Guys, get 16 GB.

[thaifood]

My last MBP had a whooping 2 GB of RAM. Now I have 16!!! Maybe its much for now but I plan on keeping this beast for a loooong time.

Yea. I've always purchased mid-low level tiered computers based on the offerings at the time. I've managed to get 2-3 years out of them easily. Will be good to see how far I can push a top tier one if I pick it up!

 

[prestong]

To me, I see a bunch of clowns running around w/ DSLRs MAYBE because its the new Fad who MIGHT intend to use them to post pics on Instagram.

The DSLR fad died down some while ago... thankfully people just use their smart phone's cameras which are more than sufficient and portable.

Same can be said for the explosion in tablet sales vs. laptops....
A large number of tech companies are going to macbook pros for standard issue to their employees. By buying a MBP (even the base model), the intended use is already something bordering high utilization and professional.

No one debates what DSLRs were intended for .. the same goes for MBPs. What clowns use it beyond that is a topic for another discussion.

I guess it depends how important the memory of your kids is. Personally I think its worth the money to own a DSLR and take great pictures.

 

[Mr. Mad Vibes]

Yea. I've always purchased mid-low level tiered computers based on the offerings at the time. I've managed to get 2-3 years out of them easily. Will be good to see how far I can push a top tier one if I pick it up!

I went with the 15 2.3 dug, 512 and as you know 16GB of RAM. Such a nice piece of machinery. Join the club.

 

[unimac]

No, it is by design. Regardless of whether you're only doing "light" work on it or not, since Lion, OSX loves to use as much RAM as possible to use it as a cache. You'll quickly see RAM usage hit its max even if you have only a few apps open. Basically, the philosophy is to keep as many files in memory to reduce how often the OS needs to access the hard drive. However, Lion and ML in my view, were horrible at managing RAM by often leaving inactive RAM intact even when the OS is paging like crazy. Mavericks though seems to be brilliant at it.

You'd be surprised how much more you can go before it goes past that physical RAM threshold. Even with my RAM maxed out as we speak (8gb) I've yet to have a single page out in Mavericks and my Mini has been running for days with many different app launches in the mean time. It's quickly purging inactive RAM to make room for other apps I launch. You have to understand that of the 8gb being used, only a fraction of it is actively being used by the OS while the rest is inactive (kept in memory just in case it is needed later) and can be freed up by the OS whenever another app is in need.

I worked in a Performance management group at a company that produces an enterprise grade OS. I know exactly how memory hierarchies work. I already defined this process and you just re-described it.. thanks... Now, when you purge something from RAM because its not being 'actively' used .. Where do you get it when you need it? You access the SSD and how much of a hit is that? I showed the access times in a graphic some threads back, please go read it.

In activity monitor under memory, pay attention to the headings "App memory" and "File Cache" (ignore "wired" since that is the bear minimum the OS takes for itself to function and can't be used by the user). A lot of RAM is used by "File cache" but it's RAM that can be quickly discarded by the OS if it needs more RAM for apps. Watch as "File cache" instantly drops when the amount of App memory needed goes up. Right now, my File Cache is almost at 4gb (of the 8gb which is all used). That same 4gb cache will drop instantaneously if RAM is needed elsewhere. The drop in performance is almost insignificant when a purged item needs to be re-accessed. It's simply being read from the hard drive again, but these are usually small files we are talking about so the impact is minimal. Keep in mind, my Mini has a 5400rpm drive. I'm willing to bet that on an SSD, you won't even notice a difference at all.

I know exactly what the latency is. If there was no latency issue, you would use a 256 GB SSD drive for RAM. There obviously is latency and thus why you don't. I looked at nothing but stats for years in my personal job. You can KISS.. There's no reason to describe what is going on. I know exactly what Mavericks does and exactly how the memory Hierarchy works and I know exactly how much RAM i need and its greater than 8GB.

Memory compression is another thing in Mavericks and that can easily allow you to go even beyond the 8gb of RAM that's available without page outs.

Remember, page outs (swap used under Mavericks) is the only thing to really worry about. If you don't get page outs, even when your RAM is maxed out, you will be fine and won't notice any performance hit at all. Even if all your RAM is used, in most usage scenarios, a good chunk of it is available in an instant since it's mostly cache. App memory getting maxed out is when paging occurs and I could only imagine that happening if you're a professional using a bunch of memory-hungry apps, not the average person with normal usage scenarios.

