I'd be curious to see the battery life/cpu utilization different between 8gb and 16gb. The compression algorithm mavricks uses for memory doesn't run for free...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Guys, get 16 GB.
- Thread starter puma1552
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
This whole thread is beyond silly. While its true that RAM is important, we reached the point of 'enough memory for most common usage' a while ago.
Advocating spending more because 'you might need it in the future because more is always better' is just ridiculous. With that reasoning, everyone should also get a 1TB SSD, right? Because if you can spend an extra $200, then an extra $220 on top of that is just 10% more, which is really nothing!
And so on.
If anything, all major desktop OS's are moving towards becoming like mobile. That means reduction in memory footprint and much more aggressive app termination and caching policies. And much less multitasking.
There is a point of diminishing returns. For a lot of people, that might even be 4GB. But its generally agreed that 8GB is more than enough for the vast majority of users. Its not just enough, it provides enough headroom as well so you don't need to worry. And this will be true for the next 3-4 years, which is also the length of time most people will keep their MBPs.
What happens beyond that is pointless to speculate. Tech moves too fast. It's entire;y possible e.g. that future laptops have a EDRAM cache for ultra fast access, memory/ssd prices drop, or a new standard emerges.
If you have the money and really need the memory (multiple VMs, video editing etc) or just want peace of mind, get it. Otherwise this is just FUD and since it might make people spend more, its also dangerous.
Advocating spending more because 'you might need it in the future because more is always better' is just ridiculous. With that reasoning, everyone should also get a 1TB SSD, right? Because if you can spend an extra $200, then an extra $220 on top of that is just 10% more, which is really nothing!
And so on.If anything, all major desktop OS's are moving towards becoming like mobile. That means reduction in memory footprint and much more aggressive app termination and caching policies. And much less multitasking.
There is a point of diminishing returns. For a lot of people, that might even be 4GB. But its generally agreed that 8GB is more than enough for the vast majority of users. Its not just enough, it provides enough headroom as well so you don't need to worry. And this will be true for the next 3-4 years, which is also the length of time most people will keep their MBPs.
What happens beyond that is pointless to speculate. Tech moves too fast. It's entire;y possible e.g. that future laptops have a EDRAM cache for ultra fast access, memory/ssd prices drop, or a new standard emerges.
If you have the money and really need the memory (multiple VMs, video editing etc) or just want peace of mind, get it. Otherwise this is just FUD and since it might make people spend more, its also dangerous.
This whole thread is beyond silly. While its true that RAM is important, we reached the point of 'enough memory for most common usage' a while ago.
Advocating spending more because 'you might need it in the future because more is always better' is just ridiculous. With that reasoning, everyone should also get a 1TB SSD, right? Because if you can spend an extra $200, then an extra $220 on top of that is just 10% more, which is really nothing!
If anything, all major desktop OS's are moving towards becoming like mobile. That means reduction in memory footprint and much more aggressive app termination and caching policies. And much less multitasking.
There is a point of diminishing returns. For a lot of people, that might even be 4GB. But its generally agreed that 8GB is more than enough for the vast majority of users. Its not just enough, it provides enough headroom as well so you don't need to worry. And this will be true for the next 3-4 years, which is also the length of time most people will keep their MBPs.
What happens beyond that is pointless to speculate. Tech moves too fast. It's entire;y possible e.g. that future laptops have a EDRAM cache for ultra fast access, memory/ssd prices drop, or a new standard emerges.
If you have the money and really need the memory (multiple VMs, video editing etc) or just want peace of mind, get it. Otherwise this is just FUD and since it might make people spend more, its also dangerous.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Also, people who have the money to spend on upgrades they don't need should also have the money to upgrade once every two years or so. The depreciation rate of base-model mac's are the lowest in the industry(Less than 25% in the first year, and about 35% in 2). In the past 2 years, the mba brought faster and more efficient cpu(less heat/noise), globs of battery life, much better gpu, better webcam, better mic, usb 3.0, uhs-1 capable sd reader, faster ssds, lower price, 802.11AC, among other things.. In addition, you get a extra year of apple-care with a new purchase. These are actual tangible benefits imo and doesn't cost much more than what people spend on minor spec bumps they don't need.
size of 2 so-dimm sticks.
entire rMBP logic board
Apple should have given us a choice... the current option, and then another option with 15% less battery life and a removable back-tray for people who don't want to pay $100 upfront for a memory upgrade, yet still want the option to add memory in the future on a 2-yr old system for around $70.
There are many possible explanations, one of which is that they were losing profit to people purchasing third-party RAM upgrades.
The simple answer to why most companies are now moving towards non user-serviceable parts, a move led by Apple, is 'more profit'.
It makes much more sense for Apple to make a thinner laptop with much higher profit margins (charge much more for memory upgrades, lower manufacturing costs), while at the same time they can market the thinner size, and force earlier upgrades, and kill the oem upgrades market.
There are literally no downsides. The number of people who won't buy a Mac because everything is soldered is probably so low Apple doesn't even bother to track those figures. They did their market analysis.
It makes much more sense for Apple to make a thinner laptop with much higher profit margins (charge much more for memory upgrades, lower manufacturing costs), while at the same time they can market the thinner size, and force earlier upgrades, and kill the oem upgrades market.
There are literally no downsides. The number of people who won't buy a Mac because everything is soldered is probably so low Apple doesn't even bother to track those figures. They did their market analysis.
