My work laptop has 64gb ram and I'm stuck with 16gb on my retina . I adore my retina but it's really lagging. I've had 32gb on my laptop since 2012
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When are we getting more than 16gb ram, it's 2017
- Thread starter holden j caufield
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's what the Mac tech blogs have to say:
2017 MacBook Pro to bring Intel Kaby Lake, 32GB of RAM - Cult of Mac
Reports seemingly clarify Phil Schiller's explanation of why there's no ...
Why doesn't the new MacBook Pro have 32 GB of RAM? | iMore
You probably shouldn't buy a new MacBook Pro right now – BGR
The 2017 MacBook Pro may have more RAM and a lower price tag ...
Apple says new MacBook Pro has only 16GB of RAM to save battery ...
2017 MacBook Pro to bring Intel Kaby Lake, 32GB of RAM - Cult of Mac
Reports seemingly clarify Phil Schiller's explanation of why there's no ...
Why doesn't the new MacBook Pro have 32 GB of RAM? | iMore
You probably shouldn't buy a new MacBook Pro right now – BGR
The 2017 MacBook Pro may have more RAM and a lower price tag ...
Apple says new MacBook Pro has only 16GB of RAM to save battery ...
I don't plan to, and apple is really blowing some smoke. I really doubt more ram will crush the battery time. We've had Dell precisions and thinkpads at work and I've tried them with 2 and 4 sodimms and the battery time was pretty much the same.
Playing devil's advocate here, .. what does Apple have to gain by blowing smoke?
They already messed up the battery life on these by not being able to include the larger battery that they had designed for these new cases.
Last edited:
The problem isn't primarily the amount of RAM but the type. Using 32 GB with current processors, including Kaby Lake, requires using desktop RAM. That does necessarily lessen battery life relative to using low-powered laptop RAM. I estimate based on the best data available that is costs 5 to 84 watt-hours over ten hours use for 32 GB DDR4 vs 16 LPDDR3, depending on the load. The largest battery can only be under 100 watt-hours.
Actually, despite that setback, the battery life for the 13" without TB and the 15" was improved from the previous models. But I agree that Apple isn't blowing smoke about the very real battery issues with using desktop RAM.
Using more then 32GB RAM with a dual-channel memory controller makes very little sense. I guess your work laptop is a large Xeon-equipped workstation? Furthermore, having more then 16GB RAM on a dual-core CPU also makes very little sense — if your resident datasets are really that large, you'd have constant cache trashing which will probably kill the performance anyway. For most well-behaved problems, there is no need to load all the data into the memory. Having the CPU process a chunk of the data while next portions are being loaded from the disk is just as efficient. Its a shame though that many software developers don't bother with proper optimisation and well-behaved algorithms these days...
"It's LITERALLY the CURRENT YEAR"
Can we stop pretending that a calendar is an argument?
Can we stop pretending that a calendar is an argument?
I feel your pain.
Many analysts with a reasonably good track record believe the forthcoming refresh will feature 32 GB of RAM, and production has probably already started on individual components for them already. Battery improvements seem like a strong possibility as well.
It seems likely that this will be given higher priority with the 2017s than it was with the 2016s, considering how many other changes the 2016s saw relative to the 2012-2015 generations (not to mention using 32GB on the 2016 would have meant Apple delaying their launch and using the CPU that could have supported 32 GB laptop RAM, or use a completely different case design for desktop RAM.)
Technically, Samsung is the one blowing smoke (and flames)
Apple comically removed the battery estimator, which is infinitely better than blowing smoke (and exploding.)
Many analysts with a reasonably good track record believe the forthcoming refresh will feature 32 GB of RAM, and production has probably already started on individual components for them already. Battery improvements seem like a strong possibility as well.
It seems likely that this will be given higher priority with the 2017s than it was with the 2016s, considering how many other changes the 2016s saw relative to the 2012-2015 generations (not to mention using 32GB on the 2016 would have meant Apple delaying their launch and using the CPU that could have supported 32 GB laptop RAM, or use a completely different case design for desktop RAM.)
Technically, Samsung is the one blowing smoke (and flames)
Apple comically removed the battery estimator, which is infinitely better than blowing smoke (and exploding.)
That won't happen for another year or two. Kaby Lake, like Skylake, can only use 32 GB if it uses desktop RAM. If Apple offers a laptop with 32 GB this year, it will use desktop RAM.
Haha!
I really can't wait anymore. I would loved 32GB in my next Macbook Pro for future proof, but my currently 15" Late 2013 with 2.6Ghz/16GB/512GB SSD/Intel Iris Pro is having a hard time running my new LG UltraFine 5K, so I'm ordering the new Macbook Pro 15" with 2.7Ghz/512GB SSD on monday. Just can't desire if I should go for 455 vs 460 for Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign with a 5K display. Here in Denmark I can get the 455 for $450 cheaper than the 460.
