Actual RAM use cases

[sk8r1230]

I see a lot of people throwing around the need for 32 gigs in their current work flow or suggesting 32 gigs to others if they want to keep the new 2018 macbook pro for more then 3-4 years. im very curious what this actual use case looks like using over 16 gigs (with screen shots if possible). Im aware some professional programs just eat all available ram and use it as cache but is this really necessary and can you show the community a use case where more then 16 gigs is actually in use and not just "set aside."

A post only ~5 months old on this forums has people defending 8 gigs of ram and only needing the 16 gig option if you want to keep the machine for a long time or do heavy editing.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ram-8gb-vs-16gb.2104650/page-2

Now that 16 gigs is the base, in the same calendar year, is it no longer viewed as good enough by pros or people worried about longevity?

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

16GB is ample for the vast majority of people, the most common situation that requires more than this is when using Virtual Machines - However using VM's on a mobile device will always have a limitation and should always be a temporary thing.

Mac OS also dedicates RAM to the open application, and stores data on the SSD, which are blazingly fast and can act as a temporary RAM buffer. Because of this, 16GB is more than enough when coupled with an SSD for most professional work.

If you use it for general use, occasional hobby stuff, then 8GB is enough with 16GB nice to have. However it's an expense, and you need to ask if closing a few apps/waiting a few seconds is more valuable than that cost.

16GB is ideal for most professional use cases, I have 16GB and haven't reached orange yet. And I use ID/PS/AI, AD, SketchUp, AutoCAD, Cinema4D, PP/Keynote, alongside several dozen tabs open - all these apps are being used intermittently when completing projects, no slowdowns. So 32GB would be nice to have, but not a necessity.

I do hear a lot of people wanting to 'Future proof' a machine, and believing they need 16GB because they have more than 6 tabs open in Safari or some nonsense. You cannot future proof anything, build it to last 4 years. If your work is unlikely to change significantly in that time period then it'll be fine. If you suddenly move from writing blog posts to editing 4K commercials then you'd need a whole new machine, an extra 8GB RAM will not make much of a difference.

The machines should also be balanced on the bottlenecks. If you have a 1TB SSD but 8GB of RAM, then the RAM is an obvious bottleneck, same as 128GB/16GB. The sweet spot is 512GB/16GB for value/performance.

Short answer is people rarely actually physically need more RAM, applications will still work regardless if you have 8GB or 32GB, there will be no perceived difference in speed of things. Only apps which physically dedicate chunks of RAM (VM's) do need more. RAM is also scaled, with the OS using what it can as to not waste resources. So you get people with 30 tabs open and see they're using 14GB RAM, and so 'need' 32GB RAM, when in reality once you put in 32GB RAM you'll see the same use case now using like 24GB RAM - because it can.

 

[Elektrofone]

Right. I notice this with After Effects, it seems to use more RAM when available although it’s render times don’t seem to be improved at all when you limit the amount of RAM available.

 

[NoBoMac]

The big reason for the "16GB is not enough" line of thought is that the RAM is soldered on. So, yes, if your needs should require greater than 16GB down the road and do not buy 32GB, yeah, hosed.

Also some level of "mine is bigger than yours" Freudian ego thing going on.

But as New_Mac_Smell stated, most people probably will not tax the RAM. And even in the case of running a VM, imo.

If one already has a Mac, pull the System Profiler to see what the RAM pressure is. If not taxing your current setup, and not likely to change down the road, don't worry about 32GB.

 

[Macshroomer]

More RAM?

For starters stitched photo files for high end commercial clients from high res medium format digital camera bodies that are usually at least 600MB and as large is 2GB. Among other reasons, I maxed out the ram on my iMac Pro for the same reason.

 

[Aea]

I've aggressively embraced the idea of putting everything in a VM for my work (Software Engineer) about a year ago, and with this upgrade I don't have to worry about juggling VMs or giving them less memory. Obviously this is a niche of a niche but that's my rationale.

