2gigs under the same conditions. Yet the combination of Lion and rMBP seems to need more RAM.

I need some major advice here cause I am not able to sleep ever since I got my base rMBP. Btw I don't like the advice of well you spend $2k already whats another $200 going to matter? Well if I just don't need it then that will be equal to burning $200. That is $200 less I could be spending in real life on other things.

 

[zerotiu]

Funny.
Do not buy apple, buy a desktop pc, I can save tons of money.
Do not buy HP, buy acer, I can save tons of money.
Do not buy a what.. Toyota? Mitsubishi? Buy cherryQQ, I save tons of money.

Mixing up your wants and needs are wrong.
Satisfying your WANTS cost more than satisfying your NEEDS. I'm outta here

 

[TickleMeElmo]

$180 is considered small price for someone who can afford that price!

I don't say that he/she cannot afford it, but maybe...it is better to choose 8GB instead of 16GB or safe more money.

If you don't need 16GB of RAM (and if you don't know if you do then YOU DO NOT) spending the $200 on the upgrade is as good as burning the money. There is no reason to spend the money or to advise people get it to "future proof" their laptops. If you have to money and are comfortable using it on something that you may or may not need that is your own choice but to say that buying more RAM is a good decision just because it represents less than 10% of the purchase price is not justifiable from a pragmatic standpoint.

You know what is a cheaper option? If two years down the road you find you don't have enough memory I guarantee you that you could sell your current machine and buy the 2.6/512/16GB used for less than the 200 dollars it would have cost you to upgrade just the RAM today.

----------

Funny.
Do not buy apple, buy a desktop pc, I can save tons of money.
Do not buy HP, buy acer, I can save tons of money.
Do not buy a what.. Toyota? Mitsubishi? Buy cherryQQ, I save tons of money.

Mixing up your wants and needs are wrong.
Satisfying your WANTS cost more than satisfying your NEEDS. I'm outta here

It's not about spending money. It's about justifying your purchases.

There are two different arguments:

1. You can afford and you want it so you should do it even if it isn't financially a good decision.

2. Since you spent so much money you should do it because you should be able to afford it.

The first case is justified even though it is somewhat wasteful. The second is the kind of frivolous spending that leads to people with decent incomes being unable to sustain the lifestyle they want.

On a somewhat related note: For people posting benchmarks, benchmarks are only applicable if they are relevant; a vacuous statement but something often gets ignored. If you do not do anything RAM intensive there is no point running RAM benchmark and providing that as proof as to why someone should upgrade the RAM.

 

[zerotiu]

If you don't need 16GB of RAM (and if you don't know if you do then YOU DO NOT) spending the $200 on the upgrade is as good as burning the money. There is no reason to spend the money or to advise people get it to "future proof" their laptops. If you have to money and are comfortable using it on something that you may or may not need that is your own choice but to say that buying more RAM is a good decision just because it represents less than 10% of the purchase price is not justifiable from a pragmatic standpoint.

You know what is a cheaper option? If two years down the road you find you don't have enough memory I guarantee you that you could sell your current machine and buy the 2.6/512/16GB used for less than the 200 dollars it would have cost you to upgrade just the RAM today.

If you read every comment from me, I never advise. I tell them what I've done, which way I pick, and my reason. It's my perspective that 10% from 2000 is cheap. Was I forcing thatt guy to buy? No.. and I never talk about future proof.

I am satisfying my want here. Maybe you didn't read my prev comments. I choose 16gb also because I've used 2gb for almost 4years. I just want 16gb. I told my reason.

This is the easy way imo :
Can buy, want 16 - just buy 16
Can buy, need 16 - buy 16
Can buy, need/want 8 - buy 8
Can buy, confuse about 8/16 - check your saving. Ask yourself wether you want it or need it. Answer for yourself.

Many options like that are always my suggestions. Check my other comments in other threads. Yours sounds very forcing, no advises are 100% correct. One decides for oneself, ours can only influence the decision.

 

[surjavarman]

Can someone just give me some goddamn advice. Jesus. You guys have me waiting for an hour now.

 

[ZipZap]

I have both 8 and 16 in my possession and I can tell you that the 16 gig machine is peppier.

Is it worth buying for your needs. No.

I have no doubt that the 8 gig will serve your needs just fine.

BTW On another 8vs.16 thread there was some advice on how to task the rMBP so that it used up all the memory. I did this on an 8GB rMBP and it still ran fine...just slower.

Your post is way to dramatic but I agree there is no one saying buy so I am saying to you skip the 16GB model as you have not said anything that would lead me to believe you need it.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

Can someone just give me some goddamn advice. Jesus. You guys have me waiting for an hour now.

