Tech savvy people, be honest: Does the average user need more than 4gigs of ram?

[Ant.honey]

If there was such a thing, the average user doesn't need a macbook pro - irregardless of ram amounts.

I have 16 in my mbp. When they update the Mac Pro, I'll run 48gb. In my field, I'm average.

 

[Gillespie81]

for $30-40 to upgrade to 8gb and 2 min to put it in is not a big deal. i would say the average person would upgrade because it is cost effective.

 

[squeakr]

I upgraded to 8 ram 1600 mhz for the 15 inch because I use my macbook pro for many activity that involves with ram usage. Currently right now I am shopping for solid state drive.

It is your money, but you just got your MBP and have no idea what it can or cannot handle. I would say use it first and see if it fits your need or requires upgrades. I run several VMs and did fine with 8 GB when I only needed to run 1-2 at a time with the standard drive (found this out from monitored usage patterns). When I changed positions and routinely need 2-3 open and simulating a network, the swap was killing my SSD (routinely swapping out 50-60 GB per shift, as i restarted each day to reset the information) and slowing the system and therefor required that I move to 16 GB. But this again was determined from usage patterns.


Like I said earlier, monitor your usage and determine from that.

----------

RAM has little or nothing to do with how quickly Photoshop or any other application opens.

Not always true as the speed of a program loading/starting up can depend on the amount of plug-ins and static devices/ add-ins that need to be loaded upon start up of the program. If you have very little free or available RAM then the system proceeds to swap out between the disk and the RAM in usage to start the program. In this case the program can load faster (it might be immediately noticeable to the user, but it will be faster, the same way that faster RAM can speed up a system).

 

[GGJstudios]

What I meant to say is page outs are not really the problem either only an excessive number of them are. Some people act like they have 2 GB page outs and they need more RAM but if the Page Ins are 25GB and the system has been running for days, those page outs are negligible and one probably wouldn't notice the difference. The problem are too many page outs not page outs per se. What do you mean by 166? MB or page out events? In MB it is what I would define negligible.

Another thing to keep in mind is that page outs are cumulative since the last restart. To more accurately determine if you need more RAM, restart your computer, which resets page outs and swap used to zero. Then track your page outs during normal use, with your typical workload. If page outs are significant (say 1GB or more) under normal use, you may benefit from more RAM. Page ins are irrelevant, as you will always have page ins, but may or may not have page outs. Also, if you experience paging only during an intense operation that you don't perform very often, that may not justify increasing RAM.

 

[Philthy84]

I plan to use my MacBook Pro for work, school, and light gaming. My needs most likely won't require 8gb of ram but I figure with the prices around $30-40 it's a pretty affordable upgrade and simple to do.

 

[NutsNGum]

Not always true as the speed of a program loading/starting up can depend on the amount of plug-ins and static devices/ add-ins that need to be loaded upon start up of the program. If you have very little free or available RAM then the system proceeds to swap out between the disk and the RAM in usage to start the program. In this case the program can load faster (it might be immediately noticeable to the user, but it will be faster, the same way that faster RAM can speed up a system).

The only time a user will notice an appreciable difference is by moving from a spinning drive to a solid state.

4GB vs 8GB with all things being equal, you're talking nano/millisecond improvements or nothing at all.

 

[calderone]

The only time a user will notice an appreciable difference is by moving from a spinning drive to a solid state.

4GB vs 8GB with all things being equal, you're talking nano/millisecond improvements or nothing at all.

Not when you're thrashing the disk.

 

[squeakr]

+1 Someone understands..

 

[SDColorado]

RAM has little or nothing to do with how quickly Photoshop or any other application opens.

Amen to that. Nor does Photoshop 5.5 have much relevance to the "average user," which was what the OP was asking about in the original question.

 

[squeakr]

The only time a user will notice an appreciable difference is by moving from a spinning drive to a solid state.

4GB vs 8GB with all things being equal, you're talking nano/millisecond improvements or nothing at all.

Now you change the game by making allowances. I agree that most won't notice but you have even stated it will be faster. nano/milli it doesn't matter as it will be faster. Your statement said it won't make it faster. Even between an SSD and HDD we are only talking milliseconds, but everyone brags on the difference. Acknowledge it or not, a speed difference exists. Hey the OP asked for techs, so even minute differences are there with techs.

 

[takeshi74]

I once read somewhere that unless you're a hardcore programmer who needs all the potential of RAM to compile their codes, you don't need any more than 4gigs of RAM. I'm wondering if there's any merit to this.

