Unified Memory 16GB is shared You need 32GB

[TheBigApple2006]

This is the situation on my 2018 Mac mini with 32GB of RAM. I sometimes get to 50% peak memory pressure, but the screenshot above is a 'normal' situation (with less load than average).

Based on this, should I go for 16GB or spring for the upgrade to 32GB? Uses are office apps, browsers, PDF Viewers, some OCRring with Tesseract (which is very tasking on the Mini's i7 CPU).

Thanks!

 

[urtules]

View attachment 1883096

This is the situation on my 2018 Mac mini with 32GB of RAM. I sometimes get to 50% peak memory pressure, but the screenshot above is a 'normal' situation (with less load than average).

Based on this, should I go for 16GB or spring for the upgrade to 32GB? Uses are office apps, browsers, PDF Viewers, some OCRring with Tesseract (which is very tasking on the Mini's i7 CPU).

Thanks!

Go with 32 GB if you can afford it. If you can spend money on any upgrade, spend on it on RAM. Consider that feature versions of macOS and feature apps will become more memory hungry. Also I have read somewhere that macOS is good in utilising all available RAM which can lead to a smoother performance.

 

[Freida]

You clearly don't understand how it works and also never even sued a Mac and yet you are giving flawed advice. Crazy.

I have never owned a Mac and I have some understanding of the shared memory/unified memory that Apple are using for the M1 chips but I can not understand how people would go for less than 32 GB today.

I got 8 GB for my PC 13 years ago and at the time it was okay. Not uselessly to much and not to little. Going for less than 32 GB today must be some choice because of Apples rather expensive memory upgrade. Maybe it is possible if you only watch youtube and do some web surfing. Doing stuff like video editing and running anything from Adobe on the Macbook Pro I would probably go for 64 GB since it is an available option. Also a bit future proofing.

 

[ducati1212]

I am very glad I went with 64 gigs. Maybe apple is smart enough to know I have lots of Ram and just use it but I am doing nothing special my mac is just sitting here and my Ram usage looks like this. I know pressure is low but its using a ton of Ram. I have maybe 12 chrome tabs open, docker running with 0 containers in it, watching you tube and I have iphoto opened in the background. thats it. just having my coffee and watching you tube.

 

[haruhiko]

For once their memory prices actually make sense though.

You realize it’s DDR5 right? Have you seen how expensive even DDR5 DIMMs are? 32GB (2x16) of 5200Mhz is around $500 Canadian, and that’s still slower memory than Apple is using.

You missed my point.

 

[haruhiko]

I am very glad I went with 64 gigs. Maybe apple is smart enough to know I have lots of Ram and just use it but I am doing nothing special my mac is just sitting here and my Ram usage looks like this. I know pressure is low but its using a ton of Ram. I have maybe 12 chrome tabs open, docker running with 0 containers in it, watching you tube and I have iphoto opened in the background. thats it. just having my coffee and watching you tube.

View attachment 1883121

Maybe for this one time we can all agree that your use case doesn't need 64GB of unified memory in the M1 system.

 

[arvinsim]

I just don’t get why people buy the new pros if they are not getting 32GB or more.

I mean the M1 Macbooks exists at 16GB and are plenty powerful already.

 

[boss.king]

I am very glad I went with 64 gigs. Maybe apple is smart enough to know I have lots of Ram and just use it but I am doing nothing special my mac is just sitting here and my Ram usage looks like this. I know pressure is low but its using a ton of Ram. I have maybe 12 chrome tabs open, docker running with 0 containers in it, watching you tube and I have iphoto opened in the background. thats it. just having my coffee and watching you tube.

View attachment 1883121

Your computer will always make use of as much RAM as possible. You could do everything you’re doing now on 16GB and not notice a difference.

 

[HughRR]

I just don’t get why people buy the new pros if they are not getting 32GB or more.

I mean the M1 Macbooks exists at 16GB and are plenty powerful already.

Screen, sustained workload capability, more grunt.

I am tempted but I’m using a mini with a 27” 4K display which is really fine for me. If they come out with a mini with an M1 Pro in it I’m all over it like a seagull on chips.

 

[DesertNomad]

I decided to go with 32GB since it will be used with an XDR Display (lots of pixels) and hopefully last 5 years.

 

[macintoshmac]

So I’m about to pull the trigger on a Base 14” after doing my due diligence I’m hit with the reality that many people aren’t considering. The base 16GB of RAM is shared with the GPU. That’s not cool. I had no choice but to go 32GB

just wanted to share in case anyone is going with Base configs.

If your due diligence suggests 32 GB is enough for you, you should go with that. Like @jessejesse said in another thread, people often behave emotionally and think they are behaving rationally, justifying emotional decisions with rational thought. If possible, be aware which is your case and make the decisions.

On the other hand, if you are earning money as water flows through taps, you may spend any amount as you please, anyway. The heart wants what it wants.

