Benefit of 16GB of RAM

[Altis]

My usual 12GiB OS+Firefox experience is on W10.

That seems awfully high, no? Considering how many machines run it beautifully with 4 or 8 GB of RAM... unless you've got a ton of heavy tabs open in FireFox, I suppose.

I have 16 GB and really only tap into it when doing more heavy-duty stuff like VMs or gaming. Even audio production doesn't require very much (surprisingly).

 

[cube]

That seems awfully high, no? Considering how many machines run it beautifully with 4 or 8 GB of RAM... unless you've got a ton of heavy tabs open in FireFox, I suppose.

I have 16 GB and really only tap into it when doing more heavy-duty stuff like VMs or gaming. Even audio production doesn't require very much (surprisingly).

I just updated version and it seems there's less junk running.

 

[Howard2k]

- When I did that I was using a regular amount of RAM. It was not until later that an Apple laptop was no longer enough.
- Normally the drives would be slow or not enough for carryover.
- It is normally better to upgrade yourself than from the computer maker.

None of which makes 8GB not enough for most people. Again, where are the posts from people having to return their 13” machines?

A car with a flat tire “works”. A bbq that’s burning out of control “works”.

Your entire point is based on anecdotal evidence - your computer “works”, and some kind of blind faith that Apple has any clue how you intend to use the computer or how much memory you need. Go read what they say about “how much memory is right for you”.

I’m done arguing this point with you. OP, I told you above how you can check if more memory would help your specific usage or not.

Blind faith? I run a machine with 8GB. You obviously don’t. Sure, we should take your word for it.

Again, where are the posts from masses of people having memory issues and having to return their machines?

You’re done because your argument can not be supported.

 

[bill-p]

I think a lot of folks here don't get it.

Ever since the move to Retina displays and the need to store @2X image assets, RAM use has increased significantly.

To put it in perspective: an @2X image is technically FOUR TIMES the size of the original image. FOUR.

Sure, you can compress it but when you need to use it, you still have to decompress the image and it takes up that much space in RAM anyway.

And even when you compress anything, the average is only about 50% its size, so in the end, RAM use has pretty much DOUBLED ever since Retina computers came.

Ever wondered why Apple has moved to 8GB from 4GB for the base config Retina computers? That's simply because 8GB is the bare minimum the computer needs.

This is not fear mongering. It's just... the truth.

Will you be okay with 8GB for standard stuffs? Yes. For the most part, you will be okay with 8GB of RAM for most tasks. But you'll be cutting it pretty close sometimes.

Now, assuming your usage also includes driving an external display, and more than just a few tabs in Safari, then things will go downhill from there. The fast SSD speeds will make up for swap performance and won't cause your computer to slow to a crawl. But... it won't be optimal.

Hell, even 16GB hits swap when used for coding/programming/photo/video editing tasks. And that's simply because of the @2X image assets as mentioned.

There's the price you pay for high resolution.

In short: sure, I think 8GB is enough, but... it's really "just" enough. Your mileage may vary.

 

[cube]

In short: sure, I think 8GB is enough, but... it's really "just" enough. Your mileage may vary.

It is like when the basic amount was 4GiB but you could still do bare with 2GiB.

Or when the basic amount was 8GiB but you could still do bare with 4GiB.

We still have PCs with 8 and 4 GiB. But I would build a new one with 16GiB as a minimum.

 

[kp98077]

Don't get fear mongered into buying what you don't need. And no, Firefox does NOT require 12 gigs to run well. Thats one of the dumbest things I've read all day...and I've been on Twitter today.

Amen! Dont! Get too stuck on the stats and data, but rather true and real world performance, for your needs specifically.... i seem to be ok with 8 some how......

 

[cube]

Amen! Dont! Get too stuck on the stats and data, but rather true and real world performance, for your needs specifically.... i seem to be ok with 8 some how......

You can play low end games on Phenom X3+GT720+4GiB.

 

[kp98077]

You can play basic games on Phenom X3+GT720+4GiB.

Oh, i don't play games.....so likely why this doesn’t impact me

 

[cube]

Oh, i don't play games.....so likely why this doesn’t impact me

Browsers are memory hogs nowadays. At least when you open many tabs and don't close them.

 

[Honza1]

What a lively discussion...
Due to hardware failure of my 16Gb MBP I had to switch to 2018 mini with 8Gb RAM, running from external SSD through usb-c port. All apps and use the same.
Memory is NOT my problem. Speed of the usb-c connected SSD is limiting me. Memory si fine for anything I threw at it - except running VM in Parallels. That was the reason I got 16Gb on them MBP. I can start the VM, but system gets slower. Possibly the SSD speed. May be memory. Can wait for that stuff until I get my MBP back.
Two things help - memory management has improved and as far as I understand, OSX is compressing memory when not in use, so technically, you can use more RAM than you physically have. Weird.
Also, current SSDs have speed of RAM from few years ago. At least Apple expensive high end SSDs. So swapping to disk is fast and cheap.

 

[bill-p]

Memory compression sounds nice in theory, but is pretty impractical when you are running low on absolute physical memory.

Here's a short explanation of this phenomenon.

So ironically, memory compression on Mac OS works best when you have 16GB of RAM and worse when you have 8GB of RAM.

Basically, what it means is (in case you didn't catch what the above link wanted to say)... if you have some free RAM and you need more RAM to run a certain app/program, then idle memory of another app can be compressed and stored in memory instead of being paged to disk/storage (SSD in this case).

And less swapping to disk means faster performance.

It's worse with 8GB of RAM because, say... you need to free up RAM, then you do compression first, but you still don't have enough free RAM, then you have to write a part of the compressed RAM to disk/storage anyway. That means you end up having to swap regardless, and the extra time it takes to compress memory means freeing RAM takes longer.

There is no "fix" for low physical RAM. If you have low physical RAM and you end up needing more, the only thing you can do is buy more physical RAM.

 

[pshufd]

On Firefox, decrease the number of concurrent processors to decrease RAM consumption.

 

[Honza1]

Memory compression sounds nice in theory, but is pretty impractical when you are running low on absolute physical memory.

Here's a short explanation of this phenomenon.

So ironically, memory compression on Mac OS works best when you have 16GB of RAM and worse when you have 8GB of RAM.

Basically, what it means is (in case you didn't catch what the above link wanted to say)... if you have some free RAM and you need more RAM to run a certain app/program, then idle memory of another app can be compressed and stored in memory instead of being paged to disk/storage (SSD in this case).

And less swapping to disk means faster performance.

It's worse with 8GB of RAM because, say... you need to free up RAM, then you do compression first, but you still don't have enough free RAM, then you have to write a part of the compressed RAM to disk/storage anyway. That means you end up having to swap regardless, and the extra time it takes to compress memory means freeing RAM takes longer.

There is no "fix" for low physical RAM. If you have low physical RAM and you end up needing more, the only thing you can do is buy more physical RAM.

Interesting, one learns something new every day... In any case I tested the current mini with 8GB RAM and loaded some standard applications common to most (and some more common to me) - system turned yellow in memory pressure by the time I loaded 12th application. And even then, there was 0 use of swap file.
Now, web browsers (two) had each only 4-5 paged (but I had macrumors, slashdot, and CNN which are on heavy side). I also had graphics package which had over 1Gb of content in work file. So, for normal users (not power users with graphical needs) 8Gb seems as OK today as it was 5 years ago.
Yes, I prefer 16Gb for my needs, but most people may not see much difference today or in next few years. This will break for those, who have 20-40 tabs opened in Safari (Chrome, Firefox,...) all the time, like some I know. But there is no help for them, they may never have enough memory anyway ;-)

 

[bill-p]

Just loading applications won't do much. If you want to know, you gotta keep using them for a while.

And it's the same for web browsers. You don't know how bad memory leak can be. You have to keep using a browser and cycle through, say... 10-15 pages on 3-4 tabs each over the course of about an hour. Maybe then you will see why some are saying web browsers are such memory hogs now.

It doesn't take 20-40 tabs.

And I don't think MacRumors is on the "heavy" side. Youtube, Netflix, or Flickr or DeviantArt, pages that load a heck lot of graphics, easily dwarf MacRumors. For instance, right now Youtube takes up 520MB for me whereas MacRumors barely breaks 220MB.

 

[kp98077]

I did notice today at the apple store they are selling the high end 16gb, 1tb model for 2,699 (I think it was 2,899 before??)

 

[dogslobber]

They used to say 2GB was enough. Then 4GB and now 8GB. I see a pattern.

 

[pshufd]

They used to say 2GB was enough. Then 4GB and now 8GB. I see a pattern.

I have a computer with 280 Words of RAM. It was built in the 1970s but still works.

 

[Howard2k]

They used to say 2GB was enough. Then 4GB and now 8GB. I see a pattern.

Requirements increase over time. 4MB was a huge amount at one point.

 

[LogicalApex]

As programs and websites get more demanding over time, it would be smart to get 16GB right now if you intend on keeping your laptop for at least 4-5 years.

Right now it won't make much of a difference, but in due time it will.

I'd argue the opposite is true. The majority of users should be OK with 8GB of RAM and certain users, like programmers running VMs or users editing images or video at high resolution or other specific use cases, will benefit from 16GB or 32GB of RAM.

Computing has largely moved to mobile as the primary target for modern applications and developers. Websites are written for mobile usages first and "desktop" applications are worked on after mobile with the exception being for very specific use cases (Xcode or VMWare Fusion aren't being written for mobile first).

As a result, most applications are being written with limited RAM in mind.

There is a reason computers are lasting 5-10 years now when they weren't doing this a decade ago. It isn't because Apple found a way to make computers last longer... It is the fact that with the shift to mobile computers now have an abundance of computing resources.

 

[Stephen.R]

Amen! Dont! Get too stuck on the stats and data, but rather true and real world performance, for your needs specifically.... i seem to be ok with 8 some how......

You can't measure "real world performance" without data.

As in:

Do something typical, check memory pressure.

Do something more demanding, check memory pressure.

rinse and repeat, with increasingly memory-hungry "things" that you would expect to use the computer for.

Anything less than actually measuring memory usage and "pressure" is just feel good anecdotal "well it feels fast", "it works" and means nothing. Actually that's not true, it means one thing. It means the person is more interested in feeling good about what they have than knowing if they have enough memory for what they do/want to do.
[doublepost=1563084423][/doublepost]

As a result, most applications are being written with limited RAM in mind.

Sorry but I disagree.

Some applications are definitely written to be economical on resources.

But Chrome, a popular (despite what you or I think about it) browser is anything but economical.

Electron apps, which are basically Chrome plus a heap of javascript, are even worse than Chrome.
[doublepost=1563084663][/doublepost]

There is a reason computers are lasting 5-10 years now when they weren't doing this a decade ago.

Also, this seems like a weird sentence. For a computer to last 10 years it must have been made a decade ago.

But, completely anecdotally: I made a 2011 MBP last 7 years.. you know how? It had 16GB of RAM. With 8 it would have been unusable years ago.

 

[Herrpod]

You can't measure "real world performance" without data.

As in:

Do something typical, check memory pressure.

Do something more demanding, check memory pressure.

rinse and repeat, with increasingly memory-hungry "things" that you would expect to use the computer for.

Anything less than actually measuring memory usage and "pressure" is just feel good anecdotal "well it feels fast", "it works" and means nothing. Actually that's not true, it means one thing. It means the person is more interested in feeling good about what they have than knowing if they have enough memory for what they do/want to do.
[doublepost=1563084423][/doublepost]
Sorry but I disagree.

