Benefit of 16GB of RAM

[Howard2k]

24/7. My phone has 8GB.

Then, my other phone, which has 3GB of RAM, simply cannot keep even ONE tab in Safari open, because it does not support swapping. Every single time I go back to any random app now, it reloads the app.

If the bare minimum amount of RAM works for you, then it just works. No need to be snide. But for some of us, and I can see we are not really in the minority, 8GB simply isn't enough. Again, just connect a 4K display and watch:

That's already past 8GB even with just 2-3 tabs in Safari.

Your phone doesn’t run macOS.
You MAC will use 16GB of memory if you have a 16GB system. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Not being snide, it’s designed that way.

 

[cube]

Yes, but it is so old that buying 8GiB RAM may not make much sense. Maybe upgrade to 6GiB if it becomes necessary.

2 sticks do not look bad if you double the CPU power cheaply.

 

[Howard2k]

I love how you keep saying where's the posts about 8GB RAM not being enough. Who's to say everyone would even post about that? Most would realize they need more RAM. And while there aren't a lot of posts dedicated to it, a lot of the people that post in threads like this that wish Apple would put 16GB in the base config for the 13" MBPs are these people who are having problems with 8GBs. They just aren't posting new threads about it because it's not like we can offer a hack or workaround to make 8GBs work better.

Lol, come on. Now you’re reaching. Everyone knows they can’t upgrade and everyone just sucks it up even though it’s crap?

L.
O.
L.

Really. I genuinely laughed out loud.

 

[bill-p]

Your phone doesn’t run macOS.
You MAC will use 16GB of memory if you have a 16GB system. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Not being snide, it’s designed that way.

I'm sorry but when you say the iPhone doesn't run MacOS, I don't think you know what you are talking about:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/01/apple-open-sourced-the-kernel-of-ios-and-macos-for-arm-processors/

Apple has always shared the kernel of macOS after each major release. This kernel also runs on iOS devices as both macOS and iOS are built on the same foundation.

The only fundamental difference between iOS and MacOS is the interface, but otherwise, both are running on the same base. Saying iOS is not MacOS is like saying Android is not Linux.

And no... the Mac is not supposed to "use" 16GB of RAM. That's like saying MacOS treats 16GB differently compared to 8GB. And even if that is indeed the case, that just proves my point even more: 16GB does in fact give a fundamental difference (i.e.: the OS treats it differently) compared to 8GB of RAM.

 

[appleguy2019]

When “fine” is blazing fast, I’ll take fine. I love how people are just ignoring the use case in the OP to push this insane agenda that you should pay for something you don’t need. And four pages later no one can still link to users complaining about struggling Macs due to insufficient ram. I wonder why that is...hmmmmm

LMAO! Maybe it's blazing fast to you - when all you have ever had is slow, you won't think anything could be better. Try a 16GB system and then let me know how your 2014 MBP stacks up! I upgrade laptops every 3 years. Maybe you just don't know what fast is or have such a limited use case that you don't notice. But until you've tried a 16GB system, hush up.
[doublepost=1563156275][/doublepost]

Lol, come on. Now you’re reaching. Everyone knows they can’t upgrade and everyone just sucks it up even though it’s crap?

L.
O.
L.

Really. I genuinely laughed out loud.

Hahaha, that's funny because I had the exact same response to your posts in this thread. I kept thinking what has Howard been smoking and I sure hope he reveals his source, because I never want to buy any "dumb weed".

 

[cube]

LMAO! Maybe it's blazing fast to you - when all you have ever had is slow, you won't think anything could be better. Try a 16GB system and then let me know how your 2014 MBP stacks up! I upgrade laptops every 3 years. Maybe you just don't know what fast is or have such a limited use case that you don't notice. But until you've tried a 16GB system, hush up.

We had a "modern" Bay Trail AiO with 8GiB of fast DDR3. When I replaced it with a 10 year old tricore with 4GiB DDR2, I was told it was lightning fast.

 

[tranceking26]

I have recently purchased a 2015 13" with 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD. It's faster than my Toshiba Windows 7 laptop which has 16GB RAM and an SSD.

The 7 laptop lasted me well, but I knew one day I'd turn to a Mac and I'm really glad I got a mint one. The 7 laptop will be a huge upgrade for my dad so it's going to last long term, even after microsoft ends support.