As I said before in a year you will probably be able to sell your 8GB and buy this year's 16GB model for less than 200 dollars if you really need it.

 

[Queen6]

Can someone just give me some goddamn advice. Jesus. You guys have me waiting for an hour now.

8`s enough for your use, I am on 8 too with my own rMBP and any problems you can easily swap it as its not BTO

 

[TickleMeElmo]

I have both 8 and 16 in my possession and I can tell you that the 16 gig machine is peppier.

Is it worth buying for your needs. No.

I have no doubt that the 8 gig will serve your needs just fine.

BTW On another 8vs.16 thread there was some advice on how to task the rMBP so that it used up all the memory. I did this on an 8GB rMBP and it still ran fine...just slower.

Your post is way to dramatic but I agree there is no one saying buy so I am saying to you skip the 16GB model as you have not said anything that would lead me to believe you need it.

That makes no sense at all. You either have a defective model or you are suffering from observational bias. There is no way that the 8GB is slower unless you are using more than 8GB of RAM. Please stop spreading misinformation.

They are both DDR3 1600MHz memory with what I am assuming the same timings.

 

[Vegasboricua702]

I have both 8 and 16 in my possession and I can tell you that the 16 gig machine is peppier.

Is it worth buying for your needs. No.

I have no doubt that the 8 gig will serve your needs just fine.

BTW On another 8vs.16 thread there was some advice on how to task the rMBP so that it used up all the memory. I did this on an 8GB rMBP and it still ran fine...just slower.

Your post is way to dramatic but I agree there is no one saying buy so I am saying to you skip the 16GB model as you have not said anything that would lead me to believe you need it.

Thats impossible. Its in your head. Unless your using half that memory already.

----------

That makes no sense at all. You either have a defective model or you are suffering from observational bias. There is no way that the 8GB is slower unless you are using more than 8GB of RAM. Please stop spreading misinformation.

They are both DDR3 1600MHz memory with what I am assuming the same timings.

Agreed.

 

[Slivortal]

That makes no sense at all. You either have a defective model or you are suffering from observational bias. There is no way that the 8GB is slower unless you are using more than 8GB of RAM. Please stop spreading misinformation.

They are both DDR3 1600MHz memory with what I am assuming the same timings.

He never said how much RAM he was using. If he was using over 8GB, the 16GB model would be FAR faster.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

He never said how much RAM he was using. If he was using over 8GB, the 16GB model would be FAR faster.

Fair enough but what he said should have included the qualifier "if you use more than 8GB of RAM" and then it quickly becomes a vacuous statement.

If you are telling somebody asking for advice on whether or not 16GB is worth it and is currently using less than 8GB that 16GB is peppier the logical assumption is that in all use cases 16GB is peppier. Moreover, peppier has the connotation of just user interface speed; I don't think anybody says my 4K FCP encode felt a lot peppier, it went down from an hour to 50 minutes. Peppier generally involves user interface and transitions.

I am only being pedantic about it because a lot of misinformation gets spread about technology. Realistically human perception of time is not very good and if something is less than 10% faster it is very hard to notice. I get riled up when people say that the 2.6GHz is noticeably faster in user interface things because that is blatantly false.

 

[ZipZap]

Geez,

I am telling you what I see and the 16 gig is smoother scrolling and loads things faster.

I have them side by side and I am not using more than 8gig.

Have you put both models side by side?

I would agree its should not be possible but it's what I observe.

 

[katmeef]

Geez,

I am telling you what I see and the 16 gig is smoother scrolling and loads things faster.

I have them side by side and I am not using more than 8gig.

Have you put both models side by side?

I would agree its should not be possible but it's what I observe.

Could you take a quick video to illustrate the difference to us please?

 

[ZipZap]

Here are some others on a different topic stating the same (starting post 5):

Click Me

----------

Could you take a quick video to illustrate the difference to us please?

I have no means to do that...

 

[katmeef]

Here are some others on a different topic stating the same (starting post 5):

Click Me

----------

Post 5 at the provided thread is a question regarding if 16gb would provide better ui performance, does not state that it does:

i think theres still a lot of confusion as to whats going on under the hood technically speaking to make these retinas flow. Apple is doing a LOT of trickery to keep these displays relatively smooth. im still slightly confused as to whats responsible for what. i was in the apple store yesterday for quite sometime on one. I was on an 8gb machine and the graphics staggering and stuttering was extremely noticable. screen tearing in the OS was quite noticible when doing basic tasks.i switched over to discrete and it didnt make a bit of difference. i was actually shocked because i thought the stuttering was a graphics card issue. So im wondering if 16g of ram would help instead of the graphics card.

my new macbook pro non retina performed horribly with parallels, graphics stuttering and skipping as well but it was because i needed more RAM and once i upgraded it was smooth. Im wondering if you guys who are having a smooth experience on the rMBP is simply because you have more ram. Honestly, on the 8g machine last night, typical OS operations like swiping, or Maximizing was pretty bad, graphics tearing and stuttering. i have 7 days left to return my 2012 purchase non retina model (honestly, the screen res on this compared to retina is so bad its giving me headaches) but i dont understand whats driving the retina to behave that way, nobody seems to know what the issue is.

