Sidebar Sidebar
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?

Nothing eats RAM like Google Chrome/Safari full of tabs from Google Cloud Platform. Each tab of Cloud Run, BigQuery etc eats 1-2gb of RAM. I have 16GB of RAM and I feel the need to kill all the browser tabs plus other background software frequently in order to manage memory usage.

In few years time the RAM will become a bottleneck on this device whereas M1 chip could probably be enough for next 15 years. My advice is to always get the max amount of RAM you can afford and save on everything else.
 
I've settled on 128 GB of ram as the sweet number on my Studio. Run a lot of applications, such as Windows 11 (Arm) in a Parallels virtual machine, which chew up a lot of memory. Right now, with light use, am using ~58 GB of app memory. Parallels and one of my backup programs alone take 16 GB.

Still have gotten the "out of application memory" error when an app goes haywire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nvmls
Youtubers were spreading this misinfo that 8gb on M1 runs like 16gb Intel. People also got the wrong idea when they hear the words "unified memory", they think "Oh, this is not normal ram, this is some kind of black magic that lets me run my demanding workflow without paying extra for more ram".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ct2k7, Shirasaki and nvmls
I have 64GB on my 2020 iMac and I am typically using around d 40-48GB of it consistently. I often have photoshop, illustrator, Lightroom, sublime, dozens of safari tabs, github, notes, music, messages, mail, code kit, fontxplorer and a few more all open all the time. Photoshop usually has several 1GB+ Documents open too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vddobrev and nvmls
TightLines said:
It’s one thing to “make a good profit” and entirely another with what Apple does. Which is to gouge their customers, all the while at the same time, designing and manufacturing things so those customers have no other choice but to go through them to upgrade the product. This wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion had Apple just designed things so the customer could upgrade their purchases independently of Apple and their predatory prices. Just as they have (reluctantly) for years.

They have shown (unintentionally I think) they can design things in such a way that the upgradeable components can be removed and changed, like with the SSD’s in the new Mac studio… but in doing so also provided a picture if their clear intent to prevent customers from doing it by locking things down and not allowing a replacement part to function.

Apple doesn’t need the “excessive profits” - they are likely the wealthiest cash on hand company in the world. It just goes to show how the bad parts within the Apple company operate… as noted before, i expect Apple will sooner rather than later be motivated to change its ways…but it shouldn’t have to come down to that…
Click to expand...
This isn’t something that anyone outside of forums like this believes is true, or even thinks about. If I buy a Mac and it costs me (for example) 1,500 and it’s still working with the latest os up to 10 years later, then I fail to see how that is any form of a gouge at all.

I can’t realistically say that the same experience is offered by any other vendor of hardware or software.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chateaunole-du-Pape
TightLines said:
It’s one thing to “make a good profit” and entirely another with what Apple does. Which is to gouge their customers, all the while at the same time, designing and manufacturing things so those customers have no other choice but to go through them to upgrade the product. This wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion had Apple just designed things so the customer could upgrade their purchases independently of Apple and their predatory prices. Just as they have (reluctantly) for years.

They have shown (unintentionally I think) they can design things in such a way that the upgradeable components can be removed and changed, like with the SSD’s in the new Mac studio… but in doing so also provided a picture if their clear intent to prevent customers from doing it by locking things down and not allowing a replacement part to function.

Apple doesn’t need the “excessive profits” - they are likely the wealthiest cash on hand company in the world. It just goes to show how the bad parts within the Apple company operate… as noted before, i expect Apple will sooner rather than later be motivated to change its ways…but it shouldn’t have to come down to that…
Click to expand...


A complete misunderstanding of basic economics.
 
OTOH, if you've always had old computers like I've had for 35 years, you get used to using smaller, more efficient (native, if possible) apps as much as possible. Think DEVONthink/MailMate/Apple Calendars/Apple Contacts over Evernote/Thunderbird or eM Client, for instance. I'd use Nisus Writer Express or Pro/Numbers over Microsoft Word/Excel, too.

I also didn't get into the trap of buying high-priced powerful XP laptops which would have been obsolete in 3 years, either.

I have the luxury of working for myself, and I can pick which apps fit my needs. Most users can't. If I was working at a job where I had to correspond with documents, I'd have a PC running Microsoft Office 365, where it runs best.
 
rocketpig said:
If you’re not noticing running out of RAM, you’re not running out of RAM. While the swap is impressively fast on new Macs, running into swap usage is still VERY noticeable.
Click to expand...

The M1 Pro barely registers a blip of difference due to the speed of the bus and SSD when pushing things well into compression/swap territory.

www.macrumors.com

16GB vs. 32GB MacBook Pro: How Much RAM is Enough?

Apple's high-end 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models from 2021 offer the M1 Pro chip with 16GB of RAM as standard, but you can upgrade to 32GB...
www.macrumors.com www.macrumors.com

These M2 machines aren't going to be quite that quick in those areas, but they're a significant improvement over the M1. I'd wait for tests like these before making a decision if you're really on the fence.
 
Last edited:
TripleYoThreat said:
Are you just going to counter everyone that says 16 is valid at 1000 bucks? Because that's a valid point regardless of whether who needs how much. Apple is just doing it to get away with it, but, everyone's right. 1000 bucks for 8gb ram is a joke. HELL, the iPhone 13 Pro has 6gb RAM,
Click to expand...

