Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What do we need 16GB for?

blow45 said:
excuse me I just posted some evidence that more ram actually provides you much more vram for the integrated graphics in a machine that's driving a retina display that need all the gfx power it can have, that didn't have any impact at all?

sorry but you are wrong, actually the stupid purchase is the marginally better cpu that will be completely unnoticeable since the bottleneck here is the gpu. In addition 512gbs means buying apple's not that great and way overpriced ram. But you did guess right, I am in the market for the base model with 16gb of ram which is the cheapest smartest purchase (of course if anyone can afford to throw any money at these buys and can max everything out that's not a dumb thing to do, good for them).

You know why? Cause it is the cheapest configuration where you are not making the poor choice of crippling your machine's memory ceiling when you don't have to. And where it's actually going to be a much faster machine because most anything you throw at it will have ample space to be in the fast ram. And as far as storage goes it IS upgradeable, and if someone can handle the space of 256gbs right now they can very well in a year or two go for 700gbs from a third party and it will be a much faster ssd and much cheaper one. Old ssd goes to ebay which I am sure there will be quite a few people looking for replacement units, and a new one comes in at a fraction of the cost.

Recap: Smart purchase, base model, maxed out 16gbs memory to have an extra gig for the intel gfx, and a machine that's waiting for tasks for you to throw at, you want to encode video? Throw this baby the task, there's ram for it, you want to work with raw photography? throw that too, you want to have a proper full vm windows system with 4gbs of ram in there, no problem, want hardcore dev. taks, adobe cs, you got it, forget opening and closing documents in preview, just keep them minimised on the the dock icon, and keep most of the web you visit frequently in different windows and tabs constantly open (not a bad idea to restart the browsers once in a while). All that for two hundred extra dollars. The only problem I see in this is spoiling you to want 32gbs of memory in your next mac. :D

----------



I challenge anyone to show me the benefits of of 2mb more of l3 cache on a four core cpu in their daily tasks. If anyone can notice anything more than a 3% increase in performance... For the rest of the reply see above. It's not a smart choice to get the higher end cpu, the gpu is the bottleneck, and it's the same in both configurations, save your money, sell the mac in a year and buy the rev. 2 product with wifi ac and much better gfx, as well as a cpu in the base model that as with any tick tock intel one is way better than whatever benefit you had from an incremental update to the current line up.
Click to expand...

What do you do for a living? You sound very clueless about computers.

The extra L3 cache is a constant increase in performance, because the L3 cache is always full. it may be a smaller increase, but it's ALWAYS there and always utilized, whereas extra RAM is only useful if you were getting page outs before, and from what I've seen, the base rMBP under normal usage for me doesn't even get page outs.

the RAM itself is nothing more than another level of cache.

the 16 RAM upgrade doesn't make too much sense on the base model because the SSD is the bottleneck on this configuration for longevity and power users. So you would need to upgrade the SSD to bring the machine in line with 16 gb of RAM. 256 gb of SSD with 16 gb of RAM is a very mismatched configuration.

and FWIW, I work as a software developer at one of the major rivals of Apple. So consider this a professional opinion.
 
How is the ssd the bottleneck? The ssd doesn't impact performance, only how much you can store. The larger ssds are not faster. I don't know what you do for a living either but it's probably something that doesn't involve logical thinking (sorry for the snarky retort btw, but I have to repay in kind.) You can always upgrade the ssd, and you ll also get it a cheaper and better after market option. It's only mismatched in as much as one need more storage space.

