New MacBook Pros Max Out at 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns

[tqwcs]

From what I've seen, the trend in professional graphics software is to put greater and greater emphasis on the memory and performance in the GPU, not the system memory. Thus the relatively recent jump in GPU memory sizes. The days of system RAM as the blunt object is diminishing. Note that Apple is really gearing up with hires that have GPU architecture as their background these days.

Just like everything it entirely depends on what you are doing. There are some things that are more easily mapped to the GPU (highly parallelizable algorithms). Most applications are not going to benefit from more GPU memory. I'm getting the impression that you actually don't know that much about what you are talking about.

Apple is hiring those GPU people for its mobile chips. They are nothing going to be replacing AMD or Nvidia anytime soon.

 

[gnipgnop]

Yup you said it yourself - you don't understand the argument. Thats because you are dismissing any viewpoint that disagrees with your preconceived opinion.

I don't understand the point of the argument. Development software can max out any laptop memory configuration that's currently on the market. And physics software can max out any laptop memory configuration that's currently on the market. So what? I could immediately crash my Mac Pro right now by trying to run a bunch of 3D renders at the same time. What does that have to do with Apple?

 

[Workerbee Redux]

The days of system RAM as the blunt object is diminishing.

Stop, just stop. That's only true for video and gfx people. Software developers hardly profit from more graphics power.

Three or four developers have piped up and said the same, it would be about time you just accept what we tell you.

 

[ddrulez]

If they recommend 16GB or higher, that means 16GB gives you high quality performance. It doesn't mean you actually need the "or higher" to get high quality performance. Photoshop recommends 8GB, but the reality is that 4GB will give you smooth performance for pretty much anything other than their 3D tools.
[doublepost=1477748304][/doublepost]

Dude...name the programs and their recommended system requirements. Most pro applications are legacy, which means they were running just fine on lower spec machines years ago.

You never did serious work with Photoshop do you?
One picture can and will eat up my 16gb ram here quite easily if you do serious work on it.

 

[Workerbee Redux]

where would be the limit, of how often one can put a Mac to sleep each day (without fiddling around with hibernate mode), so that one saves more energy than spends, if you consider the 32 RAM that saves you writes in general and compare it to 16 GB that doesn't save you so much writes, but belches out less data for sleep mode?

SSD write speeds have increased roughly 5x over the time Apple offered 16GB max. So, they could offer 64Gig now and it would take the same time to write the image.

 

[frankgrimes]

I have a novel idea (hey Apple I accept checks for it):

Keep the same (flawless) form factor and put a bigger battery in, problem solved. Now can offer 32 GB + RAM for the people who need it.

 

[Larry-K]

Seems like you hate Apple computers. Stop trolling and go find a Windows forum, buy some PCs and get on with your life kid. Bye.

You tend to get cranky when you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them, and they enter a downward spiral.

Stick with your phone junior.

 

[gnipgnop]

Most applications are not going to benefit from more GPU memory. I'm getting the impression that you actually don't know that much about what you are talking about.

Apple is hiring those GPU people for its mobile chips. They are nothing going to be replacing AMD or Nvidia anytime soon.

I specifically mentioned graphics oriented programs. For example, I have a gigantic Photos library on my desktop Mac. Updating the GPU from 512MB to 4GB made a huge performance difference for loading/scrolling. I didn't touch the system RAM because I knew it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Maybe you should respond to the person saying that higher levels of system RAM "speeds up" application processes. That isn't actually true.

 

[The Mercurian]

I don't understand the point of the argument. Development software can max out any laptop memory configuration that's currently on the market. And physics software can max out any laptop memory configuration that's currently on the market. So what? I could immediately crash my Mac Pro right now by trying to run a bunch of 3D renders at the same time. What does that have to do with Apple?

These are some of the things their 'pro users' like to do and why in the past they bought Apple products. You think Apple should not be interested in why people by their products ? Since Apple no longer provide people with the products they need such people will now go to other makes. I think Apple should be interested in that. Just because you do 3D renderring does not make that the only pro use of a macbook.

[doublepost=1477767785][/doublepost]

I have a novel idea (hey Apple I accept checks for it):

Keep the same (flawless) form factor and put a bigger battery in, problem solved. Now can offer 32 GB + RAM for the people who need it.

This would have done the trick for me.

 

[gnipgnop]

You never did serious work with Photoshop do you?
One picture can and will eat up my 16gb ram here quite easily if you do serious work on it.

What do you mean by "serious"? I work on 400-500 MB layered files all the time. And I do it while running 7 other applications. That's on an 8GB MBP at work. Prior to that, we had 4GB iMacs...and the same thing was possible.