Some applications are definitely written to be economical on resources.

But Chrome, a popular (despite what you or I think about it) browser is anything but economical.

Electron apps, which are basically Chrome plus a heap of javascript, are even worse than Chrome.
[doublepost=1563084663][/doublepost]

Also, this seems like a weird sentence. For a computer to last 10 years it must have been made a decade ago.

But, completely anecdotally: I made a 2011 MBP last 7 years.. you know how? It had 16GB of RAM. With 8 it would have been unusable years ago.

And yet 8 has been sufficient for me for 8 years. And it will be for another 5.

 

[Stephen.R]

And yet 8 has been sufficient for me for 8 years.

The only Mac with 8GB as the "base" or "minimum" memory of 8GB, 8 years ago, were the 2010 Mac Pro "Server" line.

Your case proves the point that more memory = longer life. Your Mac has lasted you 8 years, because it has (probably) double the "minimum" memory available at the time.

And it will be for another 5.

Well at this point it's almost certainly not getting macOS updates any more, and new/updated software is less likely to support it as newer system frameworks/features are required.. so sure, it will probably last 5 more years (pending hardware failures), because the software isn't changing.

Try running a machine from 8 years ago with the minimum RAM it was sold with (for most lines, 4GB. For some of the 2010 models, 2 or 3GB) with todays software. I mean, you can't because they won't run Mojave. But try running High Sierra and recently released software on them.

 

[appleguy2019]

My 2017 15" MacBook Pro has 16GB. My next MBP will likely have 32GB, honestly.

I use it for everything like basic web browsing, email, office apps to content consumption to video/photo editing.

One reason I love more RAM is I much prefer to use Chrome over Safari. My home internet connection favors Chrome. I think it's because my speeds are poor and Chrome tends to make it seem less slow than the other browsers out there. Safari is slower and Firefox is flat out unusable, at least on my home connection. Safari, while I love it's connection with iOS, etc - is slightly slower than Chrome and I find it to be janky at times. Chrome is hands down the best browser IMO.

 

[RobbieTT]

Try running a machine from 8 years ago with the minimum RAM it was sold with (for most lines, 4GB. For some of the 2010 models, 2 or 3GB) with todays software. I mean, you can't because they won't run Mojave. But try running High Sierra and recently released software on them.

My media clients are all 2012 Mac minis. They run any content I throw at them, run 24/7, run Mojave, will run Catalina and zero issues with any of the Mac apps - one even runs as a network server (albeit an i7). They benefitted considerably by SSD upgrades but for memory they work just fine at 4GB.

MacOS is memory efficient and outside of specific use cases 4GB still works today and Apple have selected 8GB as the current sweet-spot for general use.

I really have no idea why some posters think general use needs more RAM; as already said, the forum is a barren place when it comes to Mac owners having issues due to insufficient RAM. The idea that higher resolutions requires double the RAM is bonkers. Shifting pixels around for regular use is super-simple stuff and not CPU/RAM intensive.

The iPad line has become pretty powerful in the last year or 2 as Apple moves the product more towards the PC market and most top-out at 3GB of RAM. I might be mistaken but I think the largest amount of RAM in an iPad Pro has recently moved from 3GB to the dizzy heights of 4GB. These machines are not lacking in overall grunt and, like the Mac forum, you will find very few iPad Pro users moaning about RAM holding them back.

 

[RobbieTT]

My worst-spec machine - the old Ivy Bridge dual core not known for its raw power, rocking a SATA SSD and 4GB of DDR3. Running Mojave, Plex, Screen Share, multiple Safari tabs (content rich including VoD). The Memory Pressure is... wait, what?? Is that green?

Really, this should not be a surprise as the content and productivity apps we use today are not a massive shift from those of 10 years ago. Users that require performance for a given specialist workload (including me) do require additional RAM and will know how to calculate what is required. Users that have more general usage requirements (again, that includes me for some of my Macs) can have a responsive machine with a lot less.