That's a very broad, sweeping statement. It's one example but certainly not an exhaustive list of people that would benefit from more RAM.

The typical user probably doesn't need much RAM but:

Like I said earlier, monitor your usage and determine from that.

^ This. Don't assume that you're "average" or not. People typically assume that they're average even when they have no idea what average actually is.

 

[NutsNGum]

Not when you're thrashing the disk.

+1 Someone understands..

The point I was making was in reference to HellDiver stating that 4GB of RAM was somehow insufficient for loading Photoshop quickly, which is not the case.

If you are thrashing the disk, that disk is going to be loading whatever you're opening into RAM more slowly anyway, so it's still going to be the case that more RAM won't necessarily equal better performance, as I said, all other things being equal.

If I have little-to-no RAM in one machine left then absolutely I'll see a difference, but that's fairly obvious.

----------

Now you change the game by making allowances. I agree that most won't notice but you have even stated it will be faster. nano/milli it doesn't matter as it will be faster. Your statement said it won't make it faster. Even between an SSD and HDD we are only talking milliseconds, but everyone brags on the difference. Acknowledge it or not, a speed difference exists. Hey the OP asked for techs, so even minute differences are there with techs.

You clearly speak as someone who has never used an SSD.

Seconds.

 

[squeakr]

You clearly speak as someone who has never used an SSD.

Seconds.

You clearly speak as someone who responds before reading and comprehending. Otherwise you wouldn't have missed where I state that I was killing my SSD with swaps until I changed from 8GB to 16GB. None of my apps ever had seconds difference between opening them with a HDD versus SSD. Entire OS system loads within a VM, yes, but not individual apps.

 

[aCondor]

4Gigs of RAM is plenty for most people. The average person will only very rarely push his or her system to the limit.
THough it never hurts to beef your RAM up, the average computer user will do just fine with 4 Gb.

 

[SDColorado]

I agree with NutsNGum as it directly applies to HelldriverUK's comment about loading CS 5.5 on a 4GB machine. HelldriverUK comments about coming back next week when it actually opens. I have CS5 on several machines, ranging from MBA with only 4GB, to a 16 MBP and a Mac Pro.

Truth is, the MBA will load CS5 faster than either of the other two machines, due to the SSD. It is almost instant. But even a 4GB MBP will load CS5 in a relatively quick manner. I had 4GB in mine, before I got around to upgrading it a couple weeks later. We are talking in terms of seconds, not a week, days or even minutes. Unless there is something seriously flawed with 5.5 (in which case I am glad I have not upgraded to it). I am sure it was an exaggeration for effect by Helldriver, but seriously... it only takes seconds to load.

Now, how CS5 performs for your workflow *after* it loads, is an entirely different topic for conversation.

 

[NutsNGum]

You clearly speak as someone who responds before reading and comprehending. Otherwise you wouldn't have missed where I state that I was killing my SSD with swaps until I changed from 8GB to 16GB. None of my apps ever had seconds difference between opening them with a HDD versus SSD. Entire OS system loads within a VM, yes, but not individual apps.

Well, I have, and I'd put money on it that other people probably have. But then, I use Adobe products, which load with the willingness of a man sliding face-first into a furnace.

I'm bored of this now, good day.

 

[wallysb01]

The hard disk drive is the slowest component of your machine, even if you're using a SSD. DDR3 RAM 1333 MHz (like in the 2011 MBP and MBA) is about 20 times faster than today's fastest consumer drives. More RAM will always make for a smoother and faster computing experience. Even if the particular application is not optimised for large amounts of RAM, OSX uses RAM in ways to speed up the system. If there is RAM available OSX caches itself and anything that is used frequently into the RAM. This speeds up the machine significantly.

Exactly this. I have 8 GB of RAM in my MBP and while I do occasionally need all 8 of that when I actually do work on my MBP, most of the time I'm just using safari, iTunes, terminal to log into my work computer or the cluster, word/excel/text edit. However, even when not really pushing my computer to do much, I'll get up to close to 4 GB active and another 2-3 inactive. That 2-3 inactive is sitting there, holding stuff I've been using that if reopened it will be there in a flash. That's pretty useful when opening 30 MB excel/word/pdf files. Or even just flipping back and forth through photos/videos.