My experience with a 2011 MBP 15 (with 1 GB Radeon 5770m, RAM upgraded to 16 GB) and a 2016 retina MBP 13 with 8 GB RAM and 1.5 GB VRAM is that everything felt smoother and better on the 2011 than the 2016 on the same OS flavour (macOS High Sierra). Either that video chipset on the damn 2016 fiasco was so horribly underpowered as against a 2011 Radeon 5770m, or it was that the Retina display with twice as many pixels proved a little too much to power. In any of those cases, RAM would not matter. But, since this is unified memory, it can now begin to matter under specific instances when something is pushing the machine.

Considering I cannot test and return these machines in case I find 16 GB not enough for some workloads, and that I will keep them for 5 years, I am much inclined towards 32 GB for me even at the insane, insane, bleeding cost of USD 600 to go from 16 GB to 32 GB.

 

[MauiPa]

agreed, I am not sure why anyone would pay more than $2K for a computer today with only 16gb of memory. 16->32 to me is more important than m1 pro -> m1 max

ummm, speed? Seriously you are either trying to compare low power or craptops. Go on the Dell Web site. Compare a Dell 13 to a MBA or a MBP 13 (8GB, 512SSD), both with M1, for the same price as the MBP from Dell, you get a worse screen, slower hard drive, a 30% slower CPU (you can't even get a comparable CPU), deplorable graphics speed, thermal throttling issues, 2 channel memory (who does that?). sure, you get an extra 8 GB of slow ram (and you have to to get the "fast" CPU) remember 2 channels?), but it is windows, you need it. I have the MBP 13 M1 with 8GB Ram and a 512 SSD. Never went more than 6GB. I did test to see if I could get fans to run, ran a handbrake encode to HEVC, they did run, briefly, but the laptop never even felt warm - not thinking throttling here.

Or compare to the new MBP 14 and 16. to come close to the MBP 14 Base (8 core), you go with a DELL 15 (can't even try with 13), you need the i9-11900H, which gets you a Geekbench 5 of 9350ish vs. 9950ish for the Apple. Both have 16GB, but the DELL is only 2 channel, not 200GB/s bandwidth, you would have to upgrade the display because FHD+, is a bit low end for a 15. You would have to buy the RTX 3050 Ti @45 Wats, because Dell. You are talking 2649 vs 1999 for the Apple which has faster CPU, faster SSD, faster ram, arguable a better display, faster video encoding (unsure of the video benchmarks, but I don't think it looks good for Dell with this graphics card, but that is not my thing), and a half pound lighter, did I mention battery?. Of course you could save $400 and get the FHD+ display (1920x1200), but seriously?

So, anyway you look at it, the Apples are great performers at competitive prices (quality for quality and performance to performance of course). I would not be so quick to arbitrarily make a statement on RAM requirements (but even if you did add the $400 to go 32GB on the Apple, you would still be cheaper than a comparable equipped Dell). what I have seen so far is that the Macs don't need the same Ram levels as Windows - period. I'd love to be proven wrong by actual workflow testing, but so far it all points in the direction I stated.

 

[ericwn]

Great to get yet another Alex post with a non substantiated opinion about a product she hasn’t used.

 

[i9inkers]

No worries, i'm gonna switch every 3 years.

m3 pro will be my next

 

[i9inkers]

I just don’t get why people buy the new pros if they are not getting 32GB or more.

I mean the M1 Macbooks exists at 16GB and are plenty powerful already.

erm.....

16" mini led screen
10 CPU cores
New improved speaker system
21 hours Battery life

If I don't use 16gb in my daily tasks then why should I forsake all the other improvements made? Why pay more for RAM I'm literally never gonna use? I would be worried more about paying extra for smallish/no gains to my daily tasks

 

[Jára Tyky]

Thank you for this topic.
Yesterday I was playing in the evening with my 16” 32/32/1TB, open only few safari tabs, Apple Music on background a Apple Store and my RAM already showed that 18 GB is used.
So I do not understand why so much, it was in green but for this reason I think I will stay at 32GB.
It showed me that if you do not use it, system will use it efficently to increase performace.. maybe ??‍♂️

 

[acblue94]

I have never owned a Mac and I have some understanding of the shared memory/unified memory that Apple are using for the M1 chips but I can not understand how people would go for less than 32 GB today.

I got 8 GB for my PC 13 years ago and at the time it was okay. Not uselessly to much and not to little. Going for less than 32 GB today must be some choice because of Apples rather expensive memory upgrade. Maybe it is possible if you only watch youtube and do some web surfing. Doing stuff like video editing and running anything from Adobe on the Macbook Pro I would probably go for 64 GB since it is an available option. Also a bit future proofing.

Lol. Yea No. 16GB is future proofing. Now if you are keeping your Mac for 10 years then yea, 32GB is good. But not needed.

 

[arvinsim]

16" mini led screen

Fair

10 CPU cores

Single core performance difference is negligible between the M1 and the M1 Max

New improved speaker system

Sure

21 hours Battery life

This is for Apple TV movie playback. The MBA has 18 hours.