I'm not so sure the whole thread is silly... Anyway, sorta the basic point is that if you upgrade your MBP every year or so then you don't need more ram. I agree completely with that.
But what about those that have no intention of upgrading in a year and find it a hassle to change laptops so often. Also want long lasting compatibility, and don't care about resale value, because it is probably six plus years down the road.
I know I need ram for what I do and am very suspicious that Maverick doesn't really stand up to evil ram hogs like Photoshop, Motion, etc.
16gb for me, and I'd double that if I could.
But what about those that have no intention of upgrading in a year and find it a hassle to change laptops so often. Also want long lasting compatibility, and don't care about resale value, because it is probably six plus years down the road.
I know I need ram for what I do and am very suspicious that Maverick doesn't really stand up to evil ram hogs like Photoshop, Motion, etc.
16gb for me, and I'd double that if I could.
Access time for ram is measured in nanoseconds. SSD and HDD access time are measured in microseconds. That is 1000x difference. You wont notice but your cpu will.
And if your CPU notices it and you are making the CPU do it 100,000 times you will notice it.
If you need 32GB of RAM is the CPU in the rMBP really good enough? I'd just get a Mac Pro.
I agree with this.
It does mean that it's not necessary to have as much things on RAM though.
The minimum detectable latency threshold for humans is something around 10ms to 100ms depending on the case. The CPU still needs access to on-die cache and RAM, but there are a lot more things that can be paged to the SSD now without detectable performance loss. Application-state for instance can be read back into RAM faster than the user can give it input.
You either need 16GB and have the technical competency to understand your need or you don't and you are just going to listen to the most convincing clown show on either side of this debate. As for those running their mouths about there being no need for 16GB of ram, unless you took computer science or computer engineering as a major and took an OS course I suggest you eat a bag of '****' because you have absolutely 0 clue what you're talking about.. and reading joe-bob's blog doesn't make you informed.
Yes you can but how much more can you do?
I have pages, preview, messages, vmware(couple of windows only applications open there), safari and a torrent application running in the background.
I am pushing close to 12GB of ram. Now you try that and tell me how well it goes
You might not need it but I am definitely glad I have it.
----------
Having an SSD is not an excuse to have less ram/ There is a difference in speed from ram to ssd.
Not to mention your SSD has a limited life.
SSD speeds ~ 700-900 MB/s
Ram speed ~ 20 GB/s
The point is, unless you understand computer hardware at the cacheing level and delay as you get further from the CPU and software at the kernel level and what your needs are, then you have no point. You are just a clown echo like the rest of the people on this thread shouting out from either side of the debate random things you don't understand. Much like the republican/democrat debate is the 16GB/non16GB .. the majority of the idiots yapping their gums haven't the slightest clue of what they are talking about.. At best they read some 'experts' blog, misinterpreted the bigger picture, and think they are know it alls.
If you have to ask whether or not you need 16GB you likely don't need it. Those who are technically inclined power users already know they need 16GB and aren't going to be swayed by idiot's opinions on a board. Those who probably don't need 16GB will.. and such is life for the uninformed.. you go wherever the prevailing wind is blowing...
*eyeroll* ..
Mods need to seriously lock this and all other threads like it down.
Last edited:
Guys, get 16 GB.
Yes, but for example, I have a VM with 6G of dedicated RAM running 3 RDP sessions and a game that I alt tab between with all within that VM. At the same time I have safari (7 tabs open), mail, and iTunes syncing my iPad and iPhone. Even with all that I still have about 2GB of free RAM. I am a power user and for some people it's a great investment.
Yes, but for example, I have a VM with 6G of dedicated RAM running 3 RDP sessions and a game that I alt tab between with all within that VM. At the same time I have safari (7 tabs open), mail, and iTunes syncing my iPad and iPhone. Even with all that I still have about 2GB of free RAM. I am a power user and for some people it's a great investment.
Last edited:
Yes you can but how much more can you do?
I have pages, preview, messages, vmware(couple of windows only applications open there), safari and a torrent application running in the background.
I am pushing close to 12GB of ram. Now you try that and tell me how well it goes
You might not need it but I am definitely glad I have it.
Word, Excel, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Preview, Messages, Adium, and Parallels (Win7) is my usual stuff. Generally it works fine. I'm generally not using all of those apps at the same time, so a little paging isn't the end of the world.
----------
Sure, for some people, it is. The only thing I'd ask is whether you actually need that 6GB of dedicated VM RAM. A lot of people tend to over-dedicate RAM to their VMs when it isn't necessary. Not saying you do, but it's a common trend.
So they can make it .001 inches thinner. But more importantly, they can force folks to pay APPLE the money to get more RAM, instead of doing it themselves and spend 1/2 that amount to a RAM supplier.
I agree with your statement, I probably over dedicated my VM About 1-2GB more then what I really need, but that's still not an issue since I purposely did it because I have the resources. Considering that I have that much memory in my MBP I bought it because I want no hiccups and it does exactly what I need it to do.
I agree but the problem is that Apple has never been about options. Plus, I see that as a redundant option. Just give EVERYONE the ability to swap memory at will and make the MacBook 0.001 inches thicker. Big deal.
All these marginal gains are in Apple's product line are ridiculous. Essentially its 1 step forward, 2 steps backwards. Yeah, we got a slimmer laptop, great. But now we know its going to be obsolete in no more than a couple years when the bloat from software hogging RAM renders our computers DISPOSABLE.
- Status