For maybe $40 at the most (good sales now get down to ~$25-ish), 8 GB of RAM is totally worth it. Its the first upgrade you should really do because of how cheap it is. The second is obviously an SSD. But for a good size drive, you're still looking at close to ~$100, and its a little more difficult to migrate over your OS and apps than just plugging in more RAM.

 

[wallysb01]

If I have little-to-no RAM in one machine left then absolutely I'll see a difference, but that's fairly obvious.

Maybe its obvious to you. The point is that if you're using up close to your 4 GB in active memory from using safari, iTunes, excel, and what ever else, and then you try to open some large-ish file in PS, its going to take some time. That's because the computer can't load everything into the RAM anymore. It will have to dump some things and start scratching some disk. Obvious to you, probably not so obvious to the guy asking if 8 GB of RAM is worth it.

 

[0dev]

If there was such a thing, the average user doesn't need a macbook pro - irregardless of ram amounts.

I have 16 in my mbp. When they update the Mac Pro, I'll run 48gb. In my field, I'm average.

48GB RAM... Why? So you can boast?

 

[bill-p]

48GB RAM... Why? So you can boast?

Some things do suck RAM like crazy. Plus with 48GB, you can use 16GB, 24GB or 32GB as RAM disk for temporary files, and it'll significantly boost performance when working with heavy read/write operations like compressing/decompressing, transcoding, encoding, video editing (no kidding!), and even silly things like using it as scratch disk for Photoshop.

http://osxdaily.com/2007/03/23/create-a-ram-disk-in-mac-os-x/

It's the best boost you can do to a computer. SSD doesn't even come close to that kind of performance.

 

[wallysb01]

48GB RAM... Why? So you can boast?

So, am I and I'm in a field that will use as much memory as you can stuff into anything (i.e. 1 TB). But basically there are things that need >= 512 GB. Stuff that will run on 64+ GB, and things that run on basically anything (i.e. <16 GB). Computers between 16 and 64, I can only see as useful if you have several small jobs to run one after the other. But then if that's true, you can just use your 64+ GB system to do even more of them.

 

[NutsNGum]

Maybe its obvious to you. The point is that if you're using up close to your 4 GB in active memory from using safari, iTunes, excel, and what ever else, and then you try to open some large-ish file in PS, its going to take some time. That's because the computer can't load everything into the RAM anymore. It will have to dump some things and start scratching some disk. Obvious to you, probably not so obvious to the guy asking if 8 GB of RAM is worth it.

That wasn't the point. And you've introduced a completely new element to a point that's already been completely confused by people being obtuse.

This was not a conversation about introducing a large file into an already-open application.

The original point I made was that RAM in itself has nothing to do with how quickly a program or application will open. Whether 4GB or 8GB, the HDD or SSD dictates the speed at which a application will open.

 

[JTravers]

I have just iTunes, Safari (with 12 tabs, some of which have mixed Flash contents), and Photoshop open, and already I'm down to 1.2GB free on 8GB of RAM.

Safari alone takes up 3.2GB (1.4GB for the main process, 1.0GB for the plugin process, 800MB for web content).

So yeah, I think... definitely more RAM helps. 4GB is just not adequate with the rate Lion and Safari are consuming RAM. Just with 1 or 2 tabs, Safari takes up 300MB or more...

Try running Safari in 32-bit mode. I've found that significantly reduces its RAM usage.

 

[theSeb]

That wasn't the point. And you've introduced a completely new element to a point that's already been completely confused by people being obtuse.

This was not a conversation about introducing a large file into an already-open application.

The original point I made was that RAM in itself has nothing to do with how quickly a program or application will open. Whether 4GB or 8GB, the HDD or SSD dictates the speed at which a application will open.

Agreed. I am hoping to complete some real world benchmarks to show the exact differences between various configurations. I should have it ready this weekend

 

[bill-p]

Try running Safari in 32-bit mode. I've found that significantly reduces its RAM usage.

I did try that for a while. The problem was that it started lagging, and since the Adobe Flash plugin I installed was 64-bit, it wouldn't work right in some instances. Also it caused troubles with Silverlight, which I need to watch Netflix.

After a bit, I just did a full reinstall and supposed that I was done tinkering with Lion. The next day, I got 8GB of RAM, forked out a few bucks for the 1.35v low-volt version (you can find another thread about it), and now I'm happy with my workflow.

I did have a MBA 2010 with 2GB of RAM, and my brother has a MBP 13" 2010 with 4GB of RAM. Both of which have no problem whatsoever with Snow Leopard. But I figured... I just couldn't stay in the past anymore.