I am very well aware of what the l3 cache does, lol, thank you very much. Yeah it's always there, so what % performance increase on everyday tasks does that give you on this four core cpu, is it even noticeable? I am waiting for the link. Yes if you don't go over 8gbs then 16gbs doesn't offer much benefit, although since you know so much about computers I am sure you know that you don't have to have page outs to benefit from more memory, because there's a thing known as inactive memory and you are better served if os x makes use of the free memory instead before freeing inactive memory to allocate it to your task. Of course we are talking about very small differences here, but arguably this process I described has much more benefit to daily use than the extra l3 cache. ;)

And like I said at 16gbs of ram it's a throw anything at this baby machine pretty much, minimizing preview docs not shutting them, keeping excel and word files open and minimized too, having a robust vm for anything you want, encode in the background, throw in another os x vm if you can hack that to test things there or run some legacy apps...there's just so many things that more memory allows you to do. To me it's insane when the memory is actually soldered to no opt to double this machine in memory, it begs for it, and it doesn't cost another $600, it costs another $200. Of course a third party option had it not been soldered would get you better memory for half that money, but for apple's standards it's still a good price.

At the end of the day if you are not convinced with all that, that's (goes without saying actually) fine by me. I don't see though how one can convincingly argue that paying up $200 more for 16gbs of memory in a non upgradable after market part is not a terribly good idea. I can of course understand someone telling me I simply can't afford it, but how can you argue it's a bad idea?
 
blow45 said:
excuse me I just posted some evidence that more ram actually provides you much more vram for the integrated graphics in a machine that's driving a retina display that need all the gfx power it can have, that didn't have any impact at all?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously refuting what Apple's own support site says? 4GB gets 384MB VRAM, 8GB gets 512MB VRAM. No more. Yes, even with 16GB RAM. It's in black and white- adding RAM will NOT add graphical performance to the Retina Pro.

The only reason you saw a jump in graphical performance was because you went from 4GB RAM. Had you gone from 8 to 16 you would have seen NO improvement. Furthermore, your 'evidence' was based on your experience with a Mac Mini. Completely different machine.

sorry but you are wrong, actually the stupid purchase is the marginally better cpu that will be completely unnoticeable since the bottleneck here is the gpu. In addition 512gbs means buying apple's not that great and way overpriced ram. But you did guess right, I am in the market for the base model with 16gb of ram which is the cheapest smartest purchase (of course if anyone can afford to throw any money at these buys and can max everything out that's not a dumb thing to do, good for them).
Click to expand...

Slightly confused now.

You know why? Cause it is the cheapest configuration where you are not making the poor choice of crippling your machine's memory ceiling when you don't have to. And where it's actually going to be a much faster machine because most anything you throw at it will have ample space to be in the fast ram. And as far as storage goes it IS upgradeable, and if someone can handle the space of 256gbs right now they can very well in a year or two go for 700gbs from a third party and it will be a much faster ssd and much cheaper one. Old ssd goes to ebay which I am sure there will be quite a few people looking for replacement units, and a new one comes in at a fraction of the cost. At any point from a year say onwards you can make this mac almost as good as the maxed out model with much, much less than what you will be paying now, provided of course you maxed the ram.
Click to expand...

But you crippled the storage, and are now just hoping that OWC comes out with a replacement drive that doesn't cost a huge amount of money. (don't forget that nobody's actually launched or announced an SSD replacement for the Retina Pro yet)

Good luck selling your 256 drive. As it only fits in the rMBP, and they all came with a minimum of 256GB anyways, you're not going to get as much as you might think you will. I got peanuts for my 128GB SSD for the MacBook Air.

Recap: Smart purchase, base model, maxed out 16gbs memory to have an extra gig for the intel gfx, and a machine that's waiting for tasks for you to throw at, you want to encode video? Throw this baby the task, there's ram for it, you want to work with raw photography? throw that too, you want to have a proper full vm windows system with 4gbs of ram in there, no problem, want hardcore dev. taks, adobe cs, you got it, forget opening and closing documents in preview, just keep them minimised on the the dock icon, and keep most of the web you visit frequently in different windows and tabs constantly open (not a bad idea to restart the browsers once in a while). All that for two hundred extra dollars. The only problem I see in this is spoiling you to want 32gbs of memory in your next mac.
Click to expand...

