When Will There be 32GB RAM MBP?

[BigAppleNYC123]

When do you think we will see a 32GB RAM MacBookPro?

I have a 2015 13" with 16GB driving two monitors. My machine has 4.24GB left and I have not even opened Parallels desktop...

 

[tvith]

When Apple run out of ideas on what else to change/add to the MBP to keep it "revolutionary"

 

[nia820]

Probably in 2027.

 

[andy9l]

When do you think we will see a 32GB RAM MacBookPro?

I have a 2015 13" with 16GB driving two monitors. My machine has 4.24GB left and I have not even opened Parallels desktop...

That's not how RAM works - you have 16GB "left" at all times. If your swap is huge, or "memory pressure" is high, then you may benefit from more memory. If not, then you would not benefit at all from more memory. I would hedge my bets on you falling into the former category.

To answer your question, though, I believe we'll see that option when Intel's Cannonlake arrives - some time in 2018 - with LPDDR4 support.

 

[QzzB]

When do you think we will see a 32GB RAM MacBookPro?

I have a 2015 13" with 16GB driving two monitors. My machine has 4.24GB left and I have not even opened Parallels desktop...

I have managed to run several Windows Serber VMs (about 5) on my MBP without any problems. Even though the RAM is only 16gb, as the SSD is fast the swap space is almost seamless. in my experience anyway. Got to bear in mind providing macOS is clever enough to swap apps that are not being actively used to disk, it runs just fine.

 

[malikkamran]

I want 10 hour battery life when it will come on any apple device

 

[redheeler]

My machine has 4.24GB left and I have not even opened Parallels desktop...

Clearly you're not familiar with how memory management in newer MacOS versions works. As much as possible is kept / cached to prevent waste, and only when more memory is needed does the OS clean out the unnecessary cache, you rarely actually run out.

 

[jerryk]

When do you think we will see a 32GB RAM MacBookPro?

I have a 2015 13" with 16GB driving two monitors. My machine has 4.24GB left and I have not even opened Parallels desktop...

You don't have to worry about that unless you are planning on running a lot of large programs all at once.

MACOS is a page based memory model. These pages are small (512KB) and allocated to programs as needed, and deallocated when not being actively used and another program needs memory. Also if parallels, or another program runs, and needs more memory and all the memory on your system is being use, the operating system will make other programs give up some of your memory to meet the needs of parallels.

However, a problem can occur when if you have a lot of programs and they all need a lot of memory, AT THE SAME TIME. But, with a 16GB system we are talking about several large programs like Photoshop all performing operations at the same time. And if that were the case you would likely run into other issues like lack of CPU cycles before running out of memory.

So if you could tell us what you plan on doing with your machine, people could evaluate the likelihood of you having memory issues.

 

[BigAppleNYC123]

That's not how RAM works - you have 16GB "left" at all times. If your swap is huge, or "memory pressure" is high, then you may benefit from more memory. If not, then you would not benefit at all from more memory. I would hedge my bets on you falling into the former category.

To answer your question, though, I believe we'll see that option when Intel's Cannonlake arrives - some time in 2018 - with LPDDR4 support.

I use a tool called memory clean by fiplab.

I use dual monitors with a windows Vm frequently. When I turn on my machine with no apps open, it shows a hair under 15 GB in a display which claims to show what it calls “available memory”. As I add more apps, availabile memory decreases. When I have safari, Evernote, word, excel fantastical, iMessage, and preview open, it shows 5GB left. When I add parallels desktop, it shows .5-1.5.

I want 32!
[doublepost=1498693369][/doublepost]

You don't have to worry about that unless you are planning on running a lot of large programs all at once.

MACOS is a page based memory model. These pages are small (512KB) and allocated to programs as needed, and deallocated when not being actively used and another program needs memory. Also if parallels, or another program runs, and needs more memory and all the memory on your system is being use, the operating system will make other programs give up some of your memory to meet the needs of parallels.

However, a problem can occur when if you have a lot of programs and they all need a lot of memory, AT THE SAME TIME. But, with a 16GB system we are talking about several large programs like Photoshop all performing operations at the same time. And if that were the case you would likely run into other issues like lack of CPU cycles before running out of memory.

So if you could tell us what you plan on doing with your machine, people could evaluate the likelihood of you having memory issues.