"Solid-state drives may be fast, but your Mac’s RAM is much faster. That’s why applications try to load all their necessary data to the Mac’s memory for quick and easy access to the bits and bytes they need most."

OS Kernels have been played w/ since the beginning of time... Sometimes fancy tricks like this are made and then reversed later on in a Kernel revision. Beyond the tricks that are played at the kernel level is real world physical hardware and electrons flowing across wires. There is no trick to that.
> If you compress bits you have to decompress bits
> If you kick things out of ram, you will have to bring them back when you need them

Do you understand how interrupts and Kernel level routines work? What exactly do you think compresses/decompresses memory? Do you think this is a new concept apple just happened to think about.. It's been around forever and has pros/cons.

There is no con to 16GB of ram to me when I know I will need it. No, I don't want interrupts and kernel routines playing optimize the cheapo who didn't buy enough RAM for his needs. I want my cores crunching data sets and performing tasks. I dont want my SSD hit because I decided to not get sufficient ram. That's not the purpose of it and technology has advanced and price points to ensure I don't have to.

I'd love to get in a kernel design and memory management discussion but this is hardly the platform to do so. I do this for a living everyday, have Masters degree in comp. engineering with a focus in embedded systems (where the real OS optimizations occur) and don't need a lecture on OS design and memory hierarchies. That's a comp. arch (sophomore year) lecture.

In the industry, we like to keep things simple as the real implementation is complicated enough...
When ram is a bottle neck in your system (a $2000) one and it only costs $200 to address. You address it. It's great that apple discovered kernel level memory compression. Welcome to decades ago when ram costs $1000 for a 256MB stick and it really mattered to play such tricks. It doesn't today. It costs $200 for an 8GB upgrade. An upgrade that is well worth it to me...

Running VMs kills everything you said b.t.w. But thanks for the comp arch. flashback.

 

[Scott7975]

I can't believe in this day and age that people are still debating this. RAM is light years faster than any kind of disk storage. As soon as you fire up a few apps and have a bunch of tabs open in Safari you will have used up a significant amount of RAM and the system will start swapping data to and from the disk. This significantly slows down your system. Sure, if all you ever do is check and email or 2 or surf the web once in a while, then maybe you can get away with 4GB of RAM. I would argue that if that's all you ever are going to do, just buy some old piece of crap, don't bother getting a new one.

You car engine analogy doesn't fit. It's more like getting a car with a gas tank that only holds enough to get you to the places you travel regularly thinking you will never need to drive any farther. Or maybe a car that won't let you drive over 45mph thinking you will never drive on the freeway.

I will repeat it again and it should be burned into the soul of every computer buyer out there in letters of fire, ALWAYS buy as much RAM as you can afford. Your system will run smoother, feel snappier, and be ready to handle anything you can throw at it. The ONLY reason to not get more RAM is that you cannot afford it.

I have a 2 year old windows gaming desktop. I can run the latest MMO in windowed, while browsing the web and possibly watching some youtubes, while having Ventrilo open, while having fraps running, and while running a parser. I have 8 gigs of ram in this system and it would hit about 50 to 60% usage. The only time this system is shut down is when windows auto updates and reboots itself. Outside of that, it has been left on for over a year now. Which means my ram is never wiped until a windows update.

All that is far beyond what the average user... that I have been mentioning all along.. would use. That's 4GBs or barely beyond it. So don't sit there and tell me that an average user has so many programs open that he would use up 8 gigs.

 

[djtech42]

16 GB makes your computer more future proof with software upgrades

 

[unimac]

I went with the 15 2.3 dug, 512 and as you know 16GB of RAM. Such a nice piece of machinery. Join the club.

nice combo. i did 2.3/16GBram/256GB HD. All other storage is going on an external 2.5 2TB mech drive (SSD is till cost prohibitive for huge storage) and the MBP is a mobile warrior for me

----------

16 GB makes your computer more future proof with software upgrades

Indeed. Given the direction of the industry, I see this lasting well over 5 years.

 

[simon48]

DO NOT BUY A MACBook, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMORY.

Next year Adobe Premiere CC2 is going to need 32GB, for 4K content.

This is so unbelievably not true!

First you can have 4k video in CC right now, you can in CS too.

CC2 will almost certainly not be a thing, as the point of CC was to switch from around every two years releasing a new version of CS to a subscription based model with upgrades for each app added for free if your subscribed.

