![](_gb_images/_gb_sitenav_spacer.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
worth it to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB on MacBook Pro?
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have a 2.4 GHZ MacBook Pro unibody mid-2010. I'm thinking of upgrading the RAM in my MacBook Pro from 4 GB to 8 GB (it only costs $95!) because after a few days, I do notice a slowdown with a lot of apps running. My machine can reach 8 swapfiles and do lots of paging.
But I just realized that this means entering sleep mode will take even longer than the current 20 seconds or so while memory is saved to disk. Can I expect a 40 second delay in entering "safe sleep" mode? I'm wondering whether the annoyance of the sleep delay might outweigh the benefits of more RAM ...
Anyone care to weigh in here? I have a friend who says that 4 GB of RAM is quite sufficient for most tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would start with figuring out why you run out of RAM in the first place. You have a memory leak somewhere
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](stars/star_5_hbar_blue.png)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
How many page-outs do you have? The actual size of the swap file isn't that important, the important metric are page-outs, i. e. the data that needs to be swapped from RAM to disk.
I have got a Core i5 MacBook Pro with 8 GB RAM and to me the additional RAM makes all the difference. Aperture feels fast and responsive. And I can keep Safari open while browsing my photos, for instance. Getting 8 GB for $95 sure is cheap, though ![Smilie](http://forums.macnn.com/images/smilies/oldschool/smile.gif)
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
How many page-outs do you have? The actual size of the swap file isn't that important, the important metric are page-outs, i. e. the data that needs to be swapped from RAM to disk.
I have got a Core i5 MacBook Pro with 8 GB RAM and to me the additional RAM makes all the difference. Aperture feels fast and responsive. And I can keep Safari open while browsing my photos, for instance. Getting 8 GB for $95 sure is cheap, though
Yeah, Safari and iPhoto (in my case) are huge memory hogs. After a week or so of uptime, I have *many* pageouts.
RAM is cheap right now (even from Crucial) -- what can I say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
I would start with figuring out why you run out of RAM in the first place. You have a memory leak somewhere
Well, let's start with iPhoto (500-600 MB) and Safari (600 MB). ;-) And that's *real* RAM. But I have a lot of background apps as well: Dropbox, Optimal Layout, Default Folder, SpellCatcher, gfxCardStatus ...
(
Last edited by Le Flaneur; Dec 19, 2010 at 03:50 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
While "more RAM is always good," None of those apps should be using so much REAL RAM that the amount of hardware RAM is an issue. They should be paging out appropriately and using virtual memory within a lot more narrow limits.
I'm running Firefox, which right now has less than 200 MB of virtual memory, GIMP/X11 which together are taking up less than 70 MB of virtual memory. Of course that's with no files open-if you have a bunch of huge images open in iPhoto you'll probably soak up a lot more virtual memory. So either you have some pretty large files open in both Safari and iPhoto, or there's some serious leaking going on.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
I went from 4 to 8 GB and it was completely worth it. In addition to the usual browsing, email, and more, I work with virtual machines a lot and it was great for responsiveness giving Win7 or anything else 3 GB of ram all on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
While "more RAM is always good," None of those apps should be using so much REAL RAM that the amount of hardware RAM is an issue. They should be paging out appropriately and using virtual memory within a lot more narrow limits.
[snip] So either you have some pretty large files open in both Safari and iPhoto, or there's some serious leaking going on.
The figures I quoted above are for real RAM. One problem Safari has had since the beginning is that its memory consumption just increases and increases -- this is partIy due to web site caching.
As for memory leaks, that's really a developer issue -- I can't do anything about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Le Flaneur
The figures I quoted above are for real RAM. One problem Safari has had since the beginning is that its memory consumption just increases and increases -- this is partIy due to web site caching.
As for memory leaks, that's really a developer issue -- I can't do anything about that.
