Apple Silicon Unified Memory: How Much Mac RAM Do You Need?

[hovscorpion12]

I can't wait for the day when

1. RAM starts at 128GB like our phones.
2. Doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
3. Everyone has fun ❤️

 

[DerekK]

To add to this, it is also VRAM. So if you are looking for large amount of VRAM, Apple’s prices are much cheaper than NVIDIA’s offerings. $7,000 for a GPU only that has 48GB VRAM.

Apple uses LPDDR, while nVidia uses GDDR. GDDR typically has much higher bandwidth, so it is better for graphics intensive applications.

Also, you cannot compare Apple LPDDR memory costs to nVidia GPU costs. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[seek3r]

I guess I’m part of the other 5%

Most of that is cache of various kinds, your wired memory is a grand total of 5gb. If that's your typical load you could likely have gotten away with half the memory you have (128-->64), possibly less, 32 perhaps, depending on individual application memory spikes, and you definitely could have gotten away with 96

And, like, more memory is useful, cache is good, but acknowledge it.

 

[seek3r]

Apple uses LPDDR, while nVidia uses GDDR. GDDR typically has much higher bandwidth, so it is better for graphics intensive applications.

Also, you cannot compare Apple LPDDR memory costs to nVidia GPU costs. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

Eh, it's a bit dependent on the card you're comparing it to, sure on the absolute high end an NV 4090 has nearly twice the memory bandwidth of an M4 Max, but that M4 Max in turn has nearly twice the bandwidth of an NV 4060. Given a 4090 by itself is nearly $2,000 the 4060 kinda makes a better comparison for machines that you can buy for nearly the same price as the 4090 alone

 

[LogicalApex]

I guess I’m part of the other 5%

The graph your showing shows you're in the 95%.

Obviously, you may use the machine in ways that tax your memory more than you did in that screenshot, but the very low memory pressure shows you that you're "using" less than 25% of your RAM capacity.

View memory usage in Activity Monitor on Mac

In Activity Monitor, view the amount of system memory being used on your Mac, including physical, compressed, wired, and app memory.

support.apple.com

 

[Mity]

Mac's have approx 6% of the market share, even the less than scrupulous EU dictators will struggle to put together a case against Apple, ultimately, no one really knows what the cost is to Apple and more importantly, Apple doesn't force anybody to buy their product!

With inflation and cost of living being central tenants of elections all over the world, I expect more scrutiny into price gouging by the likes of Apple. No one is forcing us to buy oil either but we have rules on anti-competitive measures to prevent cartel pricing structures. I don't see this any differently. Adding up all products together (mobile, tablet, laptop), the market share is definitely more than 6%.

 

[thebart]

I can't wait for the day when

1. RAM starts at 128GB like our phones.
2. Doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
3. Everyone has fun

4. Adding 64GB for breathing room costs an arm and a leg.

 

[LogicalApex]

Can someone explain the markup on RAM? How does something that costs less than $5 end up costing $1000? The prices below are spot so I assume that large companies like Apple have contracts that likely lower the cost even further.

Obviously there are integration / manufacturing costs for Apple but I can't imagine those costs taking a $5/chip to $200/chip.

https://www.trendforce.com/news/202...igns-of-loosening-likely-to-persist-until-q4/

View attachment 2447222

Apple is a profit seeking corporation so they don't sell products "at cost".

They aim to charge as much as they can to maximize profit. People are willing to pay more for RAM upgrades to a Mac computer than they are buying NAND directly...