There is no way that you will need 32GB of RAM, right now After Effects and Premiere Pro both have a minimum of 4GB of RAM with 8GB recommended. Why would it jump to needing 32GB of RAM? Adobe would alienate so many people with that requirement. There's no way the minimum RAM for After Effects and Premiere Pro will be 32GB in at least 5 years, even if only for 4k, which it already does!!!

 

[unimac]

I have a 2 year old windows gaming desktop. I can run the latest MMO in windowed, while browsing the web and possibly watching some youtubes, while having Ventrilo open, while having fraps running, and while running a parser. I have 8 gigs of ram in this system and it would hit about 50 to 60% usage. The only time this system is shut down is when windows auto updates and reboots itself. Outside of that, it has been left on for over a year now. Which means my ram is never wiped until a windows update.

All that is far beyond what the average user... that I have been mentioning all along.. would use. That's 4GBs or barely beyond it. So don't sit there and tell me that an average user has so many programs open that he would use up 8 gigs.

Macbook pros aren't for average users. However, thanks to all of those who think it is and are serving to make Apple's shareholders rich.

 

[Scott7975]

Not trying to tell you otherwise -- for YOUR usage case.

I, on the other hand, have a 2008 unibody that was notably more pleasant to use when I went to 8GB RAM, as most of the spinning beachballs went away from greatly reduced swapping to the hard drive. For MY case, more RAM was definitely worth the investment. Adding an SSD made the machine all the more responsive.

Today, the 2008 no longer meets my needs -- on the RAM side specifically, because I've discovered Parallels and *really* like the way it integrates a virtual Windows environment into OSX.

But the 2008 is still perfectly useful for MY WIFE'S significantly lower memory demands, so it will happily compute away, hopefully for another few years.

The point of all this (for everyone) is that no one should be giving blanket "max it out" or "you don't need it" advice in a vacuum. Providing info as to the plusses and minuses of different amounts of RAM so that a buyer can make an informed decision is one thing -- making generic "you should do X or (you'll regret it/you'll never need it) is not helpful.

Perfect post and this has been my stance all along. It all depends on what the buyer does with his/her computer. "Guys, get 16 GB mark my words you'll need it" is not the answer.

Evaluate what you do and make an educated buy for what you need and are going to need for the next 4 years. Buying just to buy is stupid.

----------

Meanwhile - my 2011 4 GB MBA is struggling. Primarily with Swap outs - not huge ones, but decent size. The apps I use are messy (Lotus Notes, Lotus Sametime, MS Offfice, Skype, Trillian, Little VMWare).
-Shaown

And there you have it.

----------

In 2006, you could buy a Macbook with 512MB of RAM
In 2008, 1GB
In 2011, 2GB

Five years ago, 4GB was a BTO option for ~$600, but it doesn't seem so ridiculous now.

Yes RAM increases over a span of time. How long do you expect to use a laptop for? 5 years is a long time on a laptop. If you expect to never buy another one then you need to rethink it. By the time 5 years has passed... the CPU and Graphics are outdated. Having that extra RAM, that you might need 5 years from now, will do you no good.

 

[akramer]

No, it is by design. Regardless of whether you're only doing "light" work on it or not, since Lion, OSX loves to use as much RAM as possible to use it as a cache. You'll quickly see RAM usage hit its max even if you have only a few apps open. Basically, the philosophy is to keep as many files in memory to reduce how often the OS needs to access the hard drive. However, Lion and ML in my view, were horrible at managing RAM by often leaving inactive RAM intact even when the OS is paging like crazy. Mavericks though seems to be brilliant at it.

Quoted for truth.

Unless you have less data on your disk than you have RAM, your OS is doing you a disservice if you eventually aren't using all of your memory. Previous versions of OS X took this too far, seemingly putting the same priority on buffer cache as they did on mmapped code segments, leading to swapping out in-use programs in order to cache files being read by another program. When running 'purge' makes your computer *faster*, you know your OS has made a mistake.

That said, a unix VM is an incredibly complicated beast, and handling memory pressure correctly in every situation is not a solveable problem.
For a taste of how difficult it is to calculate memory usage on a unix system, here's some good reading: http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/WhatIsMemoryUsage

 

[sparkie7]

Let's keep it simple.

Non-power user: Get 8GB RAM
Power user: Get 16GB RAM

 

[Scott7975]

nice combo. i did 2.3/16GBram/256GB HD. All other storage is going on an external 2.5 2TB mech drive (SSD is till cost prohibitive for huge storage) and the MBP is a mobile warrior for me

----------



Indeed. Given the direction of the industry, I see this lasting well over 5 years.