Also it's a good bet that 32GB will be the maximum amount of RAM Apple puts in a laptop for a good five years.

 

[DeanL]

I do hear a lot of people wanting to 'Future proof' a machine [...] You cannot future proof anything, build it to last 4 years.

I gotta disagree with that. You can future proof a Mac.
If you think right now you need 16 GB then later end up needing 32 GB, you can't upgrade it because it's soldered.
Like Apple says very well on their configuration page, if you think you may need more in the future, upgrade now because it can't be upgraded after the fact.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I gotta disagree with that. You can future proof a Mac.
If you think right now you need 16 GB then later end up needing 32 GB, you can't upgrade it because it's soldered.
Like Apple says very well on their configuration page, if you think you may need more in the future, upgrade now because it can't be upgraded after the fact.

The thing is, show me an Application which requires more than 16GB of base memory in order to function, or even 8GB for that matter. Having more RAM is not a requirement to use the computer, and in most cases will make very little difference to the operation of the computer - unless you find currently that you're hitting that limit frequently.

Of course you can max out the machine for future use, however you do not know how you will use it in the future. In a business sense, it makes sense to get what you need today, and deal with problems as they arise in the future. If you can get a base 8GB/256GB machine today and it'll work fine and cost say $2000 then it's great, if you need more 2 years down the road then you can buy a new one. But getting 16GB/512GB for $4000 today is just a plain waste of money, you could buy another base machine in 2 years which would likely have those specs for that $2000, and it would have other improvements added onto it such as CPU and BUS speed increases.

People's work patterns are exceptionally unlikely to change in the space of 2 years, more likely after 3-4 years - which is the lifespan of a MBP (Given they will sell you a warranty for that period). What you do with it after this point is up to you, but buy it to work for these 3 years and you can save a lot of money to put towards a new machine, rather than worrying about stuff that may never happen and spending money on stuff you'll never use (And no, the resale value is no that much higher - all things depreciate, that $1000 you spent on upgrading that $2000 computer, will result in a computer worth $1000 and upgrades worth $300 in years time).

 

[Elwe]

However using VM's on a mobile device will always have a limitation and should always be a temporary thing.

??? Why should this be a temporary thing? For many engineers, having a mobile "workstation" that can run whole suites locally is a continuous/permanent thing.

 

[throAU]

People were defending 2 GB not long ago. Doesn't mean they're right to do so.

You may or may not need the RAM, but if you do in the future, you're boned.

Also, depending on how much money you are spending on a machine, limiting its RAM capacity (and therefore limiting the software/data sets you can effectively run on it in future) when you could have double the capacity for say 10-15% higher purchase cost is somewhat short-sighted.

 

[macintoshmac]

The thing is, show me an Application which requires more than 16GB of base memory in order to function, or even 8GB for that matter. Having more RAM is not a requirement to use the computer, and in most cases will make very little difference to the operation of the computer - unless you find currently that you're hitting that limit frequently.

Of course you can max out the machine for future use, however you do not know how you will use it in the future. In a business sense, it makes sense to get what you need today, and deal with problems as they arise in the future. If you can get a base 8GB/256GB machine today and it'll work fine and cost say $2000 then it's great, if you need more 2 years down the road then you can buy a new one. But getting 16GB/512GB for $4000 today is just a plain waste of money, you could buy another base machine in 2 years which would likely have those specs for that $2000, and it would have other improvements added onto it such as CPU and BUS speed increases.

People's work patterns are exceptionally unlikely to change in the space of 2 years, more likely after 3-4 years - which is the lifespan of a MBP (Given they will sell you a warranty for that period). What you do with it after this point is up to you, but buy it to work for these 3 years and you can save a lot of money to put towards a new machine, rather than worrying about stuff that may never happen and spending money on stuff you'll never use (And no, the resale value is no that much higher - all things depreciate, that $1000 you spent on upgrading that $2000 computer, will result in a computer worth $1000 and upgrades worth $300 in years time).