------

I have no means to do that...

You have 2 rmbps but no cell phone with a video camera?

 

[Slivortal]

Fair enough but what he said should have included the qualifier "if you use more than 8GB of RAM" and then it quickly becomes a vacuous statement.

If you are telling somebody asking for advice on whether or not 16GB is worth it and is currently using less than 8GB that 16GB is peppier the logical assumption is that in all use cases 16GB is peppier. Moreover, peppier has the connotation of just user interface speed; I don't think anybody says my 4K FCP encode felt a lot peppier, it went down from an hour to 50 minutes. Peppier generally involves user interface and transitions.

I am only being pedantic about it because a lot of misinformation gets spread about technology. Realistically human perception of time is not very good and if something is less than 10% faster it is very hard to notice. I get riled up when people say that the 2.6GHz is noticeably faster in user interface things because that is blatantly false.

Of course. Certain studies even show that changes in speed at the UI level really only become apparent with changes of processor speed at 50% or more.

But as important as it is to make sure that you're not misinforming people into getting machines they don't need, you also need to make sure you're not misinforming people into getting machines that are not strong enough (which rarely happens, but sometimes will).

It's a balancing act.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

Of course. Certain studies even show that changes in speed at the UI level really only become apparent with changes of processor speed at 50% or more.

But as important as it is to make sure that you're not misinforming people into getting machines they don't need, you also need to make sure you're not misinforming people into getting machines that are not strong enough (which rarely happens, but sometimes will).

It's a balancing act.

Well yes, that's why people should follow the rule of thumb that if 8GB is barely enough now then 16GB will probably be the better choice. If you aren't anywhere near 8GB now then it will probably be fine over the life of the machine.

Or put another way if you don't do HEAVY video/image editing you probably don't need 16GB (or run a lot of VMs).

 

[ZipZap]

You have 2 rmbps but no cell phone with a video camera?

I no longer have the 8 gig.

 

[katmeef]

I no longer have the 8 gig.

No worries, my 2.6/16/512 just changed to preparing for shipment this morning, I'll compare against my 2.6/8/512 when it arrives.

 

[Abazigal]

As I said before in a year you will probably be able to sell your 8GB and buy this year's 16GB model for less than 200 dollars if you really need it.

And any savings will likely be eclipsed by the inconvenience of selling a 2nd-hand laptop, ordering a new one and migrating all your data over.

It's hard to say without the benefit of perfect hindsight. IMO, it's somewhat like insurance. Are you willing to spend a little extra now to avoid the risk of feeling regret later on, or save a little now, but at the risk of your laptop possibly being unable to run some high end software in the future?

If you are confident you are unlikely to exceed 8gb ever, then just go with the base model, and use the money to get a good case or office or something.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

And any savings will likely be eclipsed by the inconvenience of selling a 2nd-hand laptop, ordering a new one and migrating all your data over.

It's hard to say without the benefit of perfect hindsight. IMO, it's somewhat like insurance. Are you willing to spend a little extra now to avoid the risk of feeling regret later on, or save a little now, but at the risk of your laptop possibly being unable to run some high end software in the future?

If you are confident you are unlikely to exceed 8gb ever, then just go with the base model, and use the money to get a good case or office or something.

Well insurance is inherently a losing proposition for the insured.

Also it wouldn't be that you are UNABLE to run high end software, it would be merely that it would run slowly. By the time that programs require more than 8GB to even run your 2.3GHz quad core will be equally redundant and it won't matter in the least that you have 16GB of RAM.

I actually think for the bulk of consumers (i.e. anybody who doesn't know they need more than 8GB) the 2.6GHz/512GB memory is probably the better upgrade. There is very little sense getting the upgrade on the base model.

What people also forget is that the a laptop is inherently a mobile machine with the associated limitations in processor and storage. If your work is demanding enough for you to require more than 8GB currently time ay be a good idea to invest in a desktop. Most RAM intensive tasks are also heavily threaded and would likely benefit from having more cores running at higher clocks.