When are we getting more than 16gb ram, it's 2017

[Sanpete]

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?)

I haven't seen any indication that Coffee Lake will support LPDDR4, which is what's needed for 32 GB low-powered RAM. All the comments I've seen say LPDDR4 support on laptop CPU chips isn't expected until later. I don't think there is any 16 GB LPDDR4 yet, for that matter. I think 8 GB sticks are just coming out for phones.

The analyst who claimed inside knowledge of a 32 GB MBP in 2017 says it will be with Kaby Lake, which doesn't support LPDDR4.

 

[czaffa]

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?

Browsing the web with Chrome

 

[dukebound85]

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?

Anything that uses data? I could have used 500Gigs of ram

 

[daihard]

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.

I agree. I'm not convinced that a Windows laptop running on 32GB RAM is faster than a MacBook Pro running on 16. Apple designs their own motherboards, right? Having complete control over the hardware, Apple should be able to optimize the OS so it requires less RAM than other OSs do to execute a comparable process.

I run a couple of VM guests as well as Xcode on my 16GB RAM MBP. It's fast and smooth.

 

[aevan]

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.

Here you go:

https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355

 

[SDColorado]

April Fools!!

 

[holden j caufield]

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.

This is pretty false. The number of virtual machines you can cram in is almost all limited to the amount of ram. Cpu cycles I have plenty to spare in our development and production environment. We test infrastructure, design, software across many platforms. This is all virtualized, as of now my windows laptop has several server 2008r2 and 2012 vm, some legacy vm we still have some systems running xp, win7, 8.1 and 10. There is also a virtualized router, nas, and an isolated VM on a different vlan for me to read different forums. Also an ubuntu and android x86 vm so I can text faster. I also do a lot of reading on many forums sometimes I need to read 100 tabs just to narrow down a problem and lead me in the right direction. Right now I leave me my main windows laptop on and I have to remote in from my macbook. It's superior in thinness, weight, screen and trackpad. Though I hear good things about the Dell 9650 and 5520.

 

[aevan]

This is pretty false. The number of virtual machines you can cram in is almost all limited to the amount of ram. Cpu cycles I have plenty to spare in our development and production environment.

What's false? I said the same thing: if you need to run multiple VMs, you need more RAM. You're out of luck. But you do represent a small minority of users.