I arrived at a similar direction of thought regarding my 2016 MBP. I was thinking of selling it to upgrade to a 2018 because of, well, the improvements that I certainly do not "need". I told myself that if in case Apple brings out a better resolution screen in 2020 or so, I would want that, no questions asked, so in a span of 5 years I am looking at 2 upgrades.

Then, if I were to keep my current MBP for 4 years and upgrade in my usual 5th year, I will have saved the cost of 1 upgrade, which in my currency would be about $1500 or so. And I can save that money today and earn interest on it or invest it and let it grow into the entire cost of a new computer at the end of 4-5 years and then selling this MBP 2016 actually becomes a profit per se, instead of a loss.

You are absolutely right in that logic - buy for today and deal with the situational need as it arises.

 

[throAU]

The thing is, show me an Application which requires more than 16GB of base memory in order to function, or even 8GB for that matter.

Requiring Ram to function and requiring ram to work effectively are two different things. If you run VMs at all 8 GB is way too tight and 16 is only a little bit better.

 

[macintoshmac]

People were defending 2 GB not long ago. Doesn't mean they're right to do so.

You may or may not need the RAM, but if you do in the future, you're boned.

Also, depending on how much money you are spending on a machine, limiting its RAM capacity (and therefore limiting the software/data sets you can effectively run on it in future) when you could have double the capacity for say 10-15% higher purchase cost is somewhat short-sighted.

TLDR

Buy according to your requirement today, it is cheaper and saves money in the long run for even better overall hardware and performance.

Long version:

It is not just RAM in the case of MBPs though, right? Say the 13" 2018 MBPs, we have a 655 graphics chipset and 16GB configuration. I am reasonably sure that for most users, keyword being most users, 8GB will be fine because by the time they need another 8GB, the graphics chipset would be outdated too, so even for those with 16GB 2018 today, I will be held back by the graphics technologies becoming outdated faster than the demands of software on RAM.

Case in point my MBP 2011 15" 2.4GHz with AMD 6770m graphics.

I upgraded to an SSD 256GB and RAM 16GB long back, perhaps in 2013 itself. Used and loved my computer. Why did I upgrade to the 13" 2016 MBP when it came out? Because of the screen - I wanted a Retina display and the thing felt like a monster to carry around daily.

Now, in 2018, it cannot run Mojave. While it can do everything that I want it to do, the performance is just not good enough compared to my 13" with integrated graphics and 8GB. So, before the 16GB RAM and the i7 processor could ever become a bottleneck for me, the OS support and the storage and graphics performance became one.

So, future proofing only goes so far. If your work requires that you need 32GB, go for it. Otherwise, buying for today is an ever so slightly smarter deal. In hindsight, when I took the top end 15" in 2011, I could have taken the base model 15" and be fine with it, saved some $500 and probably upgraded in 2014-15-16 as easily.

I only went for the top model in a bid to future proof my investment, considering a Mac was the single largest hardware expense I had ever incurred up until that time and I wanted it to last 'a lifetime' but, like I said, in hindsight, it was naive.

 

[throAU]

It is not just RAM in the case of MBPs though, right? Say the 13" 2018 MBPs, we have a 655 graphics chipset and 16GB configuration. I am reasonably sure that for most users, keyword being most users, 8GB will be fine because by the time they need another 8GB, the graphics chipset would be outdated too, so even if I have a 16GB laptop today, I will be held back by the graphics.

Case in point my MBP 2011 15" 2.4GHz with AMD 6770m graphics.

I upgraded to an SSD 256GB and RAM 16GB long back, perhaps in 2013 itself. Used and loved my computer. Why did I upgrade to the 13" 2016 MBP when it came out? Because of the screen - I wanted a Retina display and the thing felt like a monster to carry around daily.

Now, in 2018, it cannot run Mojave. While it can do everything that I want it to do, the performance is just not good enough compared to my 13" with integrated graphics and 8GB. So, before the 16GB RAM and the i7 processor could ever become a bottleneck for me, the OS support and the storage and graphics performance became one.