Ah yeah he was right. You're just trying to justify what you bought. Go ahead and try to justify how 16GB will help your workflow (which is your workflow, don't be mistaken, not the average users' workflow) but don't try to fool yourself into thinking it's going to fetch a lot more money on the used market than an equivalent 8GB model.

And no, you are NOT going to get a gigabyte of VRAM for the HD4000. You can argue as much as you like but the Apple Support page says it in black and white.

Basically what you're saying is that people who are agreeing with your POV, or are saying things (even if untrue) that prove your point, 'knows what they're saying' while people who do not agree with your POV or agree with what you're saying (even if they have proof to back it up), doesn't know what they're saying.

blow45 said:
And like I said at 16gbs of ram it's a throw anything at this baby machine pretty much, minimizing preview docs not shutting them, keeping excel and word files open and minimized too, having a robust vm for anything you want, encode in the background, throw in another os x vm if you can hack that to test things there or run some legacy apps...there's just so many things that more memory allows you to do. To me it's insane when the memory is actually soldered to no opt to double this machine in memory, it begs for it, and it doesn't cost another $600, it costs another $200. Of course a third party option had it not been soldered would get you better memory for half that money, but for apple's standards it's still a good price.

At the end of the day if you are not convinced with all that, that's (goes without saying actually) fine by me. I don't see though how one can convincingly argue that paying up $200 more for 16gbs of memory in a non upgradable after market part is not a terribly good idea. I can of course understand someone telling me I simply can't afford it, but how can you argue it's a bad idea?
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it's a terrible idea or a bad idea, we're just saying that the RAM upgrade is not quite as important as you seem to believe it is.
 
Last edited:
blow45 said:
How is the ssd the bottleneck? The ssd doesn't impact performance, only how much you can store. The larger ssds are not faster. I don't know what you do for a living either but it's probably something that doesn't involve logical thinking (sorry for the snarky retort btw, but I have to repay in kind.) You can always upgrade the ssd, and you ll also get it a cheaper and better after market option. It's only mismatched in as much as one need more storage space.

I am very well aware of what the l3 cache does, lol, thank you very much. Yeah it's always there, so what % performance increase on everyday tasks does that give you on this four core cpu, is it even noticeable? I am waiting for the link. Yes if you don't go over 8gbs then 16gbs doesn't offer much benefit, although since you know so much about computers I am sure you know that you don't have to have page outs to benefit from more memory, because there's a thing known as inactive memory and you are better served if os x makes use of the free memory instead before freeing inactive memory to allocate it to your task. Of course we are talking about very small differences here, but arguably this process I described has much more benefit to daily use than the extra l3 cache. ;)

And like I said at 16gbs of ram it's a throw anything at this baby machine pretty much, minimizing preview docs not shutting them, keeping excel and word files open and minimized too, having a robust vm for anything you want, encode in the background, throw in another os x vm if you can hack that to test things there or run some legacy apps...there's just so many things that more memory allows you to do. To me it's insane when the memory is actually soldered to no opt to double this machine in memory, it begs for it, and it doesn't cost another $600, it costs another $200. Of course a third party option had it not been soldered would get you better memory for half that money, but for apple's standards it's still a good price.

At the end of the day if you are not convinced with all that, that's (goes without saying actually) fine by me. I don't see though how one can convincingly argue that paying up $200 more for 16gbs of memory in a non upgradable after market part is not a terribly good idea. I can of course understand someone telling me I simply can't afford it, but how can you argue it's a bad idea?
Click to expand...

It's just an easy 200 bucks to waste for clueless "power users" like you.

And you didn't answer my question. Given your ridiculous comments on all things hardware and memory management, I'm guessing you are either a college kid or a web designer, who doesn't know much about how computers actually work.

The funny thing is, you'll probably change your usage habits so that you will use more than 8gb, by, like you said, not closing programs when you are done with them. lol.

Also, the SSD size doesn't affect performance, but it affects use cases. With 256 gb, I don't even plan to boot camp or run VMs on this because of a lack of extra space. You are also not goin to be workin with extremely large image or video files on a 256 gb SSD. These are the main legit scenarios to need the ram upgrade.