In 5+ years, the processor and graphics will be ****.

----------

Macbook pros aren't for average users. However, thanks to all of those who think it is and are serving to make Apple's shareholders rich.

Never said they were, but they obviously make low end versions for the average user. If they didn't then 12 gigs would be base and 32 would be max. That simply isn't the case. Plenty of average users buy them. Those people will do just fine with 8 gigs.

 

[ohbrilliance]

I'd love to get in a kernel design and memory management discussion but this is hardly the platform to do so. I do this for a living everyday, have Masters degree in comp. engineering with a focus in embedded systems (where the real OS optimizations occur) and don't need a lecture on OS design and memory hierarchies. That's a comp. arch (sophomore year) lecture.

We get it! You're really smart and know lots of stuff. Can I suggest you also try learning some humility?

 

[simon48]

In 5+ years, the processor and graphics will be ****.

If that's a 15" the CPU will ok in 5 years. The GPU will be really bad for gaming and CAD, but if you don't do either it'll be fine.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Let's keep it simple.

Non-power user: Get 8GB RAM
Power user: Get 16GB RAM

Everyone who's saying if you only browse the web and watch Netflix to get 8 is wrong.

There is a noticeable smoothness in all that you do in 8 vs 16 in your day to day navigation of the OS.

The only reason you should get 8 over 16 is if you don't care if your computer behaves slightly more sluggishly lol.

Theres no question.You can tell the difference. Run a couple sticks at 16 after you had 8 for awhile and its quite obvious no matter what trivial thing you do or load up.

So its not a decision of need, usage, or future proofing, its a decision of luxury.

You can't argue that there isn't a difference because there is -- anecdotally and in benchmarks. Everything just runs smoother on 16.

Weather or not that luxury of OS behavior is worth the money is up to the wallet.

 

[jz-]

Yes RAM increases over a span of time. How long do you expect to use a laptop for? 5 years is a long time on a laptop. If you expect to never buy another one then you need to rethink it. By the time 5 years has passed... the CPU and Graphics are outdated. Having that extra RAM, that you might need 5 years from now, will do you no good.

As it happens, I'm still using a 5 year old Macbook, and the main bottleneck is RAM, not the CPU even though it is outdated. I, for one, don't want to upgrade yearly, so personally I'd rather go for more RAM now. The RAM debate really depends on how long you plan to keep the laptop - some here upgrade yearly and others have 6, 7 or 8 year old laptops still working.

 

[unimac]

In 2006, you could buy a Macbook with 512MB of RAM
In 2008, 1GB
In 2011, 2GB

Five years ago, 4GB was a BTO option for ~$600, but it doesn't seem so ridiculous now.

Exactly. It's as if people have been under a rock this past decade and have no understanding of the rate in which the computing market has progressed. If i'm using 70-80% of 8GB today, i'd be a fool to think i wont have a need for 100%+ of that tomorrow

----------

Quoted for truth.

Unless you have less data on your disk than you have RAM, your OS is doing you a disservice if you eventually aren't using all of your memory. Previous versions of OS X took this too far, seemingly putting the same priority on buffer cache as they did on mmapped code segments, leading to swapping out in-use programs in order to cache files being read by another program. When running 'purge' makes your computer *faster*, you know your OS has made a mistake.

That said, a unix VM is an incredibly complicated beast, and handling memory pressure correctly in every situation is not a solveable problem.
For a taste of how difficult it is to calculate memory usage on a unix system, here's some good reading: http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/WhatIsMemoryUsage

Kernel design is a very complicated field. Unless you went to school for it and work actively on an industry level OS for a living, you have no business rambling on about anything related to it. Computer Architecture (hardware) even moreso.... The truth that you quoted is covered in Comp Arch 101 and gets nowhere near towards the complexities of industry level Kernel design and the work put into it.

Suffice to say.... something simple to grasp : When you can easily afford to buy sufficient memory, you don't rely on OS Kernel (software)tricks to solve limited hardware resource issues. There's no magic pixie dust or white paper you can quote or reference that will ever change that simple concept that even a 5 year old can understand. I do run vms, I will be utilizing 16GB of memory and I'm glad apple has finally brought its OS out of the stone-age and caught up with everyone else. Now lets hope they did this right and it wont be like other kernel releases where 'cool kernel' tricks are found to actually be less efficient than not having them at all.

 

[alphaod]

Many (most?) 256 variants are same speed as 512s now. Depends on how the nand configuration is per model.

