MacBook Pro 2012 32 GB Memory?

53kyle

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 27, 2012
1,275
92
Sebastopol, CA
My computer is a mid 2012 MBP 13 inch i7. According to this intel web page:
http://ark.intel.com/products/64893
My computer should be able to handle up to 32 GB Memory. Is this only with four sticks of memory or not yet produced memory or are mac laptops just restricted by something else? Forgive me if this has already been answered or is just stupid :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBP_187

alex0002

macrumors 6502
Jun 19, 2013
483
103
New Zealand
My computer is a mid 2012 MBP 13 inch i7. According to this intel web page:
http://ark.intel.com/products/64893
My computer should be able to handle up to 32 GB Memory. Is this only with four sticks of memory or not yet produced memory or are mac laptops just restricted by something else? Forgive me if this has already been answered or is just stupid :p
From my understanding, no one is making 16GB DDR3 204-pin SODIMM RAM yet (2 x 16GB needed for 32GB), so 16GB is the current limit even if the CPU supports it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBP_187

johnnnw

macrumors 65816
Feb 7, 2013
1,210
9
I can almost guarantee you nothing you can do on your 2012 MBP requires 32GB of RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: green86

SpoekGTi

macrumors regular
Jul 2, 2012
131
1
The Netherlands
I can almost guarantee you nothing you can do on your 2012 MBP requires 32GB of RAM.
I can't even fill 16GB on my Mac Mini or MBP of my g/friend. But still it's nice to have it. 32GB is really overkill if it's available and doesn't cost too much.

I have 8GB in my own MBA, and thats probably gonna last for another year. Next model is definitely gonna have 16GB minimum (gonna upgrade to a Retina Pro)
 

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,985
4,556
To get 32Gb RAM you'd need two 16Gb DDR3 RAM modules, which don't exists on the market and probably won't ever exist... and DDR4 is around the corner...
 

53kyle

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 27, 2012
1,275
92
Sebastopol, CA
If I am running about 50 different websites, many of which have flash, and a windows virtual machine I can easily run into the 16 GB limit.
 

jafingi

macrumors 65816
Apr 3, 2009
1,468
154
Denmark
If I am running about 50 different websites, many of which have flash, and a windows virtual machine I can easily run into the 16 GB limit.
I doubt it uses 16GB of active memory.

Many people make a mistake not taking passive memory into the consideration. E.g. if you open a VM that uses 4GB, and then close it, that memory will still be allocated, but as passive memory (so that other applications can "eat" that space). If you have 16GB RAM, and have 3GB active, and 10GB passive, activity monitor would only say you have 3GB free memory, even though you have a total of 13GB to take from.

So in the end of the day, when you'd have tons of apps running, "free memory" might show a small number, but take a look at how much the passive memory uses. Passive memory is the same as free memory; other applications can use that memory. It's only passive to be able to quickly activate that memory without having to allocate it again, when opening frequent apps.

Take Photoshop for example. First time after a cold boot it will take 10-15 seconds to load. Then quit it, and open it again. Now it will open almost instantly (1-3 seconds). That is because the memory is already allocated for Photoshop, so OSX just needs to make that passive memory (it became passive when you closed Photoshop) active again. It doesn't have to re-allocate it.

So.. Many people are mistakenly thinking they need 32GB RAM. The truth is, that only a fraction of all computer users need it. You can easily have two VMs and Chrome with a lot of tabs open together with some other apps with 16GB of RAM.

Ohh.. And I'm amazed that you can use 50 tabs at once. It's pretty impressing! :rolleyes:
 

Memole

macrumors member
Jun 26, 2013
81
0
I have on my PC/Server 64GB of ram for my usage i never passed more than 40GB but 99% of my time average load is about 10-14GB of ram, and i do really heavy stuff and from look like you are just a normal casual user so you don't need more than 16GB of ram heck even for your usage 16GB of ram is a lot...

