I’d argue it’s more like three 8GB chips forming three-channel read and write. We had three core processor from amd before so it makes sense for me that Apple uses three-channel memory.
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.
Why is everybody so obsessed with RAM?
- Thread starter iHorseHead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, if apple insists that larger screen is for “pro”, there’s little we can do. Marketing power relies on collective action by people, and I find it rare to happen.
Okay so? 5 seconds shows this with Intel graphics: https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/sho...on/spd/precision-17-5770-laptop/xctop5770usvp
We are not talking about RAM prices here, but STARTING RAM. Different topics. This Dell laptop not only has 8GB RAM AND 256 SSD with VRAM being shared with system RAM (like M1/M2 systems), but its at $2,600.
I agree, which is why anyone who wants an MBA and is throwing money at it with lavish upgrades is better served by a MBP. I have also been a proponent of that.
I also thought that as well, as historically memory works based of power of 2. However, LPDR5X was designed to have support for odd DRAM chips like 6GB or 12GB variants. Hence, Apple could theoretically have 8GB, 12GB, 16GB and 24GB in the M2 upgrade line-up.
Disagree completely. If someone wants a MBA with 24GB Ram they should get a larger, heavier device with less battery life? For what? 24GB RAM =/= the need for an SD Card slot, 14 Core GPU, Dual monitor support. Some people simply want the additional portability in a device that can handle heavy multitasking.
not only that but if you want to match that RAM in a MBP….it’s not a small price difference anymore because the closest thing is 32GB. Which costs $400 as an upgrade.
That's your opinion then. I see it that an MBA's true value is at the base option.
A computers value is solely tied to that of the customer. Your value is not the same as someone else’s. Hence why pushing someone to get a MBP because they want more RAM is irrelevant to anyone’s purchasing decision but your own. I respect your view though on what the MBA is. You see it as a low end casual device. Which is fine, there’s plenty of buyers that will use it in exactly that manner. But I see it as a fully capable workhorse in an incredibly portable chassis (with the right upgrades for the needs of the buyer). To each their own.
While I’m in the 8GB is enough for most ordinary users — they'll get by just fine — the food analogy, with a tweak, leads me to a different conclusion.
Suppose we're talking about how much food you stock in — and you can only shop once for the next month or year!
Better to buy more than you need — guests might stop by or move in (new apps), your needs might change (more exercise, more apps, new partner), etc.
Buy too little and you're really stuck! And, you'll go hungry, and crave more!
Hmm… that makes me think about 16GB and dinner! 😎
Playing off the title of the thread:
Why is everybody so obsessed with the Activity Monitor?!
As people have pointed out for years, Macs use up available RAM; it's SOP. As to AM: Yellow, schmellow! What matters is what's happening to your workflow, whether you experience and notice slowdowns, whether they are tolerable or not (or infuriating), and whether there aren't some easy solutions — such as not running 20 apps simultaneously and not having 60 resource-heavy tabs open in a browser and not using ad blockers!
While I would not mind more ram and can imagine some circumstances it could come handy, I cannot see in what circumstances one would be served better by 16->24 here rather than upgrading to a machine that can sustain more load over time. While I love the portability, there are some limitations that come with it. I am quite unsure if this 24gb upgrade option is just something to put out there or it targets some real audience, which for some reason needs this much ram but also is served better by MBA than MBP at the same time.
RAM doesn’t define who needs a MBP so much as CPU/GPU do. Every computer has the right to more ram for heavier multitasking. The portals I need for work take up serious serious ram when I have multiple tabs open in Safari in addition to the constant use of MS office suite, zoom etc (outlook and teams specifically suck up overhead also). I don’t need a 16 core GPU for these tasks but I need more ram.
I am in a similar situation for work. MS Office sucks so much RAM and even more when you are running on a scaled 4K external display. I use a number of Google and Adobe browser-based tools that are also RAM heavy. I am constantly seeing performance degrade in experience with yellow and red RAM pressure on my M1 8GB MBP. CPU usage is low so I do not need a 14” Pro.
I look forward to getting my 24GB M2 Air.
Some patterns of software development for one. The development environments themselves, along with build tooling, running local versions of deployed code a la containers or vms, anything heavy on caching or in mem data stores
3 gigs per compute core isn’t exactly an “insane” amount even in a historical context (pre-arm macs), so the idea that this setup is great for some purposes shouldn’t be all that surprising at all
And in terms of it being an “unwise” or “lavish” use of money, the lowest priced MBP with >=24 gigs of RAM is ~$900 more than a 24 gig m2 air setup, so if your workloads are more memory bound than compute bound… it’s not
Last edited:
Ahh yes that’s another one. Anything adobe eats ram. Acrobat and a few open docs forget it. Lol
Well, in that case you'll be better served by the 16-core GPU as it allows up to 32GB of memory. And no, 32GB of memory is not wasted.
I tap out on the high end at about 21GB. Fun fact: I have a 16” M1 Pro with 32GB RAM. The Air will be my travel companion for the things I need.
Well, the other part of your memory is being used as cache. So, still, you aren't wasting it.
The question of how much RAM you should get is Macrumors equivalent of asking what the meaning of life is or whether there is a god.
Last edited: