Waiting for 32GB RAM?

[splitpea]

So... my understanding is that because DDR3 laptop modules are limited to 8GB, we're stuck with a max of 8GB RAM in 13" MBPs and 16GB in 15" MBPs until DDR4 becomes available.

Meanwhile, software gets more and more memory-hungry. It's getting to the point where a $2,000 13" laptop simply isn't an option for developing software or doing graphics/video work, and I can't be the only one who's been using 8GB since 2010 and is desperate for an upgrade!

But it looks like it could be another year until DDR4 is available for laptops! Has anyone heard anything encouraging about the timeline?

 

[Freyqq]

So... my understanding is that because DDR3 laptop modules are limited to 8GB, we're stuck with a max of 8GB RAM in 13" MBPs and 16GB in 15" MBPs until DDR4 becomes available.

Meanwhile, software gets more and more memory-hungry. It's getting to the point where a $2,000 13" laptop simply isn't an option for developing software or doing graphics/video work, and I can't be the only one who's been using 8GB since 2010 and is desperate for an upgrade!

But it looks like it could be another year until DDR4 is available for laptops! Has anyone heard anything encouraging about the timeline?

if you are doing anything that requires 32 gb of ram, you should probably be using a desktop.

 

[cube]

You can buy a mobile workstation or a gaming laptop with 4 DIMM slots.

 

[splitpea]

if you are doing anything that requires 32 gb of ram, you should probably be using a desktop.

"Should"?

Yes, that's the current solution, but not one that makes sense for everyone (I work out of three different locations day to day). Moreover, just a few years ago, that *wasn't* necessary. We're moving backwards.

 

[cube]

Blame Intel for the vendors' ultrabook obsession.

And Apple by itself.

 

[T5BRICK]

So... my understanding is that because DDR3 laptop modules are limited to 8GB, we're stuck with a max of 8GB RAM in 13" MBPs and 16GB in 15" MBPs until DDR4 becomes available.

Meanwhile, software gets more and more memory-hungry. It's getting to the point where a $2,000 13" laptop simply isn't an option for developing software or doing graphics/video work, and I can't be the only one who's been using 8GB since 2010 and is desperate for an upgrade!

Just FYI, but you can configure the 13" rMBP with 16 GB or RAM. It just isn't one of the stock configurations.

 

[splitpea]

Just FYI, but you can configure the 13" rMBP with 16 GB or RAM. It just isn't one of the stock configurations.

Huh, when did they start offering that? Sure beats 8!

 

[cube]

Huh, when did they start offering that? Sure beats 8!

I also did not know. In the tech specs they keep on showing 8.

 

[T5BRICK]

Huh, when did they start offering that? Sure beats 8!

To be honest I'm not sure, I just noticed it this morning. Maybe Apple did a silent update of sorts and added some additional options to the CTO rMBP.

----------

I also did not know. In the tech specs they keep on showing 8.

Go configure one! It's an option on all 3 13" retina models. Not cheap though...

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro

*edit*

Looks like the tech specs page confirms that all rMBP models are capable of running 16GB.

 

[Meister]

Huh, when did they start offering that? Sure beats 8!

I also did not know. In the tech specs they keep on showing 8.

To be honest I'm not sure, I just noticed it this morning. Maybe Apple did a silent update of sorts and added some additional options to the CTO rMBP.

Silent update?
Are you guys ****ing serious?
You havent noticed the countless threads 4gb, 8gb or 16gb on this forum over the past months?

The option to get 16gb on the 13" rmbp has always been there and discussed at nauseum.

 

[cube]

Go configure one! It's an option on all 3 13" retina models. Not cheap though...

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro

I did not see it in the specs when I looked earlier today, but I see it now.

16GiB RAM and 1TB storage is not enough for heavy work. Dual-core is not even enough for medium work.

If I'm going to buy a machine for travel, I could get a cheaper 11", or a quad-core 13" with discrete graphics.

 

[T5BRICK]

Silent update?
Are you guys ****ing serious?
You havent noticed the countless threads 4gb, 8gb or 16gb on this forum over the past months?