Also your MBP so far supports 16GB of ram and even if 16GB SODIMMs arrive it will be questionable if MBP will support it because maybe EFI on MBP is limited to 16GB of ram even though that CPU supports 32GB of ram so it also depends on EFI :)
 

Mr MM

macrumors 65816
Jun 29, 2011
1,116
1
the truth is, more ram = better general performance

thats basic for any modern OS

if you use or not the entire amount of ram on apps only the system will use the rest of the memory for general things

but to answer the OP

I dont think there will ever be 16gb sodimm ram sticks, DDR4 is coming soon, speculation is broadwell (2014), at the most its going to be skylake (2015) for consumers, for servers its 2014
 

actuallyinaus

macrumors regular
Feb 13, 2013
227
3
I can easily think of scenarios.
A) ram drive
B) virtual machines that you have allocated too much memory too

other than those two situations, there is no realistic scenario in which you would need more than 16gb, (or maybe if you opened every single program you have installed, which is pointless cause you cant interact with that many at once), im sure the problem here is your either a troll or you are failing to understand inactive memory properly
 
Last edited:

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,184
5045 feet above sea level
A) ram drive
B) virtual machines that you have allocated too much memory too

other than those two situations, there is no realistic scenario in which you would need more than 16gb, (or maybe if you opened every single program you have installed, which is pointless cause you cant interact with that many at once), im sure the problem here is your either a troll or you are failing to understand inactive memory properly
Called research and using large datasets. I could use over a 100gigs of ram easily. Not that unique

You accidentally responded a few months apart ;)
Haha, that's what happens when I check the status of 32 gig in mbps on an iphone search
 

ElliottG

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2013
54
0
Called research and using large datasets. I could use over a 100gigs of ram easily. Not that unique



Haha, that's what happens when I check the status of 32 gig in mbps on an iphone search
Why would you be doing that on a Macbook Pro? Lol...that's just silly.
 

KeegM480

macrumors 6502a
Aug 13, 2013
778
17
Orlando, FL
My computer is a mid 2012 MBP 13 inch i7. According to this intel web page:
http://ark.intel.com/products/64893
My computer should be able to handle up to 32 GB Memory. Is this only with four sticks of memory or not yet produced memory or are mac laptops just restricted by something else? Forgive me if this has already been answered or is just stupid :p
Completely unnecessary, you would kill the MacBook before you needed that much RAM
 

53kyle

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 27, 2012
1,275
92
Sebastopol, CA
Completely unnecessary, you would kill the MacBook before you needed that much RAM
My issue is really just future proofing my computer. I want it to last 6 years like my old macbook. Remember how way back then 4 GB was considered too much for most peoples needs, and how now people consider that to be a minimum spec? I am sure the same will happen with 32 GB, considering how technology evolves.
 

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,985
4,556
My issue is really just future proofing my computer. I want it to last 6 years like my old macbook. Remember how way back then 4 GB was considered too much for most peoples needs, and how now people consider that to be a minimum spec? I am sure the same will happen with 32 GB, considering how technology evolves.
Applications will run into problems with current RAM speeds (which are already a huge bottleneck in the technology) much earlier than requiring 32GB.

There are three reasons why average RAM demands are increasing: a) more abstract programming APIs, b) higher-quality content, c) lazy programmers. As to a), OS X API's are already very sophisticated and include levels of indirections not present on most other platforms. That makes them very pleasant to work with but also potentially slow and a memory hog. The level of the APIs is already so high, that I can't see the RAM demand quickly increasing further. There was a jump in RAM demand when OS X started buffering image representation of windows/controls (this is very noticeable on the rMBP with its high resolutions) - but even then 8GB RAM is more then sufficient. To b) - again, bitmap resources for rMBP already take lots of space. This is unlikely to increase because there is just no way to increase this. This leaves us with c) - which is indeed the biggest reason for increasing RAM requirements, IMO.

Tl;DR: while RAM requirements will increase, it will need a lot of time and another technological changes for 32GB becoming commonplace. If you want peace of mind, get 16GB RAM (although you will get by with 8GB just fine) - your MacBook will never fit more than that anyway. Complain with RAM vendors ;)
 

silvetti

macrumors 6502a
Nov 24, 2011
861
283
Poland
You will most likely sell that laptop and buy a new one before you need 32GB of RAM on that laptop...

FYI:
The other day on my Windows machine on which I have 16GB of RAM, I opened ALL the applications I have on my PC, which are alot, ran 2 Windows VM's, started Battlefield 4 Beta (not even optimized) and was using not even 8GB of RAM.
 

ElliottG

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2013
54
0
Why is it silly? The applications I use my data and how I manipulate it are much more dependent on ram than cpu or other aspects I may need.

Besides, it is a satellite machine when away from my work computer.
I meant the research part.

These computers have some power but there are some things they are just not meant to do...