Also the 2GB RAM in my 6s has done amazing. I have a feeling iOS 13 will work just as well as 12 and 9 did.

 

[appleguy2019]

I have recently purchased a 2015 13" with 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD. It's faster than my Toshiba Windows 7 laptop which has 16GB RAM and an SSD.

The 7 laptop lasted me well, but I knew one day I'd turn to a Mac and I'm really glad I got a mint one. The 7 laptop will be a huge upgrade for my dad so it's going to last long term, even after microsoft ends support.

Also the 2GB RAM in my 6s has done amazing. I have a feeling iOS 13 will work just as well as 12 and 9 did.

To be fair, that's not an Apples to Apples (pardon the pun) comparison. Windows is slower, just because it's Windows.

Now if you told me you had two same model MBP's with SSDs and the same processor, one having 8GBs and one having 16GBs, and said there was no difference, that'd be one thing and more of a straight shot comparison between the two.

But yes, a Mac with less specs will still perform better than a PC with higher specs. But comparing Macs to Macs, the 16GB machine will always be faster and longer lasting than the 8GB machine provided they have the same drive and CPU speed.

I'm glad Apple still lets you change RAM in iMacs and you don't have to buy theirs. OWC is great. But on these MacBooks for quite awhile now, you are stuck with what it came with, which is my whole point about thinking ahead and getting the 16GB. In fact, I'm going to go a step further and get more than I need (32GB) on my next MBP to see if I keep it longer.

 

[Herrpod]

It's weird how users told Apple they had issues with the keyboards and Touch Bar but never complained about running out of memory on the base units. I wonder why? Maybe it's because 8 is actually enough and people saying otherwise are completely clueless.

 

[Chancha]

There are of course countless use cases where you can hit a memory brickwall if you know what you are doing. 8GB is easily reached within seconds with half of Adobe's suite for instance.

But for general purpose computing, due to the internal SSD being that much faster than 2.5" HDDs, the need to have more than 8GB is apparently not there for these folks. It is not like with HDD that whenever you load back a paged out virtual memory from disk, it would seek for seconds and OS X gives you a beachball until everything is loaded. Now even intensive virtual memory swapping happens seamlessly and progressively. The general public probably don't even interface with their computers fast enough to notice the lag behind the scene.

Anyway, this only becomes a meaningful argument due to the nature of Apple RAM: soldered, and BTO config asks for higher than reasonable price. If they were socketed, this should be an afterthought like the old days: buy with the least, add when you need.

 

[LogicalApex]

If they were socketed, this should be an afterthought like the old days: buy with the least, add when you need.

Yep, I wonder if adding it back to the Mac mini means it may come back to the MBP in 2020 alongside the refresh? We can only hope.

 

[appleguy2019]

It's weird how users told Apple they had issues with the keyboards and Touch Bar but never complained about running out of memory on the base units. I wonder why? Maybe it's because 8 is actually enough and people saying otherwise are completely clueless.

Wrong. It's also a completely idiotic comparison. The keyboards are a manufacturing flaw. The RAM amount is not. The Touch Bar thing isn't as big of a deal as you are making it. It seems to be more 50/50 on liking it vs not liking. The amount of RAM is not even a comparable complaint to a failing keyboard or whether someone likes the Touch Bar or not.

Again, most people who are having problems with 8GBs of RAM will realize that there is nothing they can do short of selling it and buying a new system. It's not Apple's fault they chose poorly. Apple keeps the 8GB base model because it's a cheaper entry point and so the price is more attractive. They will move it to 16GB in the next couple years, mark my word. Just like with the base model storage on iPhones, they will eventually increase it. Very few people choose base storage on an iPhone (at least until 64GB was standard) and I'd say most people go for more RAM in their new 13" MBP.

 

[bill-p]

It's weird how users told Apple they had issues with the keyboards and Touch Bar but never complained about running out of memory on the base units. I wonder why? Maybe it's because 8 is actually enough and people saying otherwise are completely clueless.

You clearly missed that very recent period when people asked Apple why they only offered 16GB RAM for the MacBook Pro, and it prompted Apple to eventually offer 32GB RAM options.