Yeah it does depend on your use case, but... your 2011 machine (I had one too) with 16 GB will still be viable to run say, Sierra or High Sierra for some years yet.

You could still use it as a platform for running virtual machines (and actually allocate say 8 GB of RAM to a virtual machine if you needed to), you could still run Windows 10 on it, etc.

Also, modern platforms like macOS make use of "free" memory for caching. SSDs are fast, but they still aren't as fast as RAM, not by a LONG shot.

 

[macintoshmac]

Yeah it does depend on your use case, but... your 2011 machine (I had one too) with 16 GB will still be viable to run say, Sierra or High Sierra for some years yet.

You could still use it as a platform for running virtual machines (and actually allocate say 8 GB of RAM to a virtual machine if you needed to), you could still run Windows 10 on it, etc.

Also, modern platforms like macOS make use of "free" memory for caching. SSDs are fast, but they still aren't as fast as RAM, not by a LONG shot.

Exactly, that is, if the need is there for that high RAM or anything, we better buy it today than thinking of the extended future (>4 years). Those users who require specific dedication of RAM resources are better off with the max they can get today, because they will be using that today.

Today, though High Sierra can be run on the 2011 MBP for some more years, the overall experience is just not as great as the 2016 MBP I have, with 8GB RAM! Sure, my memory pressure sometimes hits yellow depending on the number of tabs and the kind of websites I am using, but half the RAM of my old computer is still not an issue because the overall experience is so much better.

On my 2011, I never saw swap used after I upgraded to 16GB, and that was probably just mental happiness. Because, today, I am on a 2016 MBP with half the RAM but overall much better system performance. So, future proofing did not give me much benefit at all, because I did not need that RAM when I upgraded it.

You, New Mac Smell, we are all talking the same thing overall, buy according to our requirement and at max for some years down the line, because eventually new technologies will come that will enable an overall better experience that will not be a sole function of RAM amount. That is, like all of us understand, until we need to run VMs and other RAM happy software that we need to dedicate memory resources to.

I think Apple understands this, and that is why it gives the bare minimum that is needed today in its configurations. Of course, it saves them money, that is why they do it, but it in no way hurts users. SSD storage space on the other hand.... blatantly stingy.

 

[Elektrofone]

How can you really tell if you even need that extra RAM? In the past week I’ve opened up Activity Monitor multiple times when I think I have a more than average load on my computer. I’ll have Sketch, Illustrator, After Effects, Safari with 10-20 tabs open and I’m barely even registering more than 12GB used, but I always wonder if more RAM were available would the system perform better and if I am bottlenecking myself because of the lack of RAM.

Everything I read says the more RAM you give After Effects the better, but in my usage I only notice a benefit in RAM preview times and it has little effect when it comes to render times.

 

[Stux]

In order to barely get by over the last few years, I've been having to squeeze my Windows 10 VM down to 6GB, because of all the browser based apps I *need* to use. Having n versions of chrome, safari and firefox, and all the electron based pigs running... and a VM or 3 was just NOT possible on a 16GB MBP, without serious paging. Paging so bad, that the machine was basically unusable.

This is why I ordered a new 32GB MBP on Day 1 when I awoke.

And yes, not only can I increase Windows 10 to 8GB... which it prefers immensly, but I can now actually run Windows 8.1, and various linuxes at the same time.

So, if you *need* 32GB, then you know it. If you *need* 16GB, then I would seriously consider asking yourself if you may need 18GB in the future... and if you do... well, the next step is 32GB.

Your choice of course.

 

[sennomulo]

32GB is definitely useful for some people, but I think it's a case of "if you need it, you know it, and if you're not sure, you don't".

 

[tomscott1988]

As a graphics/motion graphics designer and photographer I multitask all the time. It means I need the ram, most of the CC suite are ram hungry.