Lagging in what, exactly. What do you need the 32Gb for? I'm almost certain it wouldn't fix your lag.
It's for people running VMs or doing a lot of video. It has nothing to do with lag, and in 2017. 16Gb is quite enough for almost everything (other than some very specific tasks, then you're out of luck).
But people love higher numbers, and MacRumors forum members are obsessed with 32Gb RAM. In the outside world, 16Gb on a new MBP will get you far.
Not incredibly far, I'm regularly using 12gb doing illustrator and photoshop work. Future versions, as the ability to display complex graphics grows, will likely use up even more resources.
Right now, 16gb will work. Give it a couple years, who knows? It's about future-proofing and ROI rather than outright specs
For the umpteenth time, you will not see 32gb ram until a suitable LP version becomes available.
This has been Apple's M.O. for years-- they are not willing to sacrifice battery life for any reason other than reducing the size of the laptop (and even then, they prefer to keep the battery life level).
If you want a laptop with desktop-class RAM, by all means go Windows. Just know that you will be paying for a) a heavy laptop and/or b) a laptop with relatively low battery life. Or, I dunno, petition Apple to make 17-inch laptops again.
This has been Apple's M.O. for years-- they are not willing to sacrifice battery life for any reason other than reducing the size of the laptop (and even then, they prefer to keep the battery life level).
If you want a laptop with desktop-class RAM, by all means go Windows. Just know that you will be paying for a) a heavy laptop and/or b) a laptop with relatively low battery life. Or, I dunno, petition Apple to make 17-inch laptops again.
Nope, Photoshop and Illustrator will use ALL available RAM but tests clearly show there is no increase in performance with more than 8Gb RAM even with large files. 16Gb RAM will make Photoshop run at 100% efficiency for at least 5 more years.
I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I don't think you understand how RAM works. You won't need more than 16Gb for Photoshop or Illustrator for a long time.
While it's true I haven't encountered any slowness, and I know that programs allocate ram whether or not they need it, I'm just concerned about the amount of time I have before I start to get slowdown. I have both open (with multiple tabs and projects) at the same time as I do mail, safari, finder with multiple tabs, etc.
I know the Apple programs make use of ram and battery efficiently (which is why I don't use Firefox or Chrome), but since the laptop is locked-down I have no choice but to stick with the hardware I currently have. No future upgrades, I get what I get. I don't know what the future holds, or if I'll have to run memory-intensive programs in the future.
Except when it doesn't!
Is that also the case with Coffee Lake or whatever the Kaby replacement is that was (at least originally) scheduled to be released this year?
Does that mean the analysts predicting 32GB RAM are banking on Intel being able to release a CPU capable of supporting LPDDR4 in time for the next refresh? (that timeline seems crazy tight unless Apple is planning on the current MBP having a long run, doesn't it?)
When a program is not being currently used, its data will be either compressed or evicted from RAM and reloaded back when the program becomes active again. In a modern OS, with a fast SSD, this happens with virtually no slowdown. Not to mention that APFS is coming, which is designed to have very low latencies. So you can have as many applications open as you want without encountering any major slowdowns. Having loads of RAM has barely any effect here, because the times needed to reload app data from disk are not only super fast but can also be masked by transition effects etc.
Instead, if you actually want to use all the 32GB RAM, e.g. actively run all those applications at the same time — your limiting factor will be the CPU and its cache. If you have a lot of processes accessing a lot or RAM all over the place, there will be constant cache misses and your performance will suffer. As I said before, in order to utilise 32GB or more of DDR RAM, one really needs a quad core+ CPU with quad-chanel memory controllers and a lot of cache — and also tasks that can make good use of all of that infrastructure. An alternative of course is changing the RAM technology, e.g. use stacked RAM with lower latency and higher bandwidth.
I'd guess that these analysts assume that Apple will offer an MBP config with desktop DDR4 RAM in addition to one with LPDDR3 RAM.
Just curious, what are people doing that requires more than 16gb of RAM? I've worked with some pretty intense projects up to about 25-30mins long in FCPX and I don't even think I was using half my RAM yet. What lines of work require that much system RAM?
There's quite a bit of work people do using virtual machines that I know of, and editing/creating music and 5K and 8K video are all really ram-intensive projects.
There was a link posted on this forum (somewhere, I've since forgotten where it was) where a guy explained and demonstrated how far one can get with 16 gigs of RAM. As I recall, he ran quite a few applications, VM's and who knows what else concurrently, and it wasn't easy to max out the RAM usage.
Then again, I might be misremembering some details. If anyone knows the link I speak of, I'd like to read it again.
Then again, I might be misremembering some details. If anyone knows the link I speak of, I'd like to read it again.