In fact in a few variants the 256 model is faster than the 512 model due, mainly with higher IOPS.

 

[unimac]

As it happens, I'm still using a 5 year old Macbook, and the main bottleneck is RAM, not the CPU even though it is outdated. I, for one, don't want to upgrade yearly, so personally I'd rather go for more RAM now. The RAM debate really depends on how long you plan to keep the laptop - some here upgrade yearly and others have 6, 7 or 8 year old laptops still working.

Exactly. It was the 1st thing I upgraded in my 17" MBP. had this same dumb ass debate w/ people in 2007/2008. 4GB you'd never need that...

I am not an upgrade whore so I can easily see this rMBP lasting me 5years+ and more than anything, it's because I opt'd for 16GB ram. I'll never come close to an avg. ulti of 100% on those quad cores.

----------

In 5+ years, the processor and graphics will be ****.

----------



Never said they were, but they obviously make low end versions for the average user. If they didn't then 12 gigs would be base and 32 would be max. That simply isn't the case. Plenty of average users buy them. Those people will do just fine with 8 gigs.

Funny because my 2007 17" MBP still would kick the pants off apple's entry level 2013 laptops if it weren't for RAM limitations (the true bottleneck) and nvidia's burnt out graphics card (an issue back then)... and hilariously the screen is better than the non-retina screens made in 2013' .. a time before apple started nickle and dimming the mass of idiots who now buy their professional grade equipment for kicks.

Processors have been the least of issues in the past number of years. The focus has been on ram technology which has stagnated and SSD drives vs mechanical.. Solving the true bottle necks in the computer's architecture.

wt4 does 'graphics' will suck mean? Are you going to get artificial eye-balls to see more dpi?

As for average users.. yeah the kind of people who come into the apple store and ask the workers : why does this one w/ this bigger number cost more? What is RAM? Do you think my daughter will want more of that RAM? why isn't the one w/ more ram in stock? What is a GPU?

 

[emptysands]

Exactly. A MBP esp a quad-core i7 equipped one is for people creating and producing content for the masses to consume on their Ipads. As a shareholder, its great that people who browse the web want to drop $2 grand for one, but I'm sorry, for anyone who buys such a machine, you're already off the reservation w.r.t to buying something far and beyond your requirements. The weakest link in this machine is the 8GB it comes standard w/. Given the amount of web surfer users in this thread, I first of all can't imagine you even using more than 15% of the capability of the processor in the base model 15"... So, yes... If you are that kind of person, getting 16GB isn't going to make a bit of sense to you.

It's a fair point, and I agree with you.

Another point to consider. Even if you are not a power user. If you decided to sell your MBP in 2-3 years, potentially the person buying it would want to use it in a manner fit for purpose.

4GBis really not enough. I'd say 8GB is a min.

The thing I'd sad about is that the 13" does not have the Iris Pro. Notwithstanding that the iGPU would server the smaller form factor really well, the L4 cache would be very useful in a slower processor.

 

[leman]

I worked in a Performance management group at a company that produces an enterprise grade OS. I know exactly how memory hierarchies work.

...

When ram is a bottle neck in your system (a $2000) one and it only costs $200 to address. You address it. It's great that apple discovered kernel level memory compression. Welcome to decades ago when ram costs $1000 for a 256MB stick and it really mattered to play such tricks. It doesn't today. It costs $200 for an 8GB upgrade. An upgrade that is well worth it to me...

This is an excellent post and I have taken the liberty to highlight the (IMO) most important point. Yes, you are right. The thing is, for an average user, 8GB RAM is not a bottleneck and its not going to be a bottleneck for at least next 3 years. There are real-world tests out there, which show close to zero performance improvement of 8Gb->16GB. So let me ask you - why pay $200 for something which will probably never improve your experience over the lifetime of the machine?

Rather than invest $200 into 16GB RAM, I'd recommend people to get a bigger SSD, it will ultimately be more useful/convenient.

 

[unimac]

It's a fair point, and I agree with you.

Another point to consider. Even if you are not a power user. If you decided to sell your MBP in 2-3 years, potentially the person buying it would want to use it in a manner fit for purpose.

4GBis really not enough. I'd say 8GB is a min.

The thing I'd sad about is that the 13" does not have the Iris Pro. Notwithstanding that the iGPU would server the smaller form factor really well, the L4 cache would be very useful in a slower processor.

Dat L4 Cache ! .