 

[TrueBlou]

From what I've seen, the trend in professional graphics software is to put greater and greater emphasis on the memory and performance in the GPU, not the system memory. Thus the relatively recent jump in GPU memory sizes. The days of system RAM as the blunt object is diminishing. Note that Apple is really gearing up with hires that have GPU architecture as their background these days.

That's all very well and indeed it's true for some processes, they can most certainly be offloaded to the gpu.
The trouble is there's as many if not more that cannot and do not take advantage of the gpu resources.

Obviously the argument some people make is that you can max out 16,32,64,128, whatever amounts of memory you can cram into a system if you're using the software that will take full advantage of it. So they think what's the issue, just live with 16GB, it'll still work.

Well yeah, that's certainly true, we could just use a system with 16GB. But it will definitely impact our workflow. When I'm developing apps it's not just a case of having Xcode open and typing away. There's a whole host of apps I'll be using to get things done. And obviously the non work related things like iTunes, Safari and so on and so on.

Regularly I need to jump between different software to keep the flow going and I like to be able to jump between them without my system slowing to a crawl. Which even with 32GB of memory at the moment, it does.

So yeah, you can use 16GB and yes some things get offloaded to the gpu. But make no mistake, there's no such thing as too much system RAM when you've got a serious workload.

* I was probably going somewhere with this when I started typing, but I forget, so I'm just going to shut up

 

[gnipgnop]

Just because you do 3D renderring does not make that the only pro use of a macbook.

I didn't say it was. But it's not just software developers or physicists that can max out system memory. The hipster drinking latte's at Starbucks can max it out with his garage band recordings in Pro Tools. Maxing it out isn't really anything that unusual. However, that is usually under the users control.

 

[darkandlong]

What do you mean by "serious"? I work on 400-500 MB layered files all the time. And I do it while running 7 other applications. That's on an 8GB MBP at work. Prior to that, we had 4GB iMacs...and the same thing was possible.

I think you're confusing MB with KB. And making a new logo for your cousin's dog walking business doesn't count as work. Even if they are going to buy you a Pumpkin Frappuccino to say thanks.

 

[TrueBlou]

I think you're confusing MB with KB. And making a new logo for your cousin's dog walking business doesn't count as work. Even if they are going to buy you a coffee to say thanks.

Try developing apps, there's a whole lot of people who don't want to spend even less than the price of a coffee on an app, even a good one

 

[spacebro]

This is like if in 2012 apple came out with 4gb max machines and said "4gb is plenty, more ram will drain the battery". I would have never purchased a mac.

 

[thats all folks]

I specifically mentioned graphics oriented programs. For example, I have a gigantic Photos library on my desktop Mac. Updating the GPU from 512MB to 4GB made a huge performance difference for loading/scrolling. I didn't touch the system RAM because I knew it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Maybe you should respond to the person saying that higher levels of system RAM "speeds up" application processes. That isn't actually true.

what GPU do you have that lets you upgrade the RAM?

 

[Evil Spoonman]

There appears to be substantial cognitive dissonance here. Macs aren't some magical device that solves all problems. They are a tool that has been and will continue to be good for some jobs.

The Mac has, for quite some time now, been good at the jobs most people do. Most people need a computer to check email, to browse the web, manage calendars, video chat with their family. It's not like these are pedestrian tasks that are "beneath" a computer. An engineer might work all day, get home and just want to check their personal email. An artist might work on their workstation with a Wacom tablet all day, then get home and want to do some research on the web. The people who used a Mac as their tool for doing important and legitimate tasks in their life has been and will continue to be high. These are the vast majority of computer users.

However, lets talk about another aspect of computing. Professional production tools. What that is varies by industry, and I would argue that the Mac has never had a large presence in professional production tools. For web developers, the Mac is a great tool. For a structural engineer, the Mac has probably never even been an option. Lets look at just the things Apple needs to operate as a business. Their hardware products are designed in CAD and CAM on Windows. Tested in FEA on Linux. Automated manufacturing systems are programmed with Windows. The iCloud server system is running on Linux and Windows. SAP is running on Linux. The things that allow Apple to function as a business are not Macs.

We have seen some transition in the industry. I believe NX10 is now available on the Mac. And many Windows-only tools are moving to Linux. And the fact that OS X is based on Unix means that some science and engineering computing can be done on Macs. But my point stands, the vast majority of the professional world runs on Windows or Linux. Heck even the cornerstone of business, Excel, is much better to use on Windows. The Mac version is sloppy and buggy at best.

Apple has been dabbling in professional computers for a long time now. We've all been shoehorning Macs into our professional lives for years, some with great success, and some with much less. I love the Mac, we love Macs, and all we want is a way to continue to use them. For a non-trivial number of professional applications 16GB of RAM is a hard stop. In VFX, in scientific, in industrial, in simulations... it's just not going to work. And you know what sucks? Being forced out of a platform that you love because the platform owner refuses to cater to you. If your job depends on a fast GPU, you probably got out of the Mac years ago already.