Having Bridge, Lightroom, Photoshop, Indesign and Illustrator open is just a normal day for me as I jump between them. Indesign is a staple where all the other assets I create are combined. Its normal for me to be working on catalogs with 250+ pages with complex graphics etc

I dont create motion graphics everyday but do on a weekly basis, in this respect after effects and premier are usually open at these times which are memory hogs, depending on the projects. I also dable in 3D modeling using blender which is also ram hungry.

Not only that but mail is always open as I receive hundreds per day from clients and colleagues about work, I usually have iTunes running if not it would be the Bose app. I also use productivity apps like word, excel - other apps that help me be productive like wonderlist and lastly I usually use safari with a fair amount of tabs open. Whether thats me having a 5 min break on macrumors/canonrumors or researching etc etc

Pretty much a normal day for me. All the above runs up to 32gbs easily. I have a mac pro that has 48gbs and it usually sits with around 20% free. With premier and after effects I usually have to shut down other programs.

So 32gbs is a minimum requirement for me. The nice thing about the new macbooks is that the SSDs are almost ram drives with the speed and when you run out of ram and it swaps out the difference is minimal so 8gbs can be useable for most people.

Mac OS also uses memory compression and it has done since mavericks. Apparently this technology gives the user roughly 50% more breathing room so if you have 8gbs its more like 16gbs but is dependent on application and the task. Worth bearing in mind when your speccing your system.

https://www.cnet.com/news/memory-compression-brings-ram-doubler-to-os-x-mavericks/

As usual Apple has technology to aid the user that isnt well known and works really well. Windows 10 has only recently implemented this.

I have a base model 2015 macbook which is literally the slowest thing on paper and it only has 8gbs of ram and it seems to always be maxing out but the machine doesnt become slower. I can do my above workflow on it but ive never had an issue. The machine runs like a champ and im always impressed with what I can do with it for such a thin light and low powered device.

If your a heavy user you cant really get away from the fact you need physical ram regardless of compression. If I was an average user I would be buying 16gbs as a minimum because that should do for the real workable lifetime of the product. Not just using it for web browsing etc doing work.

 

[macintoshmac]

Very well said.

How can you really tell if you even need that extra RAM? In the past week I’ve opened up Activity Monitor multiple times when I think I have a more than average load on my computer. I’ll have Sketch, Illustrator, After Effects, Safari with 10-20 tabs open and I’m barely even registering more than 12GB used, but I always wonder if more RAM were available would the system perform better and if I am bottlenecking myself because of the lack of RAM.

Everything I read says the more RAM you give After Effects the better, but in my usage I only notice a benefit in RAM preview times and it has little effect when it comes to render times.

In order to barely get by over the last few years, I've been having to squeeze my Windows 10 VM down to 6GB, because of all the browser based apps I *need* to use. Having n versions of chrome, safari and firefox, and all the electron based pigs running... and a VM or 3 was just NOT possible on a 16GB MBP, without serious paging. Paging so bad, that the machine was basically unusable.

This is why I ordered a new 32GB MBP on Day 1 when I awoke.

And yes, not only can I increase Windows 10 to 8GB... which it prefers immensly, but I can now actually run Windows 8.1, and various linuxes at the same time.

So, if you *need* 32GB, then you know it. If you *need* 16GB, then I would seriously consider asking yourself if you may need 18GB in the future... and if you do... well, the next step is 32GB.

Your choice of course.

32GB is definitely useful for some people, but I think it's a case of "if you need it, you know it, and if you're not sure, you don't".

As a graphics/motion graphics designer and photographer I multitask all the time. It means I need the ram, most of the CC suite are ram hungry.

Having Bridge, Lightroom, Photoshop, Indesign and Illustrator open is just a normal day for me as I jump between them. Indesign is a staple where all the other assets I create are combined. Its normal for me to be working on catalogs with 250+ pages with complex graphics etc

I dont create motion graphics everyday but do on a weekly basis, in this respect after effects and premier are usually open at these times which are memory hogs, depending on the projects. I also dable in 3D modeling using blender which is also ram hungry.