Yeah man, its funny because its the same w/ any luxury item... Down the line, during resale, when 'X' is now a standard, it's not a matter of how much you will get w/ or w/o it.. you might not even get a sale because you don't have it.

You see this all the time... Take BMW for example.... Guy goes in and buys a $60k M3 that is a luxury high performance sports car and doesn't opt for electronically adjustable suspension option that costs $1-2k more.. Doesn't opt for navi... An option you can't just throw in the car later... People literally pass that person over. Not saying 16GB has the same relation but if people think, with the direction of things that 16GB isn't going to be the standard 5 years from now, they are delusional.. and when someone goes to buy your used MBP, they are going to look at the weakest link which will be non-upgrade-able ram.. and i'm sorry but 8GB isn't going to cut it.

Beyond all the horse dung being tossed around this forum, really stop and think :
> CPU
> GPU
> RAM
> Main storage

CPU :
I don't even think much when it comes to CPU now-a-days. The capability of an i7 is far above and beyond what even pro users can utilize... even beyond what software is utilizing.

GPU :
> Do you game or not? It's a simple question that results in a decision

RAM :
> Ram requirements have been increasing every year quite consistently. We can go back to 2007 where everyone said, you'd never need more than 2GB of ram.. now look.. you need 8GB

Main storage :
> We've finally made it to SSD .. like mech drives, these will be w/ us for a while. SATA was limiting SSD performance so we moved on to PCI-E .. the latest MBps all use PCI-E for storage interface.. The simple question : how much crap you want to pack on your main storage.. most things are in the cloud.. and beyond your main data set, there is no need for blazing fast storage. External 2.5" (even smaller form factors are on the horizon) will suit your needs for huge storage requirements. Thunderbolt exists for a reason .. and surprise (it's PCI-E)

It isn't complex to see the bottle neck in your base MBP is the RAM/GPU. GPU .. do you game or not? Is gaming on a mobile device that important to you?
RAM... stands out as the performance bottle neck quite clearly.

I have a well rounded system now .. the CPU is top notch (not upgradeable). the ram is (16GB and future proof for good amnt of time and is not upgradeable). the GPU is sufficient (for me.. i dont game) .. the storage quantity is sufficient and is upgradeable in the future .. no need to go ham now.. SSD's are the most expensive new tech in the machine and will see considerable depreciation in the future and see size increase immensely for the same buck.

 

[Meister]

How big were the files in Photoshop? i've had Photoshop and Illustrator open with 11x17 spreads at 250PPI as well as some other apps open and notice slow downs going between apps. This is on a Mac Pro running Snow Leopard btw. Unless the processors and/or newer OS make that much of difference.



Bottom line is, if you're going to be doing intense work with a lot of apps, just get the 16GB. It's more future proof. Just because current OSes are better at memory management, doesn't mean that'll continue in future versions. Things can change. Besides if you're spending so much money on a MBP, what's a couple hundred more just to be safe? Yes I realize it's overkill for email/web, but IMO I rather be safe than sorry. Your needs might change and you'll wish

This reminds me of those who'll buy a $2,000 dSLR and want to know the best 3rd party brands to buy extra batteries to save $50 or whatever. You just spent thousands on a new camera and maybe more with lenses, yet you want to skimp on the cheapest thing? Yea you're paying for the Canon/Nikon logo, but in the end who cares?

To each his/her own.

What specs does your mac pro have?

 

[unimac]

This is an excellent post and I have taken the liberty to highlight the (IMO) most important point. Yes, you are right. The thing is, for an average user, 8GB RAM is not a bottleneck and its not going to be a bottleneck for at least next 3 years. There are real-world tests out there, which show close to zero performance improvement of 8Gb->16GB. So let me ask you - why pay $200 for something which will probably never improve your experience over the lifetime of the machine?

Rather than invest $200 into 16GB RAM, I'd recommend people to get a bigger SSD, it will ultimately be more useful/convenient.

Thank you.. now lets explore this.. For me, I already have a need for greater than 8GB of ram and am a power user. RAM isn't upgradeable in these systems and thus its quite clear for me what I should do. For others, when 16GB of ram becomes a standard and is the weakest performance link on your machine, what do you think prospective buyers will care about? They're going to care about your memory config. It could literally be a deal breaker.

So, for me, it will improve my experience for day one and will increasingly over the coming years as my requirements need it more and more.. And its not so much that i need exactly 16GB of ran in so much that I need more than 8GB.

It's not hard to find the weakest link.. RAM is clearly it in the base config and its not upgradeable.