We know that the Mac has been biasing towards the consumer since forever. None of what Apple did is surprising, and that's perhaps the worst part. Watching 30 minutes of Touch Bar demos with the dread feeling that the company doesn't care about you. The new MacBook Pro is not a bad computer, it's a distinctly middle-of-the-road laptop with lovely fit and finish, industrial design, and some interesting features and quirks. For general purpose computing it continues to be just fine. But each time Apple refuses to look towards performance, they lose people.

 

[darkandlong]

Time will answer this question. I'm sure there will be many professionals who aren't ready to jump ship yet and will pay the rediculous prices, either because the thought of Windows is too repulsive, because the thought of building a PC is too depressing or because they don't hang out on Mac forums, but reality will bite hard. When they actually need the juice it won't be there, and there will be no way of them adding more of it.

The people who won't notice or care will be exactly the casual users that this laptop is aimed at. The ones who did a little bit of wee in their pants when the Bar was demoed.

 

[BeFrank]

Vesper Lynd: There are dinner jackets and dinner jackets; this is the latter. And I need you looking like a man who belongs at that table.

The same is true of CEO's of technology companies. Steve Job's was the latter and he belonged at that table. We were loyal to him and his company even when a product flopped because he had the "b*lls" oh sorry (courage) to try and invent new things. Now apple customers are only loyal to the company because there is no better alternative product. Once a company matches apple's quality and doesn't make their customers feel like a handcuffed running back then Apple is done.

 

[oftheheavens]

Mid-late 70s, yes.

My first computer was an Apple 1, which I still own. Got paid for writing software by 1978, IIRC.

That is awesome! I was really curious as to what kind of work you were doing back "in the day". I have dabbled in coding between my degrees but got frustrated and gave up when there was a missing link in the lessons I was following. Also, my goal was to make a simple game for my son but I was soon under the impression that it is hard to do video games without a bit of graphic skills. Anyway, thanks for the reply!

 

[CraigN]

There appears to be substantial cognitive dissonance here. Macs aren't some magical device that solves all problems. They are a tool that has been and will continue to be good for some jobs.

The Mac has, for quite some time now, been good at the jobs most people do. Most people need a computer to check email, to browse the web, manage calendars, video chat with their family. It's not like these are pedestrian tasks that are "beneath" a computer. An engineer might work all day, get home and just want to check their personal email. An artist might work on their workstation with a Wacom tablet all day, then get home and want to do some research on the web. The people who used a Mac as their tool for doing important and legitimate tasks in their life has been and will continue to be high. These are the vast majority of computer users.

However, lets talk about another aspect of computing. Professional production tools. What that is varies by industry, and I would argue that the Mac has never had a large presence in professional production tools. For web developers, the Mac is a great tool. For a structural engineer, the Mac has probably never even been an option. Lets look at just the things Apple needs to operate as a business. Their hardware products are designed in CAD and CAM on Windows. Tested in FEA on Linux. Automated manufacturing systems are programmed with Windows. The iCloud server system is running on Linux and Windows. SAP is running on Linux. The things that allow Apple to function as a business are not Macs.

We have seen some transition in the industry. I believe NX10 is now available on the Mac. And many Windows-only tools are moving to Linux. And the fact that OS X is based on Unix means that some science and engineering computing can be done on Macs. But my point stands, the vast majority of the professional world runs on Windows or Linux. Heck even the cornerstone of business, Excel, is much better to use on Windows. The Mac version is sloppy and buggy at best.

Apple has been dabbling in professional computers for a long time now. We've all been shoehorning Macs into our professional lives for years, some with great success, and some with much less. I love the Mac, we love Macs, and all we want is a way to continue to use them. For a non-trivial number of professional applications 16GB of RAM is a hard stop. In VFX, in scientific, in industrial, in simulations... it's just not going to work. And you know what sucks? Being forced out of a platform that you love because the platform owner refuses to cater to you. If your job depends on a fast GPU, you probably got out of the Mac years ago already.

We know that the Mac has been biasing towards the consumer since forever. None of what Apple did is surprising, and that's perhaps the worst part. Watching 30 minutes of Touch Bar demos with the dread feeling that the company doesn't care about you. The new MacBook Pro is not a bad computer, it's a distinctly middle-of-the-road laptop with lovely fit and finish, industrial design, and some interesting features and quirks. For general purpose computing it continues to be just fine. But each time Apple refuses to look towards performance, they lose people.

I can do most of my work on either a Mac or PC, with some bits requiring one or the other. My Mac Pro (when I'm at home) and my MacBook Pro (when I'm on the sofa or in a hotel somewhere or in an office other than mine) are both bootcamped and have VMWare Fusion on them meaning they're excellent at doing virtually anything I could possibly ever need (I even have a brutally locked down VM that does nothing but my online banking...). I prefer one base operating environment so that suits me perfectly.