So really the ram upgrade on the base model is dumb.
 
Last edited:
Mongol said:
It's just an easy 200 bucks to waste for clueless "power users" like you.

And you didn't answer my question. Given your ridiculous comments on all things hardware and memory management, I'm guessing you are either a college kid or a web designer, who doesn't know much about how computers actually work.

The funny thing is, you'll probably change your usage habits so that you will use more than 8gb, by, like you said, not closing programs when you are done with them. lol.
Click to expand...

Typical, all snark and no substance. First of all, who exactly do you think you are that I should tell you my line of work in an inteweb forum? Cause I just thought you are just another poster I am having some computer chit chat to pass the time not someone I should reveal personal details to, just cause you said so.

And you the computer pro (self proclaimed of course) wasn't aware that it's better and makes for a much more responsive machine if os x takes up the free memory instead of releasing the inactive one? And you thought that more ram is only useful when page outs start? I find it hard to believe....:rolleyes: And you maintain that noticeable speed gains exist with 2mb more of l3 cache? But maxing your igfx ram at 1gb due to the 16gb of the extra ram is of course worthless on a device that drives a retina, even with a discreet card? Go over to ars technica and say these things and see what reaction you ll get.

ps on your edits: extremely large image and video files? Easy. Thunderbolt external drive. Why you think the extra 256 will allow you to work on extremely large video or image files without an external anyway? As far as vm's go, why would I need anything more than 20gbs for windows and another 10 say to virtualise os x?

To me apple dropped the ball here, predictably for apple circa 2012 to do so, because for reasons only related to profit control via storage control, they ditched the hard drive. We have been waiting for so long for no optical to get a 2.5" there too, so these machines can finally have pro storage levels. Yeah, I know, it's no moveable parts, blah blah, hd is an anachronism, that to me is all bs, if apple didn't have their current clout we 'd see an extra hd, non soldered ram and non custom flash, cause they 'd be expecting to incite the users via more features. 256gb to 512gb doesn't make much difference to me, I ll anyway have to portion out usage to nas, the cloud, etc, and carry an external drive. 1tb + the flash like I said would have been another story. Both these two base options are **** currently when it comes to storage space, very large video and image files and libraries will still need to be kept outside. Of course the extra space does offer a few benefits, but neither of them allows me to put in my full itunes library (no just music of course) nor my full work database, esp. so the later. I might as well keep it outside since neither even 700gb of storage will have it in.
 
Last edited:
blow45 said:
But maxing your igfx ram at 1gb due to the 16gb of the extra ram is of course worthless on a device that drives a retina, even with a discreet card? Go over to ars technica and say these things and see what reaction you ll get.
Click to expand...

Why are you so incredibly stubborn?

I've already provided evidence that in NO case will you EVER get 1GB of integrated VRAM. Just look at Apple's support page ffs.

Ars Technica would laugh in your face.
 
Perhaps you'd like to have further evidence?

ScreenShot2012-07-07at122722AM.png


There you go. Your beloved 16GB RAM and as you can see it's clear as day that there's only 512MB VRAM allocated to the HD4000.
 
I'm thinking of upgrading to 16GB because my mac becomes terribly slow when running Parallels Desktops. But in every other occasion 4GB seems to be more than enough for me.
 
By the time 8GB DDR3 is not enough for normal computer usage, there will be most likely DDR4 DIMM's or a much faster CPU/GPU. Even the 2,6GHZ Version has only got 8GB RAM... If I would buy a Retina-Macbook, than defiantly without RAM upgrade. Keep in mind that next year there will be a Haswell-Version and it will most likely fix many "Prototype" problems... so I would personally plan to use it as gently as possible so I could sell it with a good value afterwards.

As the Macbook-Retina is a device which is not modifiable the option to sell it becomes very important... if I would buy that model I would sell it every 1-2 years to be up to date with the newest technology...
 