And hey, Apple is only offering 16GB RAM with the 15", so if we are all clueless, it means Apple themselves are also clueless.

Or maybe the alternative is true, and you are the one that is clueless.

 

[throAU]

Of zero benefit to you and probably most customers. People like to think they 'must' need more, probably from the days when it made a difference or have got used to Windows appetite.

I do have use cases where I need more (VMs) and 1 laptop has 16GB and the iMac Pro has 32GB, but the other 4 Macs run with 8GB as that is the minimum you can buy. Those that genuinely need more RAM know exactly why and the amount they require. The future-proofing argument is flawed for everything save for storage space (if relevant to you).

Having used memory capacities on macOS from 2 GB upwards, i'd suggest that claiming there is "zero" benefit from 16 GB shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Even with SSD, the machine will be noticeably (well, unless you're oblivious to these things) more responsive with 16 GB vs. 8 GB due to increased disk cache size.

SSD is fast, but it is still an order of magnitude or more slower than RAM.

The benefit will only grow as your memory consumption by applications increases.

Also, given that RAM is not upgradeable, as RAM requirements increase the value/usability of a 16 GB machine will decrease less than a machine with 8 GB.

Cheaping out on RAM on a machine that is as expensive as a macbook is false economy. You'll save maybe 10% of the total price to reduce the usable lifespan/performance under stress by a lot more than that.

 

[RobbieTT]

Having used memory capacities on macOS from 2 GB upwards, i'd suggest that claiming there is "zero" benefit from 16 GB shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Rude. On and I did not make a sweeping statement in any way that suggested higher RAM would be wasted on everyone. I even gave my own usage as an example that required more as well as ones that required less. The workflow defines the specification required, not an arbitrary number.

Well done for your own sweeping statement that 16GB will be noticeably more responsive. Good luck providing an evidence-base for that one.

The original poster asked a really good question about RAM and, intelligently, referenced it to his own usage. This is the best kind of user - open minded and understanding that an individual machine needs to match the individual requirements asked of it. Those that embrace 'bigger is better' whilst ignoring workflow and context are ignorant, in the true sense of the word.

An example:

I travelled on the train a few months ago with a young work acquaintance who was aghast when I unfurled my 2018 13-inch MBP. 'Poverty Spec' he cried as he pulled his 15-inch pimped-out MBP and went into his lengthy spiel about screen area, dedicated graphics, video editing, 3D work and his general amazement that someone so senior could survive on such a slow machine. When I enquired about his workflow it was, unsurprisingly, similar to mine. When it came to usage his MBP was was mainly used in a static SOHO environment and it was his only machine.

Cue my deliberately vacuous reply about how he managed to survive with such a cramped screen and layout when compared to my iMP, or how he can be productive without having a brace of Mac minis earning money in the background, or enjoying media everywhere with old Mac minis repurposed as media clients etc etc.

Context, workflow and usage are key. Buy what you need brand new, repurpose what you already have and gracefully collect cheap secondhand Macs from those pursuing the next shiny thing and put them to work.

 

[Stephen.R]

Context, workflow and usage are key.

I agree. Which is why I still call your "example" of 4GB being "enough" deceptive, because it's essentially being used as a less-polished AppleTV.

The OP specifically gives us usage information, as you said:

My general usage is in lots of web with lots of open tabs

Often times I'll have Safari with a bunch of tabs and maybe five other programs running at the same time.

I have 15 tabs open in Safari, and it's using in excess of 5GB of RAM.

Photos.app's "analysis" process is running, and using half a gig. The spotlight updater is using another gig and a half. Mail and messages are using a little under half a gig each.

 

[tomscott1988]

The more ram you have the more the machine will use and the more fluid it will be. Simple really.

Doesn't take much to sap 8gbs but mac OS is also excellent at ram swap and the SSD is so quick to most users it is not noticeable.

Ive been using 48-64gbs for years and my macs always use it.

Here I am monday morning checking email web browsing I have my main adobe apps open on boot so I have lightroom indesign PS and illustrator currently open. I havent opened any files yet and the 2019 iMac in my sig is using 20.45gb...

Like I said the more it has the more it will use.

I have a bade 2015 macbook with 8gbs and i can do the same with that and it runs fine. That being said with the option I would.