What's always bothered me was that I couldn't run more than a couple of VMs at once on my MacBook Pro without seriously sweating it and performance dropping heavily. I had hoped that the new MacBook Pro would give me a nice solid platform where I could run at least 3 VMs at once, one core and 4GB-6GB each dedicated and not fuss about a mainstream Mac app taking the remaining core and being able to be a bit of a memory hog. I accept the MBP isn't a workstation, I wouldn't ever hope to run the 8 concurrent VMs I can do comfortably on my Mac Pro. My 2011 MBP can do three VMs comfortably at 2GB or two at 3GB but that's just not enough for my current needs, 2GB per VM was bottom-line for me in 2011, five years ago, I really need 4GB-6GB minimum per VM these days and wouldn't mind more for the occasional test.

So, along comes the announcement about the lovely new MBP. There's a new gimmick bar, Apple thinks one-size-fits-all in ports and it's thinner, erm... that's it. I didn't go with an earlier MBP from 2014 onwards because I was waiting on the redesign model that surely would have a 32GB option and learn the lesson of underpowered dGPU. Slow hand-clap for that one then, 16GB as the top option in 2013-4 was fine, 16GB as a the best you can get in 2016 is not, especially when I'd expect an Apple laptop to last at least 3-4 years and stay credible as a "pro" machine. Is it really credible to say that 16GB will be acceptable as a max in 2019?

If I make the move from my MBP 2011 to another device then it'll be one that maps my needs now and for the next 3 years and that's not the new MBP. I'm also looking suspiciously at Apple pretending the Mac Pro doesn't exist, my current one is approaching 3 years old and I keep looking on here to see if there's anything, the last tagged news on the Pro was April and that was a by-blow article on possible GPUs. If I leave Apple for my MBP then there's very little tie for me to stay with my Mac Pro.

 

[DexBell]

This is such rubbish. A large proportion of people, if not the majority of people who buy this for professional reasons will need that RAM. If not today then one or two years down the line. For fanboys and casual users like yourself it isn't an issue. You have money to spend and you like having the latest, most expensive model. You don't need extra RAM because the hardest you'll push it is watching Game of Thrones episodes with Quicktime. That's fine, but stop claiming to speak for the majority.

Sorry but I do photo/video professionally for a living. Im in PS and FCP every day and guess what? I only have 8GB *gasp* of DDR3 in my late 2013 iMac!! works flawlessly.....
[doublepost=1477778367][/doublepost]

You tend to get cranky when you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them, and they enter a downward spiral.

Stick with your phone junior.

So rather than doing something productive, like going out and buying the tools to fit your needs and moving on with your life, you sit around and troll an Apple forum because they aren't bending to your specific needs? Grow up.

 

[arkmannj]

You know what likely takes more battery than an extra 16GB of RAM? Paging out to the filesystem when you run out.
so here's an engineering fix. When less than 16 GB of ram are being power down the other module(s) past 16GB. when 15.9GB+ are being used then power up the additional module(s)

that fixed some of the battery concerns for less demanding use times, and allows for performance when needed.
I tell you what, most of th time I do heavy lifting on my laptop i plugin to a power source anyways so the extra battery being chewed up on occasion is not as big of a deal.
Also it i'm betting the new toolbar takes more power than added RAM.

in short, as a professional i know when i'm performing tasks that will be demanding and using more resources. I already expect and understand that it will use the battery quicker, I don't need Apple making the judgement call how much RAM i need.

 

[StrawberryX]

Serious photoshop work, collaging medium format material,
and It's probably the same for the high res Sony Alpha's, D800 and 5Dr's.
Since I switched to medium format psd's are rare and psb's the norm.
And high res medium format camera's are actually pretty old now ...
If you are in studio and advertising 16gb doesn't cut it.
And I don't know one photographer with windows,
I do know people with the 100mp Phase one that were waiting for this new macbook,
they have mac pro's too ... but atm you are roadcripled with mac ...
I do know pro's that really like the nMP and take it to hotels.
I just hope they don't kill off headless macs ... I'm not a nMP fan,
but It's the only mac that gets some work done ...
None of them has imac ...
Advertising is serious buisness ... I'm sure other pro markets are too
If 16gb was enough, people wouldn't take tube's on the road ...

 

[nt5672]

Good answer. 99% of all users value battery life over masses of unnecessary RAM that macOS really doesn't need. I'm glad Apple remains focused on the important things.

What a load of crap, it used to be that Apple offered choices so people could chose what they valued. Not any more, Apple only caters to teenagers who use their computer on the commuter train.