 

[BingoBongo123]

If you had asked me that question 2-3 years ago, I would have clearly answered '16GB is for 95% enough'. Even the 8GB should have done it for many. With all that Apple Intelligence stuff more and more rolling out in the next couple of years it's kind of a unknown direction. The fact that Apple even got rid of the 8GB base models of the M2/M3 Airs 'for free' is a clear indication for me that MacOS will definitly use more RAM in the future by default (how much nobody knows). But Apple isn't a company which gifts you 8GB for free, because they think 16GB is appropriate for the time being and for their prices. They have done it, because MacOS will need it for the future. So if 16GB is sufficient for your workflow now (without any Apple Intelligence stuff in the background), then it could be a problem in the future. But all that depends of what are you doing and which of it parallel. So if you have quite some free margin of RAM in your current workflow then 16GB should be fine. Otherwise an upgrade to 24GB should be an option to consider. Of course you can disable all that AI stuff, but I can also leave my MacBook on the table, do nothing and say 8GB of ram is enough.

 

[Hogswarts]

I have 64GB on a classic Mac Pro. Given the higher bandwidth, low latency Apple Silicon memory and integration with CPU, GPU and hard drive, what amount of memory would be equivalent to my 64GB?

The same 64GB. There are no real shortcuts with Apple Silicon. But by upgrading, you should be impressed with the overall system speed.

 

[Mity]

Apple’s ram is integrated into the cpu. Its not like old days where they were buying the same ram as everyone else and soldering into the motherboard.

The cost has more to do with what apple wants to charge and how much they manufacture.

I understand the idea behind Apple's SOC but the cost of soldering an 8GB NAND and 64GB NAND is the same. It's the actual capacity that we should be talking about. And given the prices I showed, it just doesn't make any sense. The bolded part above is probably the only reason.

 

[Fuzzball84]

If you don't upgrade frequently, the premise is you'll need more storage and ram by the time you need a new computer

On a PC you can upgrade storage and the RAM without upgrading the entire PC.

 

[LogicalApex]

If you had asked me that question 2-3 years ago, I would have clearly answered '16GB is for 95% enough'. Even the 8GB should have done it for many. With all that Apple Intelligence stuff more and more rolling out in the next couple of years it's kind of a unknown direction. The fact that Apple even got rid of the 8GB base models of the M2/M2 Airs 'for free' is a clear indication for me that MacOS will definitly use more RAM in the future by default (how much nobody knows). But Apple isn't a company which gifts you 8GB for free, because they think 16GB is appropriate for the time being and for their prices. They have done it, because MacOS will need it for the future. So if 16GB is sufficient for your workflow now (without any Apple Intelligence stuff in the background), then it could be a problem in the future. But all that depends of what are you doing and which of it parallel. So if you have quite some free margin of RAM in your current workflow then 16GB should be fine. Otherwise an upgrade to 24GB should be an option to consider. Of course you can disable all that AI stuff, but I can also leave my MacBook on the table, do nothing and say 8GB of ram is enough.

Well said...

The other unknown is NPU/AI accelerator performance. Will the RAM needs of future Apple Intelligence features become a problem before the processor performance does?

Also unknown... Will Apple artificially gate future AI features to try and drive hardware sales. For instance, how they don't add new software only camera features to new iPhones due to camera improvements being a selling point for iPhones.

Time will tell where this all goes, but I agree with you that Apple isn't generous so they aren't bumping specs for free or without reason. Likely they have some MacOS 16 AI features that already make it a must have and they want to improve adoption of those features next year by having devices that can use the new features on Day 1.

 

[Mity]

Apple is a profit seeking corporation so they don't sell products "at cost".

They aim to charge as much as they can to maximize profit. People are willing to pay more for RAM upgrades to a Mac computer than they are buying NAND directly...

No one expects them to price at cost but what is an appropriate margin? 100%? 500%? 1000%?

 

[Cervisia]

Memory requirements will raise quickly. Now that Apple Intelligence is there, nothing stops Apple to switch to a bigger model with a new MacOS release. Most people won't know why their computers get slower, let alone to where to turn it off. And a 16GB Mac is essentially a 12GB Mac with AI occupying 4GB.

 

[Harry Haller]

Magical memory.
8=16, therefore 16=32.
Amazing.

 

[psingh01]

I understand the idea behind Apple's SOC but the cost of soldering an 8GB NAND and 64GB NAND is the same. It's the actual capacity that we should be talking about. And given the prices I showed, it just doesn't make any sense. The bolded part above is probably the only reason.