Not only that but mail is always open as I receive hundreds per day from clients and colleagues about work, I usually have iTunes running if not it would be the Bose app. I also use productivity apps like word, excel - other apps that help me be productive like wonderlist and lastly I usually use safari with a fair amount of tabs open. Whether thats me having a 5 min break on macrumors/canonrumors or researching etc etc

Pretty much a normal day for me. All the above runs up to 32gbs easily. I have a mac pro that has 48gbs and it usually sits with around 20% free. With premier and after effects I usually have to shut down other programs.

So 32gbs is a minimum requirement for me. The nice thing about the new macbooks is that the SSDs are almost ram drives with the speed and when you run out of ram and it swaps out the difference is minimal so 8gbs can be useable for most people.

Mac OS also uses memory compression and it has done since mavericks. Apparently this technology gives the user roughly 50% more breathing room so if you have 8gbs its more like 16gbs but is dependent on application and the task. Worth bearing in mind when your speccing your system.

https://www.cnet.com/news/memory-compression-brings-ram-doubler-to-os-x-mavericks/

As usual Apple has technology to aid the user that isnt well known and works really well. Windows 10 has only recently implemented this.

I have a base model 2015 macbook which is literally the slowest thing on paper and it only has 8gbs of ram and it seems to always be maxing out but the machine doesnt become slower. I can do my above workflow on it but ive never had an issue. The machine runs like a champ and im always impressed with what I can do with it for such a thin light and low powered device.

If your a heavy user you cant really get away from the fact you need physical ram regardless of compression. If I was an average user I would be buying 16gbs as a minimum because that should do for the real workable lifetime of the product. Not just using it for web browsing etc doing work.

 

[Elektrofone]

As a graphics/motion graphics designer and photographer I multitask all the time. It means I need the ram, most of the CC suite are ram hungry.

Having Bridge, Lightroom, Photoshop, Indesign and Illustrator open is just a normal day for me as I jump between them. Indesign is a staple where all the other assets I create are combined. Its normal for me to be working on catalogs with 250+ pages with complex graphics etc

I dont create motion graphics everyday but do on a weekly basis, in this respect after effects and premier are usually open at these times which are memory hogs, depending on the projects. I also dable in 3D modeling using blender which is also ram hungry.

Not only that but mail is always open as I receive hundreds per day from clients and colleagues about work, I usually have iTunes running if not it would be the Bose app. I also use productivity apps like word, excel - other apps that help me be productive like wonderlist and lastly I usually use safari with a fair amount of tabs open. Whether thats me having a 5 min break on macrumors/canonrumors or researching etc etc

Pretty much a normal day for me. All the above runs up to 32gbs easily. I have a mac pro that has 48gbs and it usually sits with around 20% free. With premier and after effects I usually have to shut down other programs.

So 32gbs is a minimum requirement for me. The nice thing about the new macbooks is that the SSDs are almost ram drives with the speed and when you run out of ram and it swaps out the difference is minimal so 8gbs can be useable for most people.

Mac OS also uses memory compression and it has done since mavericks. Apparently this technology gives the user roughly 50% more breathing room so if you have 8gbs its more like 16gbs but is dependent on application and the task. Worth bearing in mind when your speccing your system.

https://www.cnet.com/news/memory-compression-brings-ram-doubler-to-os-x-mavericks/

As usual Apple has technology to aid the user that isnt well known and works really well. Windows 10 has only recently implemented this.

I have a base model 2015 macbook which is literally the slowest thing on paper and it only has 8gbs of ram and it seems to always be maxing out but the machine doesnt become slower. I can do my above workflow on it but ive never had an issue. The machine runs like a champ and im always impressed with what I can do with it for such a thin light and low powered device.

If your a heavy user you cant really get away from the fact you need physical ram regardless of compression. If I was an average user I would be buying 16gbs as a minimum because that should do for the real workable lifetime of the product. Not just using it for web browsing etc doing work.

I guess what I’m confused by is all the people saying that I’ll know that I’ll need it. But in my experience is that macOS lately does a great job of juggling RAM to the point where I have no idea if I need it or not. Will my computer be faster if I give it more RAM?