The option to get 16gb on the 13" rmbp has always been there and discussed at nauseum.

Sorry, I don't spend much time in the MBP section.

 

[Meister]

16GiB RAM and 1TB storage is not enough for heavy work.
If I'm going to buy a machine for travel, I could get a cheaper 11", or a quad-core 13" with discrete graphics.

You show me a quad-core 13" macbook and I show you Jimmy Hoffas grave.
I am all for as many and pimped out options as possible, but ou of curiosity:
What are you doing with your laptop that would require more than 16gb ram and 1tb ssd?

----------

Sorry, I don't spend much time in the MBP section.

Good for you. You have a life

 

[Quu]

if you are doing anything that requires 32 gb of ram, you should probably be using a desktop.

You'd be surprised. I have some photoshop files that give me low memory warnings on my 32GB desktop but they are not CPU intensive. Just a lot of layers and filters, a lot of things to maintain in memory.

Theres quite a few usage scenarios where the memory would come in useful and the other lower specced parts of the computer (CPU / GPU) aren't as important, Photoshop and Illustrator are two of those.

Another scenario is multitasking. Maybe you are working on a web project so you need your IDE open but you're also working on graphics for that project so you need Photoshop or Illustrator open. Maybe you are doing video for this site too so you have iMovie or Final Cut open and taking things from your photoshop documents in to the video editor etc. All of these things running eats a lot of memory but not many CPU cycles.

 

[cube]

You show me a quad-core 13" macbook and I show you Jimmy Hoffas grave.

I can show you a quad-core 13" laptop PC with discrete graphics. This shows you how Apple is lagging.

 

[dmccloud]

I can show you a quad-core 13" laptop PC with discrete graphics. This shows you how Apple is lagging.

Apple isn't lagging, despite your claims to the contrary. If you want to buy something other than Apple, just do it rather than complaining about what you perceive to be a lack of options in Apple products.

 

[Meister]

I can show you a quad-core 13" laptop PC with discrete graphics. This shows you how Apple is lagging.

Once you have used the new haswell macbook lineup you know that isnt the one lagging.
If you dont mind windows, good for you.

 

[cube]

Apple isn't lagging, despite your claims to the contrary. If you want to buy something other than Apple, just do it rather than complaining about what you perceive to be a lack of options in Apple products.

If Linux had the applications OSX has, I would have abandoned this platform many years ago.

 

[splitpea]

Another scenario is multitasking. Maybe you are working on a web project so you need your IDE open but you're also working on graphics for that project so you need Photoshop or Illustrator open.

This. Or XCode instead of a web-oriented IDE. And an instance of the software you're building running in the terminal or simulator (or both, for a server-client app). Plus dozens of browser tabs open while you research an obscure error condition.

That's without even taking into account email/IM/music, which all eat twice as much memory as they once did too...

 

[TheIguana]

I can show you a quad-core 13" laptop PC with discrete graphics. This shows you how Apple is lagging.

I'd imagine either it is 1" thick for thermal reasons or it has absolutely horrendous battery life. Everything is a trade off - Apple goes with what appeals to the most number of potential customers.

 

[iKrivetko]

Silent update?
Are you guys ****ing serious?
You havent noticed the countless threads 4gb, 8gb or 16gb on this forum over the past months?

The option to get 16gb on the 13" rmbp has always been there and discussed at nauseum.

It's ad nauseam

 

[cube]

I'd imagine either it is 1" thick for thermal reasons or it has absolutely horrendous battery life. Everything is a trade off - Apple goes with what appeals to the most number of potential customers.

I don't care that it is thick. It weighs 2Kg like a classic 13" MBP.

 

[Meister]

It's ad nauseam
Image

At naseum, at naseum, at naseum, at naseum

 

[dmccloud]

If Linux had the applications OSX has, I would have abandoned this platform many years ago.

Then go find a platform that better meets your personal preferences.

 

[cube]

Then go find a platform that better meets your personal preferences.

Apple releases their iOS development tools only for OSX, and iTunes only for OSX and Windows.