Why is everybody so obsessed with RAM?

[UBS28]

I think people could start educating themselves about motherboards, video cards, CPU's (SOCs since Apple has gone to system on a chip), RAM & storage and how they work and work together as a whole system. I've been building computers since 1986 or so and you never cheap on these things because one can effect the others performance and the overall performance of the system.

Yes, that is actually why I find it funny how Apple is showing off how the M2 is faster than a Mac Pro, but then at the same time they put only 8GB RAM in it. What are you possibly going to do with 8GB RAM?

The base model should be 16GB RAM atleast. Atleast this is my opinion for the amount of money Apple asks.

 

[DavidChoux]

Wow. Nine pages already. Clearly this thread touched a nerve (and rightly so).
As someone on the 16GB+ of Ram or bust side of the argument...

I honestly, in good faith, cannot for the life of me understand everyone who's like "8GB works great for me." This isn't meant to be taken as an insult or that I think anyone's lying but... what is your workflow like? Because in my experience macOS (or Windows) + a good number of browser tabs, a communication app (Zoom or Teams, Slack is a bit better), maybe a PDF in Preview, or documents in Word or Excel and... boom nothing strenuous going on but it makes an 8GB machine stutter, become less responsive and uncomfortable to use.

Not saying its unusable but I'm really curious how people use their devices where 8GB is adequate. Is it being used like a Tablet (primarily one app at a time, not a lot of apps left running the background?)

I've had my 2016 13" base spec MBP since, well, 2016. I used it all throughout university, word, excel powerpoint, Rstudio and never felt like it was slow. Even writing my dissertation on it with a large word file, excel spreadsheets with many many graphs, and plenty of chrome tabs open all at the same time, never did it feel slow. Occasionally I make short videos on it using FCPX with 1080p footage, again worked adequately for me.

Nowadays I don't do anything taxing. The most would be about 20 Chrome tabs open including lots of youtube, a google sheets sheet, and some video playing picture-in-picture. Never feels slow.

To be fair I've never had anything more than 8GB so I have nothing to compare to. I'm sure 16GB would allow more chrome tabs to remain loaded, but otherwise I've never felt my macbook was slow in any way for what I've used it for. So that must say something about 8GB being enough for me.

Take now for example. 13 Chrome tabs, 5 youtube videos that have been paused, the rest magazine websites and whatnot, and also a 7GB 1080p movie playing. Doesn't feel slow at all.

 

[surf4peace]

I can see the point in lots of RAM if you're doing one singular memory intensive process like 3D rendering or 8K video editing, but many people just like having a lot of RAM so they can be basically inefficient with resources. They'll whine and complain when their computer throttles with 200 tabs open in a browser they can't possibly need opened all at once, and half their apps open and minimised in the background.

yep... it's a nice luxury to have, albeit more expensive.

 

[surf4peace]

Yes, that is actually why I find it funny how Apple is showing off how the M2 is faster than a Mac Pro, but then at the same time they put only 8GB RAM in it. What are you possibly going to do with 8GB RAM?

The base model should be 16GB RAM atleast. Atleast this is my opinion for the amount of money Apple asks.

no doubt. for those of us in this forum, that's likely an easy yes. for most users, they can probably get away with 8GB w/o a sweat.

 

[jav6454]

Yes, that is actually why I find it funny how Apple is showing off how the M2 is faster than a Mac Pro, but then at the same time they put only 8GB RAM in it. What are you possibly going to do with 8GB RAM?

The base model should be 16GB RAM atleast. Atleast this is my opinion for the amount of money Apple asks.

I agree here, but if cost and margins are a thing, then I see no reason why instead of 16GB, Apple doesn't use 12GB then.

 

[hagjohn]

I agree here, but if cost and margins are a thing, then I see no reason why instead of 16GB, Apple doesn't use 12GB then.

Cause it probably would cost Apple more $$ to buy 12GB, then use the standard 16GB.

 

[jav6454]

Cause it probably would cost Apple more $$ to buy 12GB, then use the standard 16GB.

That is obvious, the higher density DRAM the more the cost.

 

[hagjohn]

That is obvious, the higher density DRAM the more the cost.

No, that is not always correct and there are reasons why you should never run 12GB kit (although many cheap systems do).

 

[jav6454]

No, that is not always correct.

Explain, how do higher densities become cheaper?

 

[R!TTER]

Per GB (or gb) they are cheaper.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Every time I upgrade the ram on any system I feel a bit duped. Most recently I upgraded my ds 1618+ from 4 to 32gb. Cost 132€ (Ish), can’t say I have seen much improvement. It’s a bit better- but that’s it. I run multiple docker self hosted apps, and have a massive photo library stored there. My primary usage’s for the device is pretty intense.

