Waiting for 32GB RAM?

splitpea

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 21, 2009
1,009
241
Among the starlings
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

macrumors 601
Dec 13, 2004
4,022
172
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

Suspended
May 10, 2004
16,983
4,965
You can buy a mobile workstation or a gaming laptop with 4 DIMM slots.
 

splitpea

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 21, 2009
1,009
241
Among the starlings
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

Suspended
May 10, 2004
16,983
4,965
Blame Intel for the vendors' ultrabook obsession.

And Apple by itself.
 

T5BRICK

macrumors G3
Aug 3, 2006
8,102
2,095
Oregon
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.
 

T5BRICK

macrumors G3
Aug 3, 2006
8,102
2,095
Oregon
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.
 

Attachments

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,456
4,309
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.
 
Last edited:

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
16,983
4,965
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

macrumors G3
Aug 3, 2006
8,102
2,095
Oregon
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

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,456
4,309
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

macrumors 68030
Apr 2, 2007
2,906
4,545
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.
 

dmccloud

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2009
991
14
Anchorage, AK
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

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,456
4,309
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 :apple: isnt the one lagging.
If you dont mind windows, good for you.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
16,983
4,965
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 21, 2009
1,009
241
Among the starlings
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

macrumors 6502a
Sep 26, 2004
656
389
Canada
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

macrumors 6502a
May 28, 2010
613
517
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

Suspended
May 10, 2004
16,983
4,965
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.