 

[oldmacs]

8GB is still fine for plenty of people. That said I would not buy a Mac today with 8GB soldered. I keep my Macs for a very long time - Not sure how great 8GB will be in 7/8 years. I started with 4GB in my 2012 MacBook Pro, that wasn't enough so I went to 8GB in 2013. That lasted me till about 2 years ago, when I was running VMs, and just having a LOT of stuff open (eg having multiple whole other workspaces open), so I went to 16GB of ram.

The way I see it is 4GB was pretty good in 2012, the equivalent of 8GB in 2019 IMHO. Fine for its time. But 8GB in 2026... not seeing it.

 

[leman]

That's already past 8GB even with just 2-3 tabs in Safari.

This example is meaningless. You need to show us a 8 GB system that has memory pressure issues in this scenario to prove your point.

 

[Chancha]

Yep, I wonder if adding it back to the Mac mini means it may come back to the MBP in 2020 alongside the refresh? We can only hope.

It is hard to conjecture, even with proper cooling and/or port assortments as features, that 16.5" can still remain as thin as possible by means of soldering RAM and glueing battery etc. In fact I am more annoyed by the SSD being not on a slot (or two), other workstation class laptops out there usually have 2 slots so you can have different setups of system+data/scratch, RAID capabilities etc. Not to mention data recovery or controlling machine down time.

 

[jinnyman]

You know, there are people who are fully content with the performance of 2018 MBA. Each one's mileage vary.

I personally wouldn't buy MBA with that awkward CPU setting (7w but with stupid fan cooling?), but hey if your task is not straining the cpu, why not?

The same goes to RAM. For day to day task, music, netflix and youtube, 8gig is more than enough. However, if you plan to do alot more, then 16gig is minimum. It's a laptop, so I don't really throw heavy stuff to it (thermal limitation alone makes me uncomfortable to run it at full). But, if you want to utilize MBP as your main workstation, then you should already know that you need more.

RAM is dirt cheap nowadays so much so that I really don't understand Apple, always bragging about their higher than standard products, is still offering 8 gig of ram and 128 gig SSD.

 

[leman]

Yep, I wonder if adding it back to the Mac mini means it may come back to the MBP in 2020 alongside the refresh? We can only hope.

Mac mini uses desktop CPUs and it has more space aside, so standard socketed RAM modules make sense. My hope for next MBP is that it uses LPDDR4, and that does not come as socketed RAM in the first place. I have zero interest in buying a laptop without soldered-on RAM, unless its for a very special use case where I absolutely have to tinker with it (e.g. remote fieldwork location with no access to service centres).

 

[kindaichi81]

24/7. My phone has 8GB.

Then, my other phone, which has 3GB of RAM, simply cannot keep even ONE tab in Safari open, because it does not support swapping. Every single time I go back to any random app now, it reloads the app.

If the bare minimum amount of RAM works for you, then it just works. No need to be snide. But for some of us, and I can see we are not really in the minority, 8GB simply isn't enough. Again, just connect a 4K display and watch:

That's already past 8GB even with just 2-3 tabs in Safari.

this is not true. macOS will try to occupy as much as memory possible but it does not really mean it will require that much of ram to work. memory management of macOS will work according to the ram you have.

8gb should still be enough which the macOS will just flush the unused app from memory earlier to free up enough ram for running app.

8gb is certainly enough for gaming, web browsing, document processing.

unless u are doing video editing or running VMs, else 8gb is actually more than enough for daily usage.

 

[cube]

It is hard to conjecture, even with proper cooling and/or port assortments as features, that 16.5" can still remain as thin as possible by means of soldering RAM and glueing battery etc. In fact I am more annoyed by the SSD being not on a slot (or two), other workstation class laptops out there usually have 2 slots so you can have different setups of system+data/scratch, RAID capabilities etc. Not to mention data recovery or controlling machine down time.

AFAIK Mac laptops have never been workstation class.

 

[Chancha]

AFAIK Mac laptops have never been workstation class.

Part of the rumors, or at least the wishful thinking from here, is expecting the 16.5" to be one class above the existing 15", which as you say is a series that has never been "workstation class". Some may say even the 17" series MBP wasn't either.