It’s like mixed signals. Some people say you need as much RAM as you can get with Adobe apps while others say you don’t need more than 16GB.

 

[GerritB]

I used to do a lot of high resolution work in Photoshop using its Large photoshop file format, consisting of a lot of layers. I had a lot of trouble even opening the files on my MBP 2014 16gb as it filled up the ram and I needed to shutdown all other programs. I've been waiting since for a laptop with 32gb so I'm very happy that its now here. It was the sole reason I didn't update the last couple of years.

If that kind of thing sounds like something you do or will do, go for the 32gb. If you can't think of anything that takes up that kind of ram then it makes no sense to spend that extra money.

 

[Ploki]

How can you really tell if you even need that extra RAM? In the past week I’ve opened up Activity Monitor multiple times when I think I have a more than average load on my computer. I’ll have Sketch, Illustrator, After Effects, Safari with 10-20 tabs open and I’m barely even registering more than 12GB used, but I always wonder if more RAM were available would the system perform better and if I am bottlenecking myself because of the lack of RAM.

Everything I read says the more RAM you give After Effects the better, but in my usage I only notice a benefit in RAM preview times and it has little effect when it comes to render times.

if your computer uses SWAP, that mean you ran out of memory and computer started "sharing" the memory to primary storage.

in case of recent MBPs, this means 2-3gb/s speeds for swap memory. (For comparison, 2009 macbooks had memory speed of roughly 7Gg/s, so only two times as fast), meaning if and when you run out of memory, it's not as bad for daily tasks as one would think it would be.

In Pro applications, performance hit is usually obvious.

 

[Elektrofone]

if your computer uses SWAP, that mean you ran out of memory and computer started "sharing" the memory to primary storage.

in case of recent MBPs, this means 2-3gb/s speeds for swap memory. (For comparison, 2009 macbooks had memory speed of roughly 7Gg/s, so only two times as fast), meaning if and when you run out of memory, it's not as bad for daily tasks as one would think it would be.

In Pro applications, performance hit is usually obvious.

What application is that you’re using to monitor? Maybe I’ll run that tomorrow during my work day and see how i do.

 

[throAU]

So, if you *need* 32GB, then you know it. If you *need* 16GB, then I would seriously consider asking yourself if you may need 18GB in the future... and if you do... well, the next step is 32GB.

Your choice of course.

Definitely.

I'd suggest that if you think you need X GB today, then you should allow for some growth over the expected life of the machine.

Unfortunately some people who have been mac only for the past 10-15 years have experienced Apple cutting resources and improving performance since the start of OS X (which has masked the growth requirements somewhat), but that won't continue indefinitely.

Performance and resource consumption got a lot better not because Apple has amazing special sauce to improve performance, but because the earlier versions of OS X were pretty slow and resource intensive for the time.

The performance improvements to be had in newer versions aren't there so much any more. macOS today (since say, Snow Leopard) has become roughly comparable to other platforms and will not see the same sorts of trends in resource requirements growth.

So you're back to the way everyone else in computing has been dealing with things since day 1.

Memory requirements tend to grow over time. I'd suggest 10% per year on the conservative end and 20% per year on the high end. This is my general rule of thumb based on experience with various platforms since 1989.

i.e., over 5 years you should perhaps plan on needing roughly double the memory you need today (assuming 20% per year over 5 years - yes that's not calculated with compounding, but we're talking rough rules here).

If 8 GB is heaps for you today, 16 will probably be heaps for you in say 2022-2023.
If 8 GB is barely enough today, you definitely want 16 for the future.

If you think 16 is borderline today, you definitely want 32 - assuming you're keeping the machine 3-5 years.



edit:
2 things:

SSDs and memory compression IMPROVE things with insufficient memory (we're not like back in the old days with swap to hard drive, it's MUCH better!), but they do still slow things down.

While your CPU is doing memory compression and swapping to SSD, it isn't spending those CPU resources running the program you're using. That hit isn't free.