Apple isn’t soldering ram. Thats what they did with intel Macs. Apple Silicon has the CPU, GPU and Unified Memory all on the same chip. They are all apple designed.

It might very well cost them a negligible difference to make a unit with 16Gb vs 64Gb. But they still have to recoup their R&D cost. Plus make a profit. They have to take into consideration how many M4 chips they make with 16GB vs 192GB.

The charts for ram chips really don’t apply to Macs because Apple is no longer using those. They are not drop in replacements for what Apple does now.

You can still make the comparison to the ssd chips. They buy the same as is available to other vendors. Maybe one day apple will put that on the Apple silicon as well.

 

[LogicalApex]

No one expects them to price at cost but what is an appropriate margin? 100%? 500%? 1000%?

I mean that's capitalism? The right margin from Apple's perspective is as high as they can get it without negatively impacting their growth...

For Apple that might be 1000% and for HP that might be 300%...

 

[Kbaegis]

Unified memory is literally the only reason to go with apple silicon. Technically power efficiency is also on the list too.

Hugging face needs 128+GB for the larger models.

 

[Mity]

Apple isn’t soldering ram. Thats what they did with intel Macs. Apple Silicon has the CPU, GPU and Unified Memory all on the same chip. They are all apple designed.

It might very well cost them a negligible difference to make a unit with 16Gb vs 64Gb. But they still have to recoup their R&D cost. Plus make a profit. They have to take into consideration how many M4 chips they make with 16GB vs 192GB.

The charts for ram chips really don’t apply to Macs because Apple is no longer using those. They are not drop in replacements for what Apple does now.

You can still make the comparison to the ssd chips. They buy the same as is available to other vendors. Maybe one day apple will put that on the Apple silicon as well.

Thanks - This makes a lot of sense and unfortunately, more obscure to understand the economics as well. I was thinking of just manufacturing overhead being applied to the cost of the entire machine.

 

[Dahkoht]

For me I'm trying to decide if I get a new MacBook M4 if going with a standard config with the Max that comes with 48GB is plenty or getting a custom one with 64GB is worth the additional wait and having it shipped to me instead of just picking up a standard config at the store. (The 180 more is actually reasonable price for the upgrade)

I could walk in this Friday and pickup a 48GB standard M4 Max , or end of Nov get the 64 GB shipped , (just always antsy about individual shipping of a 4 thousand dollar laptop)

I'm an IT engineer who just prefers Mac OS X lately for my admin work , and the heaviest thing I might do is run one VM in addition to the standard OS. While I might like to run both a Linux and Widows VM at the same time it'd be very rare.

Toss in occasional game on it (have a windows gaming rig for that though really) , maybe also , but mainly Chrome , Safari , Edge and Firefox all open at same time running various admin tools authorized to different clients and a VM going with more admin tools running on it.

I see the article hits the 32GB portion mentioning one VM , and 64 for multiple , but 48 is right there in that odd spot for a standard config.

 

[NachoNoir]

IMHO, 32 GB is the perfect spot for users who want a better experience or need some performance, but are not in need of professional specs.

Of course, Apple doesn't offer that option for the M4 Pro; you either stick to base 24 GB, or jump to 48GB and shell out $400/460€ <wink><wink>.

 

[jayb3]

I gotta use over 2GB of RAM just for my Macrumors addiction!

 

[ILoveCalvinCool]

Unified memory is literally the only reason to go with apple silicon. Technically power efficiency is also on the list too.

Hugging face needs 128+GB for the larger models.

Right. People who complain about Mac RAM not being upgradeable are not aware that unified memory is the standard for AI. One reason I am going big on Macs rn is because I do AI development. I don't want a machine on which I can easily upgrade RAM, because right now such a machine would be far too slow for my needs.

 

[aevan]

95% of users would be more than good with 32gb imo

95% of users would be more than good with 16, tbh.