I use my machine with dual monitors and frequently run specialized windows software.

Having my main suite of apps, Evernote, safari, excel, word, preview open, cuts ram into well under half, according to memory clean by fiplab, which claims to show “available ram”. Add the virtual machine on parallels, and available ram is .5-1.5

 

[andy9l]

I use a tool called memory clean by fiplab.

I use dual monitors frequently. When I turn on my machine with no apps open, it shows a hair under 15 GB in a display which claims to show what it calls “available memory”. As I add more apps, availabile memory decreases. When I have safari, Evernote, word, excel fantastical, iMessage, and preview open, it shows 5GB left. When I add parallels desktop, it shows .5-1.5.

I want 32!

Again, that's not how RAM works. Even with 32 you'd still "use" it up by doing that.

Your Mac will try to use all of your RAM at all times. If you're not using much for your open apps, system tasks will start to consume it. This is by design.

Free RAM is wasted RAM. It is literally doing nothing for you.

 

[dogslobber]

16GB in 2017 is like being stuck in a straight-jacket. It truly is hobbling Apple's ability to compete with the Dells of this world by not offering a 32GB laptop.

 

[jerryk]

Again, that's not how RAM works. Even with 32 you'd still "use" it up by doing that.

Your Mac will try to use all of your RAM at all times. If you're not using much for your open apps, system tasks will start to consume it. This is by design.

Free RAM is wasted RAM. It is literally doing nothing for you.

This is an important couple points. MACOS does a nice job of managing RAM and the suggested load is not huge. I run a Parallels VM running Windows 10 with Visual Studio and Office and still have enough memory to do development in MacOS on my 2015 16 GB system.

MACOS will swap out parts of programs as needed to ensure things work OK. Sure 32GB would be nice, but I am not convinced my present workload would run any faster.

BTW, I would dump any application that is trying to free up memory. Those can working against the memory management algorithms built into MACOS.

 

[BigAppleNYC123]

Again, that's not how RAM works. Even with 32 you'd still "use" it up by doing that.

Your Mac will try to use all of your RAM at all times. If you're not using much for your open apps, system tasks will start to consume it. This is by design.

Free RAM is wasted RAM. It is literally doing nothing for you.

I am probably not understanding, but please bare with me...

You wrote that your Mac will use all available ram, but when I have very few programs open, that is not the case. It is only using a fraction of the 16, about 3gb; not all available. As I open more programs, it uses more. When I have all 8 of my most used, it shows 1GB unused, as oppose to one program open, which would show 13 or so unused.

At the very least, I could allocate more ram to my virtual machine so it runs better. Instead of having a 12 GB Mac alongside 4gb windows, I could have 16 and 16, or 20 and 12... I allocated 4gb or so in parallels

 

[Sterkenburg]

Not much to add to what others have already said: you should not be worried, 16GB on macOS are plenty for the usage you describe. The system will try to use as much memory as possible to cache various stuff, which will be reallocated to other active apps on demand. Maximizing "free memory" is useless because there is literally no advantage in having unused RAM sitting around: it's doing nothing! You would see the same behavior you observed with any amount of RAM.

I also second the suggestions to dump crappy 3rd party apps that try to override the memory management strategy built into the OS. The "memory pressure" indicator is what you want to look at instead, do that and you'll realize there are no issues at all.

About the topic title question: my bet is that we'll see 32GB as soon as Apple can fit them into the MBP without taking a hit on battery life. Assuming they are going to keep the current slim design and a similar battery size, we might have to wait until Intel releases chips with LPDDR4 support suitable for the MBP, which is not going to happen until late next year.

 

[BigAppleNYC123]

This is an important couple points. MACOS does a nice job of managing RAM and the suggested load is not huge. I run a Parallels VM running Windows 10 with Visual Studio and Office and still have enough memory to do development in MacOS on my 2015 16 GB system.

MACOS will swap out parts of programs as needed to ensure things work OK. Sure 32GB would be nice, but I am not convinced my present workload would run any faster.

BTW, I would dump any application that is trying to free up memory. Those can working against the memory management algorithms built into MACOS.

I only use it for monitoring. I like to watch the usage levels.

I have 4 GB allocated to windows via parallels desktop. With 32, I could double or triple that allocation, and the virtual machine would run smoother, no? Via parallels, I’ve instructed it to allocate 4gb to widows. Should I say 16?

[doublepost=1498700103][/doublepost]

Not much to add to what others have already said: you should not be worried, 16GB on macOS are plenty for the usage you describe. The system will try to use as much memory as possible to cache various stuff, which will be reallocated to other active apps on demand. Maximizing "free memory" is useless because there is literally no advantage in having unused RAM sitting around: it's doing nothing! You would see the same behavior you observed with any amount of RAM.

I also second the suggestions to dump crappy 3rd party apps that try to override the memory management strategy built into the OS. The "memory pressure" indicator is what you want to look at instead, do that and you'll realize there are no issues at all.

About the topic title question: my bet is that we'll see 32GB as soon as Apple can fit them into the MBP without taking a hit on battery life. Assuming they are going to keep the current slim design and a similar battery size, we might have to wait until Intel releases chips with LPDDR4 support suitable for the MBP, which is not going to happen until late next year.

Sounds like a 2018 MBP is in my future
[doublepost=1498700571][/doublepost]

Not much to add to what others have already said: you should not be worried, 16GB on macOS are plenty for the usage you describe. The system will try to use as much memory as possible to cache various stuff, which will be reallocated to other active apps on demand. Maximizing "free memory" is useless because there is literally no advantage in having unused RAM sitting around: it's doing nothing! You would see the same behavior you observed with any amount of RAM.

I also second the suggestions to dump crappy 3rd party apps that try to override the memory management strategy built into the OS. The "memory pressure" indicator is what you want to look at instead, do that and you'll realize there are no issues at all.

About the topic title question: my bet is that we'll see 32GB as soon as Apple can fit them into the MBP without taking a hit on battery life. Assuming they are going to keep the current slim design and a similar battery size, we might have to wait until Intel releases chips with LPDDR4 support suitable for the MBP, which is not going to happen until late next year.

I need to look into memory pressure.

You don't have to worry about that unless you are planning on running a lot of large programs all at once.

MACOS is a page based memory model. These pages are small (512KB) and allocated to programs as needed, and deallocated when not being actively used and another program needs memory. Also if parallels, or another program runs, and needs more memory and all the memory on your system is being use, the operating system will make other programs give up some of your memory to meet the needs of parallels.

However, a problem can occur when if you have a lot of programs and they all need a lot of memory, AT THE SAME TIME. But, with a 16GB system we are talking about several large programs like Photoshop all performing operations at the same time. And if that were the case you would likely run into other issues like lack of CPU cycles before running out of memory.

So if you could tell us what you plan on doing with your machine, people could evaluate the likelihood of you having memory issues.

Also, there is a setting in parallels to allocate ram to the vm. Can Mac over-ride this limit?

 

[OneMike]

When do you think we will see a 32GB RAM MacBookPro?

I have a 2015 13" with 16GB driving two monitors. My machine has 4.24GB left and I have not even opened Parallels desktop...

I say 32GB In 2-3 years

 

[BigAppleNYC123]

Found comments on this subject. Please note I have no interest in a PC.

1. My work laptop, a Lenovo ThinkPad, has a 3rd gen i7 with 32GB of RAM. It's a workhorse that can run any program or multiple VMs, and even after years of service, still gets around 4-5 hours of battery life. Intel's Ark site says these processors have been tested with, and can easily handle, 32GB of LPDDR3 RAM. So, I doubt Apple's sincerity that they are protecting their customers from poor battery life.

2. We often run multiple virtual machines or high-speed signal processing, both of which would perform much better with 32GB RAM. I was really hoping Apple would come out with something like the new Razer Blade Pro, 17" display, 32GB RAM, GTX 1080 GPU. Apple chose to optimize size and weight, and sacrificed "Pro" features, in my opinion. Options 32 or 64 GB RAM in the same size/weight as my 2015 MBP would have been compelling. I see no reason to "upgrade" to their new offerings.

3.
Sure, if you only use apps that don't need a lot of memory then having lots of unused RAM will make no difference to speed, and may reduce battery life. But if your apps need lots of memory then not having enough RAM means the app will probably run very slowly. If it can run at all.