It’s better - but not by much. And I am a bit of a power user I think. Same with all my Mac mini’s (still Intel), 32gb after market. I have always (for my usage, capture one, lightroom, photoshop, design programs, general business management for my photography studio), never felt that much benefit. Again, it’s there, but it’s not night and day.

That said - I still always would get a reasonably high amount on a computer I can’t upgrade after the fact.

 

[HDFan]

Cause it probably would cost Apple more $$ to buy 12GB, then use the standard 16GB.

They aren't "buying" the RAM on the M chips.

That is obvious, the higher density DRAM the more the cost.

Maybe on a device which has separate memory slots but not really applicable to an SOC. RAM competes for space with cpus, gpus, media encoders, port support, etc. Density is a function of how much space they have available for RAM and the transistor size of the SOC.

 

[millerj123]

I basically came here to say this, too. It's following the usual troll thread pattern on MR where the OP asks a question then refuses to believe and/or attacks everyone who provides an answer.

I think it boils down to "obsessed" in the title and devolves from there. The reason I'm "obsessed" is that with my last computer, I bought the base RAM to save money, and upgraded when it was clear my usage exceeded it. I maxed it out and even that eventually fell short. I'm hoping my current computer lasts the same 10 years, but depending on software constraints, I know that it may not.

 

[jav6454]

They aren't "buying" the RAM on the M chips.



Maybe on a device which has separate memory slots but not really applicable to an SOC. RAM competes for space with cpus, gpus, media encoders, port support, etc. Density is a function of how much space they have available for RAM and the transistor size of the SOC.

No... so wrong. On the laptop side, Apple has dedicated DRAM chips. See picture below.

 

[jeremysteele]

I've got 64GB in my macbook pro M1 max, and it is currently using 54GB. I regularly have around 10 hefty services running in docker, a mix of IDEs open, and a bunch of tabs for research/debugging. If I could have gotten 128, I would have.

Meanwhile none of my family goes over 8 GB used. Some workloads need more RAM than others.

 

[Mr. Dee]

Its kind of amazing though that my MacBook Pro from Early 2015 came with the same default amount of RAM that's also included with my M1 MacBook Pro. Which probably suggest even in 2025 if I do upgrade to a base model MacBook Pro again, Apple is likely to still be defaulting to 8 GBs of RAM. Don't get me wrong, I work just fine with it and it has served me well on my Intel model, I ran Windows VMs without issue and multi-tasked just fine in macOS. My Dell Latitude has 32 GBs of RAM and based on my workflow, I don't see much of a performance difference.

Sure, I can allocate even more RAM to my VM's and have enough head room to operate in the host OS. We must remember too, macOS is heavily optimized for its proprietary architecture and Apple also wants to make as much money as they feel they can RAM and fast storage #capitalism. At the same time, I have not run across any bottlenecks to make me feel like I am being robbed; and I bet that's the case for the majority of users. Future proofing is a fools game considering our upgrade cycles are much shorter these days. Look at even discussions from some folks on threads here thinking about switching out from their perfectly fine 2020 M1 MBP for this years model just to do the same thing.

 

[DavidChoux]

For everyone saying Apple are cheaping out with 8GB of RAM, they've go to cut the costs somewhere right?

I mean can anyone find an alternative to the new M2 Air that is as thin, as fast, as sturdy, and with a trackpad as good, with 18 hour batter life, etc etc?

I used to have a Dell XPS years ago, until I got my MBP in 2016. I've been looking to get another laptop and have been open to windows machines but for the same price as the new M2 Air, what is there that's competitive? I really can't find anything. So sure Apple are cutting down somewhere, which probably includes the RAM.

I'm really not an Apple fan boy as such. Years ago when windows machines had a much better price to performance ratio I used to question macs, but now it seems macs are genuinely good value.

 

[JamesMay82]

I'd agree although for my peace of mind I would go for 32GB just because I'd like the machine to be useful for 7 years +.

 

[Malus120]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-is-everybody-so-obsessed-with-ram.2348420/post-31195067 for a start on how someone can use 8 GB of RAM just fine.

In my company of one, I don't need a "communication app", because an email or Apple Messages (iMessage or SMS) or a phone call works for my clients. I prefer native apps over Electron or browser-based apps.