Interestingly, the MBA has 15 hours of wireless web while the 16" MBP has 14 hours and the 14" 11 Hours

Mac - Compare Models

See what makes each Mac laptop and desktop different. And find the one that’s perfect for your life, your work and your budget.

www.apple.com

---

So with all the advantages above, it's worth it to pay double the price? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Rck1984]

I am very glad I went with 64 gigs. Maybe apple is smart enough to know I have lots of Ram and just use it but I am doing nothing special my mac is just sitting here and my Ram usage looks like this. I know pressure is low but its using a ton of Ram. I have maybe 12 chrome tabs open, docker running with 0 containers in it, watching you tube and I have iphoto opened in the background. thats it. just having my coffee and watching you tube.

View attachment 1883121

No offense, but you've got no clue how RAM works...
If you'd use these exact same applications on a 8GB, you'd see the same type of RAM distribution/usage just within the 8GB of RAM. Same goes for 16GB or 32GB...

It's MacOS that allocates it in the most beneficial and effective way, or did you honestly think a few chrome tabs, an empty docker, Youtube and Photos take up 38GB?

 

[jclardy]

So I’m about to pull the trigger on a Base 14” after doing my due diligence I’m hit with the reality that many people aren’t considering. The base 16GB of RAM is shared with the GPU. That’s not cool. I had no choice but to go 32GB

just wanted to share in case anyone is going with Base configs.

16GB is fine, I have an 8GB M1 iMac that I use for building iOS apps and don't have memory issues (4-5 min build times on M1 to judge project size, with large Figma projects open, slack, safari, etc.) 32GB RAM is a $400 upgrade, so it is a significant price jump.

Intel iGPU models would actually take a dedicated chunk of RAM for their own usage, no matter what (Usually 768MB-1.5GB depending on how much RAM you have.) That RAM can no longer be used by the CPU. What's worse is that when loading app assets, they load off disk into the CPU's RAM, then get moved into the iGPU memory, so in some cases you are really losing out even more.

With UMA there is no distinction, the GPU could just use 50MB is that is all it needs at the time. There is no loading something into CPU or GPU memory, it just needs a single load and the CPU or GPU can use it.

 

[Rck1984]

I just don’t get why people buy the new pros if they are not getting 32GB or more.

I mean the M1 Macbooks exists at 16GB and are plenty powerful already.

So many reasons to go with a 16GB MacBook Pro.

Screen, no Touch Bar, GPU power, connectivity/ports, multiple monitor support, 1080p camera, sturdy design and more.
What I don't get is why someone would pay $600 (yes, $600 in European countries) more for RAM they would literally never utilise in the entire lifespan of the machine. 16GB is totally fine for most folks, especially most of those asking in this forum if they need 16GB or 32GB.

RAM does nothing if you don't use it...

 

[i9inkers]

No offense, but you've got no clue how RAM works...
If you'd use these exact same applications on a 8GB, you'd see the same type of RAM distribution/usage just within the 8GB of RAM. Same goes for 16GB or 32GB...

It's MacOS that allocates it in the most beneficial and effective way, or did you honestly think a few chrome tabs, an empty docker, Youtube and Photos take up 38GB?

Nail hit on head rather perfectly Sir!!!!

 

[i9inkers]

Fair

Single core performance is essentially the same with M1, even on the M1 Max


Sure

This is for Apple TV movie playback. The MBA has 18 hours.

Interestingly, the MBA has 15 hours of wireless web while the 16" MBP has 14 hours and the 14" 11 Hours

Mac - Compare Models

See what makes each Mac laptop and desktop different. And find the one that’s perfect for your life, your work and your budget.

www.apple.com

---

So with all the advantages above, it's worth it to pay double the price? ¯\_(ツ)_/

Would you honestly choose an Air over a M1 pro? Moving from the M1 13” to this machine is literally night and day in compute tasks I have to perform. Also I enjoy Apple TV content and I do believe this is the device that will deliver it best.

M1 is very capable but for me this is an all round better machine in performance and content delivery. I think the 16” 16GB Pro is the most bang for the buck in my view, but I think we will see a lot of different views here as we all have different requirements and workflows…

 

[ducati1212]

No offense, but you've got no clue how RAM works...
If you'd use these exact same applications on a 8GB, you'd see the same type of RAM distribution/usage just within the 8GB of RAM. Same goes for 16GB or 32GB...

It's MacOS that allocates it in the most beneficial and effective way, or did you honestly think a few chrome tabs, an empty docker, Youtube and Photos take up 38GB?

I actually do I am a software engineer and deal with it daily. I made a simple point that I am glad I went with 64 based on how mac OS is representing memory usage in my activity monitor and I think I said the OS knows it has the Ram and uses it. I would not have wanted less ram especially knowing I will be running many containers almost all the time.

 

[maccompaq]

Has anyone used the newest Macbook Pro to run X-Plane 11? Please share your experience.