The virtual memory techniques used by MacOS are very clever, and the latest SSDs are very fast, but there’s no substitute for plenty of RAM when running some heavyweight apps.

https://www.imore.com/why-doesnt-new-macbook-pro-have-32-gb-ram

 

[littlepud]

When Intel chips support more than 16 GB of LPDDR4. End of thread.

 

[BigAppleNYC123]

When Intel chips support more than 16 GB of LPDDR4. End of thread.

Would Apple not making a killing if they had an über-lux MBP with 32gb of non-LP ram which they sold at an exorbant price? please see my comment above regarding existing windows laptops with 32.

 

[EugW]

Second half of 2018 is when it is expected, due to Intel chipset support.

I find it odd that my lowly MacBook m3 has the same RAM as the top of the top of the line quad-core MacBook Pro.

 

[jerryk]

Would Apple not making a killing if they had an über-lux MBP with 32gb of non-LP ram which they sold at an exhorbant price? please see my comment above regarding existing windows laptops with 32.

No LP ram means worse battery life. People are already complaining about the battery life of the 13" TB.
Or a bigger battery and case. Which means anther production line and associated costs. Would you pay $4000 for it? More to the point would 10,000 people pay $4,000 for it?

 

[BigAppleNYC123]

No LP ram means worse battery life. People are already complaining about the battery life of the 13" TB.
Or a bigger battery and case. Which means anther production line and associated costs. Would you pay $4000 for it? More to the point would 10,000 people pay $4,000 for it?

I couldn’t answer sales question. How i have seen Mac laptops used in the office, it is infrequent that they are away from a power outlet for hours at time. Most of the time they are on desks, plugged into external monitors, being used as a secondary monitor. They go to a meeting for an hour, and then go back to power supply. Of course, everyone’s use case is different.

 

[danwells]

Two other things that can use a ton of RAM (besides multiple VMs)... One is photo organizing/cataloging apps (Lightroom/Capture One, etc.), especially with large catalogs because they try and cache a lot of previews... When they're generating previews, they'll generate as many at a time as they have RAM for, and when you're working in your library, they'll load nearby previews to make switching run faster.

The second is video editing, especially 4K.

One thing that actually DOESN'T use as much RAM as it is reputed to is Photoshop. Photoshop uses a couple of GB for the application, plus some multiple (always at least 3x, can be as much as 10x or more depending on layers and such) of the image size. The pleasant surprise is that RAM has grown much faster than image sensor sizes...
A 24 MP sensor (most modern DSLRs) generates a 16-bit file a little under 150 MB - even 10x (lots of layers) is only 1.5 GB
A 50 MP sensor (the largest you'll see without getting into exotic medium format backs) is double that, so figure 3 GB for the image if you use a ton of layers plus 2-3 for Photoshop before opening the file
Double it again for Phase One's exotic ($40,000) 100 MP back.
Even the Phase back will fit into 16 GB with Photoshop and Sierra running.
What won't is stitches of several large images!

 

[Mr. Dee]

I had 2 Windows 10 VMs running, plus iTunes, Safari, Word and my early 2015 MBP 13 barely broke a sweat with the 8 GBs of RAM. I get it, 32 GB is an itch a lot of enthusiasts just want to scratch. But, if Apple offers it, its gonna be a niche upgrade option. At their current prices, choosing 32 GB is not gonna be cheap. If you Apple is gonna make it the default on the 15 in MBP, keep dreaming. Worst if its DDR4, they are gonna charge a premium.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I want 10 hour battery life when it will come on any apple device

It's already available on every apple device under low power usage. Battery life always depends on your usage and screen brightness if you use power hungry apps games etc then the battery life will be lower the same as any mobile device.

Would Apple not making a killing if they had an über-lux MBP with 32gb of non-LP ram which they sold at an exorbant price? please see my comment above regarding existing windows laptops with 32.

The windows laptops with desktop DDR4 ram have terrible battery lives or are big and heavy or both in many cases. No apple would make very little on a fat heavy laptop with 32gb RAM its not worth their effort despite a very small very vocal online minority most people just don't need it in a laptop. If that is what you need for a specific use case buy a windows laptop.

Also people using laptops plugged in most of the time are making a compromise that is theirs to make but makes little sense when they could get a much more powerful desktop and a tablet for when they are away from their desktop. With remote log in and better and better tablet computers a laptop that spends most of its time plugged in is waste of resources on a set of compromises that have to favour the form factor of a mobile device.