That's an interesting point.
To paraphrase for those who don't want to click through the link "if you're used to using old computers, you know you should always use lightweight, native apps for maximum performance, but I work for myself & can use whatever I want. If I had to use Office 365, I'd get a Windows PC where it runs best"

I don't think we actually disagree here. As a kid I remember being ecstatic when the time came to upgrade to a Blue and White G3... and not so ecstatic to have to live with that Blue and White G3 long past the days when it was "fast." So there's definitely a part of me that understands how insane it is to say "8GB of RAM isn't enough" when back in the day we got by on 64MB (yes MB) of RAM or less. On the one hand while software today does many things that would've been unimaginable back then... it also manages to do many of the things we did do back then while somehow requiring 100x more resources :/ I often wish devs today had to optimize like they were were writing code for that old G3 or even an SNES but the reality is the economic incentive just isn't there (and to be fair most development environments/tools aren't either)

So yes, optimized, lightweight apps should definitely be considered when possible but as you note in your post, not everyone has the luxury of working with whatever they want, and not every use case has a super lightweight app. Compromise is often necessary and when people come here asking for advice I generally assume even if they're going to be using MS Office they have a valid reason for wanting a a Mac (and for not using more efficient apps.)

Furthermore, the majority of the less tech savvy users unfortunately don't want to learn to use (a) new app(s) (heck I'm tech savvy and sometimes I don't feel like learning a new app just because it's more efficient) so I generally feel advising people to buy as much ram as they can (within reason) is a safer choice than just saying "get 8GB, you'll be fine," especially on the M1 where, if you happen to need more than one external monitor, you need DisplayLink which can put a lot of extra strain CPU/GPU/RAM.

I've had my 2016 13" base spec MBP since, well, 2016. I used it all throughout university, word, excel powerpoint, Rstudio and never felt like it was slow. Even writing my dissertation on it with a large word file, excel spreadsheets with many many graphs, and plenty of chrome tabs open all at the same time, never did it feel slow. Occasionally I make short videos on it using FCPX with 1080p footage, again worked adequately for me.

Nowadays I don't do anything taxing. The most would be about 20 Chrome tabs open including lots of youtube, a google sheets sheet, and some video playing picture-in-picture. Never feels slow.

To be fair I've never had anything more than 8GB so I have nothing to compare to. I'm sure 16GB would allow more chrome tabs to remain loaded, but otherwise I've never felt my macbook was slow in any way for what I've used it for. So that must say something about 8GB being enough for me.

Take now for example. 13 Chrome tabs, 5 youtube videos that have been paused, the rest magazine websites and whatnot, and also a 7GB 1080p movie playing. Doesn't feel slow at all.

Weird. I had a 2018 quad core 13" MBP with 16GB of ram that regularly felt sluggish doing stuff similar to what you described (albeit probably also including some PDFs open.) Like I said, I really struggle to understand how experiences differ so much.

 

[hans1972]

It is also worth mentioning that the M1/2 uses regular RAM as VRAM, ie. it is shared, so some of it will be used for display buffering. Machines with 8GB RAM should just not be sold anymore.

And yet, Microsoft just released a brand new Surface model with 4Gb of RAM.

 

[mectojic]

The base-model 2012 iMac had 8GB Ram. Back then, that was an awesome amount, so people didn't complain much.
Today, the base-model 2022 iMac has... 8GB Ram.

Seriously – it's been 10 years. Back then you could upgrade the Ram yourself. Now you can't, and the prices for upgrades are ridiculous.

This is clear evidence of technological regression. And this is why 'normal' everyday people now have a problem with Apple's base Ram.

 

[hans1972]

View attachment 2020393
What else do you want?????? Here is my current laptop running on 16GB and 13.97GB is used RIGHT NOW. Imagine if that was 8GB. pRaCtIcLe eXaMpLe

What you don't understand is that macOS will tru to use all of the memory. So a 16GB RAM Mac will use more memory for exactly the same task as a 8Gb Mac. Doesn't mean you'll notice a difference as a user.

 

[hans1972]

Do you think you rely heavily on third party apps if all you do is basic 1080p video editing? I do not.

But why would anyone give the advice "Buy as much RAM as you can afford" on a machine which supports 128Gb of RAM?

Even if you rely on third party apps?

Wouldn't it be important to ask how that person uses the computer?

 

[geta]

But why would anyone give the advice "Buy as much RAM as you can afford" on a machine which supports 128Gb of RAM?

Even if you rely on third party apps?

Wouldn't it be important to ask how that person uses the computer?

These days you cant upgrade the memory down the road if needed… and if you keep your Mac more then 2 years, you should consider investing on extra memory for the long term usage.

That been said, these days with these prices 8GB is a joke.

 

[hans1972]

That's not good, because now your SSD's lifespan is being drastically degraded with it being used as back-up ram. You always need to make sure you are NEVER using swap memory, if you value your SSD. Close out programs until it's gone!

Using swap is good thing and it might be in certain circumstances a good ting.

Also SSD life is so long that using it for swap doesn't reduce the life of the SSD to shorter than the life of the Mac itself.