You say "1000 bucks" as if that's some insane amount of money. It's actually, by a long shot the cheapest a Mac laptop has ever been (if you've ever heard of inflation). And by the way, the iPhone you mention costs about as much as a MacBook Air. People who need extra RAM can suck up the extra $200 or whatever. If you're some kind of "power user" and you can't spend $1200 or $1300 on a laptop that's pretty sad.

Also I can assure you you can use an M1 MacBook with 8GB of RAM for quite a few useful things without it catching on fire or whatever because I have one. It's more than fine -- in fact it's zippy as hell if you're not trying to do a zillion things at the same time. And if you need to do that, you already know you should've bought more RAM.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: boemtje, cupcakes2000 and hobowankenobi
I think people are irritated that Apple charges so much for machines with only 8gb of ram that is non upgradable. Not great for longevity.

I use a lot of tabs and regularly hit the 8gb wall - and that’s just web browsing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
The other thing with Apple Silicon is it uses the same pool of RAM as VRAM.

Anything that’s going to use VRAM like drawing displays will dip into that memory.
 
I remember getting a macbook pro with 8gb of ram, and that was enough to run most graphics applications. That was 2009. All you have to do is rewrite 2009 software to work on modern 64bit-only Mac OS in 2022, and you'll never run into any ram shortage problems.
 
iHorseHead said:
Can you send me the url of a chrome tab that will eat away 2GB?
Click to expand...
Why not Safari tab?

1655514643074.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Shirasaki
iHorseHead said:
That is the main point. You're supposed to know by yourself how much RAM you need, but I still disagree that 8GB is for 'light web surfing' and 'editing word documents''. And why does the future matter? With Apple it doesn't. Apple has dropped support on very powerful Macs while weaker ones get updated.
Click to expand...
You've literally posted a pic showing memory pressure in the yellow with spikes into the red and using 2Gb + of swap. Your argument that 8Gb is enough for your workload has already went out of the window.

MacOS will use all memory available to it. I literally have a few apps open right now and I'm using 22Gb RAM. MacOS will cache as many files as it can to RAM which will speed up your system noticeably. The important thing to look at is memory pressure and Swap size, not memory used. If your memory pressure is yellow/ red and you have Gb's of swap used, you underestimated how much physical RAM you needed.

Screen Shot 2022-06-18 at 12.30.39.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Shirasaki, nvmls and unixfool
Howard2k said:
A complete misunderstanding of basic economics.
Click to expand...
What does economics have to do with anti-competitive practices being used by Apple. I don’t care what they charge… if people buy it at that price, then let them sell it at that price, but thats not what Apple is doing.. Apple is forcing people to pay that price regardless if a competitor can sell the same thing to you for much less… you aren’t being given the option because Apple has locked it down to protect themselves from having to compete on the pricing.

So in my book, the complete misunderstanding is on your part… not mine. There are anti-trust regulations that are on the books to prevent that type of business behavior, but sadly its not enforced here. It will take a lawsuit over in the EU to force Apple to change course… kinda like it has with other things… Perhaps you can use some more magical thinking to find a way to justify what Apple is doing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
iHorseHead said:
First of all, I'm not actually whining, but I see such threads every day and I don't understand why. If you don't know if you need 8GB or 16GB then 8 will probably do.
Your answer was quite rude I'm not going to argue with you.
Click to expand...
As compared to you throwing shade on other developers or users? Why don't you start writing "efficient" code for everyone using 8GB "unified" memory on :apple: Macs!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: millerj123 and Shirasaki
TightLines said:
Apple is forcing people to pay that price regardless if a competitor can sell the same thing to you for much less… you aren’t being given the option because Apple has locked it down to protect themselves from having to compete on the pricing.

So in my book, the complete misunderstanding is on your part… not mine. There are anti-trust regulations that are on the books to prevent that type of business behavior, but sadly its not enforced here. It will take a lawsuit over in the EU to force Apple to change course… kinda like it has with other things… Perhaps you can use some more magical thinking to find a way to justify what Apple is doing?
Click to expand...

That's wholly fair, I'd just never expect the free market to exert the type of pressure necessary for the correction of such behavior.

Although I'll challenge you on the reach of the free market, the sad truth being as it is, we could still go and use Windows shitboxes or Linux if we'd truly stand on principle and use our capitalist rights, alas.

There remains some hope as legislation on right to repair develops. Being that most of what we are discussing is of the essence of this debate. Convenience sadly is apple's bread and butter.
 
TightLines said:
What does economics have to do with anti-competitive practices being used by Apple. I don’t care what they charge… if people buy it at that price, then let them sell it at that price, but thats not what Apple is doing.. Apple is forcing people to pay that price regardless if a competitor can sell the same thing to you for much less… you aren’t being given the option because Apple has locked it down to protect themselves from having to compete on the pricing.

So in my book, the complete misunderstanding is on your part… not mine. There are anti-trust regulations that are on the books to prevent that type of business behavior, but sadly its not enforced here. It will take a lawsuit over in the EU to force Apple to change course… kinda like it has with other things… Perhaps you can use some more magical thinking to find a way to justify what Apple is doing?
Click to expand...


Let’s say you’re right. Which specific anti trust legislation is Apple in breach of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back