If you are a typical mac user (Internet, mail, ichat, itunes, Word, etc.) you probably wouldn't need 16Gb. I would only get that if I were someone doing editing (photo/video/audio), ran some special Ram-intensive software otherwise, or used a virtual machine.

Anyone recommending "future proofing" your mac...well, yes, you are maxing out your RAM and you cannot upgrade later. But will you ever need to? Probably not unless you pick up editing or virtual machines later.

I would say that you probably aren't going to recoup that $200 when it comes time to sell your machine in 2-3 years.

I'm going for 8 personally. I'd rather put that money towards the 512 Gb SSD as I know for a fact I will be using that space.

If you want to know if you need more RAM, just open up everything you would typically run at once and see how much RAM you are using in Activity Monitor. Currently I have 4.38 Gb free, and I have everything open that I normally would.

If you want to be extra safe, open up everything you have and see what happens.

Doubt you will come close to using 16Gb. And from what I understand, if RAM is free and not being used, it's not improving performance.
 
Mongol said:
It's just an easy 200 bucks to waste for clueless "power users" like you.

And you didn't answer my question. Given your ridiculous comments on all things hardware and memory management, I'm guessing you are either a college kid or a web designer, who doesn't know much about how computers actually work.

The funny thing is, you'll probably change your usage habits so that you will use more than 8gb, by, like you said, not closing programs when you are done with them. lol.

Also, the SSD size doesn't affect performance, but it affects use cases. With 256 gb, I don't even plan to boot camp or run VMs on this because of a lack of extra space. You are also not goin to be workin with extremely large image or video files on a 256 gb SSD. These are the main legit scenarios to need the ram upgrade.

So really the ram upgrade on the base model is dumb.
Click to expand...

Actually SSD size does affect performance - at least aftermarket ones. Look up any 256GB vs 128GB SSD - you'll find that the 256GB model has read speeds that are nearly twice as fast. My understanding is that typically larger SSDs achieve their extra space by having more flash chips onboard, and their controllers essentially do an "internal raid 0" to improve speeds.

Now I'm not sure if this is the case w/ the rMBP SSDs since I'm not sure if they're adding more chips to increase the storage
 
You might be interested to know then Sahee that 16gbs of ram also mean 1gb allocated to the intel gfx, and some have associated less lags/stutters in the macbook pro with 16gb models with higher vram for the gfx. I too believe in selling the device by around this time next for the gen 2 product which will have solved some kinks. I am however of the opinion that the full memory option will entice buyers more since this is a pro machine and pro users will have various ram resource hungry needs that maybe you don't have: number crunching, image and video editing, vm machines etc. There's a category of users that will demand more than 8gbs of ram.


@November:

It is of my understanding that free ram can still benefit the device as it allocates said free ram first and not the inactive portion of the ram. That is OS X doesn't have to release the inactive ram first, it just allocates the free ram that's already available. OS X is pretty thirsty when it comes to ram, it allocates more than it needs some times, and sometimes it pages out before releasing all inactive memory. There's also a lot of evidence that apple hasn't been doing diligent work when it comes to memory management in the os.
Read here:
http://workstuff.tumblr.com/post/20464780085/something-is-deeply-broken-in-os-x-memory-management
as long as this extensive discussion on apples forums
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3193912?start=780&tstart=0


While throwing hardware at a software problem isn't the best solution (but it's one very apparently favored by apple themselves) it's a safeguard to know that whatever glitches lion will present there's the extra cushion of more than ample ram there.
In addition there's always a point to be made that on the occasion one goes above 8gbs of ram the ssd drive is being used, so less to no usage of the ssd means a higher life cycle for it.
 
blow45 said:
You might be interested to know then Sahee that 16gbs of ram also mean 1gb allocated to the intel gfx, and some have associated less lags/stutters in the macbook pro with 16gb models with higher vram for the gfx. I too believe in selling the device by around this time next for the gen 2 product which will have solved some kinks. I am however of the opinion that the full memory option will entice buyers more since this is a pro machine and pro users will have various ram resource hungry needs that maybe you don't have: number crunching, image and video editing, vm machines etc. There's a category of users that will demand more than 8gbs of ram.
Click to expand...

Now you're just purposely misleading others. Care to tell me why? I can understand why you might hate me because I've proven you to be full of it, but that's still no reason to mislead other people.

Sahee, please read the Apple Support article I previously posted. You will not get additional video RAM allocated, even with the 16GB RAM upgrade. Not that it would really matter because you have the 650M to do the heavy lifting.

blow45 said:
In addition there's always a point to be made that on the occasion one goes above 8gbs of ram the ssd drive is being used, so less to no usage of the ssd means a higher life cycle for it.
Click to expand...

Not with newer SSDs. Write/read wear used to be a valid argument but nowadays SSDs will last for the life of the notebook without major slowdowns. In addition, the larger the drive, the more writes possible, but even that difference is negligible. Furthermore, paging is not going to use as many writes as you seem to think it will and it will NOT lead to a dramatically higher life cycle.

RAM is nice, yes. But it's not going to perform miracles either.
 
Last edited:
Something to think about with 16Gb RAM is that your sleep file will double in size. On the smaller SSDs this extra 8Gb of 'unavailable' disk space would be a pain.
 
Mongol said:
also, i'm guessing you got the 16 ram upgrade on the 256 SSD. lol, if you think that'll help the resale value 3 years from now, because the SSD size will be by far the first thing to be not adequate in that configuration.

now, I think people who got the 2.6 512 gb version have a good reason to get the ram upgrade.
Click to expand...

^^This is probably more accurate than the last 60 posts in this thread.


Time to take this thread out behind the barn and put it down..........
 
I have ordered my RMBP with 16 GB because its gonna be my study buddy, and later on my workstation.. And then who dont want to have an OP Mac or PC ? :p
 
The poster you were quoting was incorrect, at no point does the integrated graphics get 1GB VRAM allocated.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to see when I get my unit then. That is what the Apple store rep told me. Sucks that he would lie like that.

Oh and hey, look at that, according to this benchmark of another laptop with an i7 with HD4000 and 16GB ram the VRAM is 798MB

9a75b72d5c.gif
 
Last edited:
gentlefury said:
I guess I'll have to see when I get my unit then. That is what the Apple store rep told me. Sucks that he would lie like that.

Oh and hey, look at that, according to this benchmark of another laptop with an i7 with HD4000 and 16GB ram the VRAM is 798MB

Image

So unless Apple changed the firmware I think you are wrong.
Click to expand...

"another laptop"

Apple obviously has the option to configure their CPU unit. the RMBP is configured to only use 512 of vRAM for HD4000, because it has discrete graphics and switching.
 
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but apple specifically sets the 512mb VRAM limit in their computers when running osx. I know this coming from the hackintosh world. If you try to setup a non apple-standard VRAM size for the amount of installed ram in the hackintosh motherboard uefi bios setup (example: 1gb with 16gb ram), the hd4000 won't work in osx.
 
the screen grab up above is with 16GB I see. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. Also annoys me that the sales person said it would be above 512MB.
 
gentlefury said:
I guess I'll have to see when I get my unit then. That is what the Apple store rep told me. Sucks that he would lie like that.

Oh and hey, look at that, according to this benchmark of another laptop with an i7 with HD4000 and 16GB ram the VRAM is 798MB

Image
Click to expand...

I'd tend to believe Apple's own support site before believing what any of the clueless Apple reps say.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3246

Furthermore I have actual proof...

gentlefury said:
the screen grab up above is with 16GB I see. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. Also annoys me that the sales person said it would be above 512MB.
Click to expand...

...as you now see ;) Props for being able to admit when you were wrong, unlike blow45, who is continuing to mislead everyone by telling them the HD 4000 gets 1GB VRAM despite overwhelming evidence pointing to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back