I noticed the "real"part. That's a whole lot of RAM for iPhoto to use, unless, as I mentioned, you had a lot of large files open. Safari also shouldn't be using that much RAM, unless you had a bunch of files open. Safari should cache everything to disk, not in RAM. There could be a short lag from opening the page to caching, but it should not persist.
As for the "developer issue," that would only be the case if these apps were such RAM hogs for every user. If there's some sort of corruption in one or more support files, then it's something you can do something about-just reinstall the apps and this should fix the problem. But if you have a lot of apps hogging RAM, that's another matter; something in OS X is messed up, and reinstalling the OS should fix the problem.
But again, maxing out the RAM is not a bad thing-and RAM is still very affordable.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
I noticed the "real"part. That's a whole lot of RAM for iPhoto to use, unless, as I mentioned, you had a lot of large files open.
You know what I've found? I have a 27" Apple Cinema Display. Using iPhoto '11 in the new full-screen mode and performing edits and other activities consumes a lot of RAM. I thought it would all take place in the graphics memory, but it doesn't.
Safari also shouldn't be using that much RAM, unless you had a bunch of files open. Safari should cache everything to disk, not in RAM. There could be a short lag from opening the page to caching, but it should not persist.
But you don't use Safari, correct? I've always found Safari to be a memory hog. And choosing "empty cache..." after running the program for a while usually results in a substantial freeing up of memory.
If there's some sort of corruption in one or more support files, then it's something you can do something about-just reinstall the apps and this should fix the problem.
That's a new one. I've never heard of corrupt support files causing memory leaks -- they can cause crashes, but memory leaks as well?
But if you have a lot of apps hogging RAM, that's another matter; something in OS X is messed up, and reinstalling the OS should fix the problem.
I don't think that there's something wrong with OS X -- and I did a clean install not that long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
I maxed my MBP out to 8GB AND installed a 128GB SSD. Best decisions I ever made computer-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Jasoco
I maxed my MBP out to 8GB AND installed a 128GB SSD. Best decisions I ever made computer-wise.
Which SSD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Jasoco
I maxed my MBP out to 8GB AND installed a 128GB SSD. Best decisions I ever made computer-wise.
I would agree! I did the $98 G-Skill 8GB Set from Newegg.com and an Intel X-25M 80GB SSD (I had it from my iMac upgrade)
Very very ![Big Grin](http://forums.macnn.com/images/smilies/oldschool/biggrin.gif) now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
I got the Kingston SSDNow V100 128GB. I weighed my options. But you should be good if you buy Kingston, Crucial or Intel. Those were the three I looked at and compared before buying.
My MBP boots fast now and launches everything much faster. And the RAM helps with running a lot of intense programs without problems or slowdown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
I guess most people are recommending the OWC Series of SSD for Mac Users... Like 99% seem to love them and they have a great reputation so-far. I had a terrible OWC buying experience years ago, but I'd be willing to try their SSDs when I am in the market for another one... but really I am waiting (along with many PPL I am sure) for Intel's next generation of SSDs... if they can get the write speeds up to where everyone else is they would have one amazing SSD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by zerostar
I guess most people are recommending the OWC Series of SSD for Mac Users... Like 99% seem to love them and they have a great reputation so-far. I had a terrible OWC buying experience years ago, but I'd be willing to try their SSDs when I am in the market for another one... but really I am waiting (along with many PPL I am sure) for Intel's next generation of SSDs... if they can get the write speeds up to where everyone else is they would have one amazing SSD!
Why Intel? The OWC series apparently doesn't slow down over time. Does Intel have a similar controller? The other problem with Intel is that I've read that they're not especially Mac-compatible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sandforce controllers rate very highly, I'd get something along those lines now and not worry about what Intel may or may not release. I'm getting the ocz vertex 2 120 GB for Christmas.
Also, I order from OWC once or twice a year and have always had positive experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you restart your Mac every couple of days you will free up RAM that has been "captured" and is no longer available. This is one of the downsides to leaving a Mac running for long periods of time without a reboot.
You could upgrade to 8GB of RAM but the problem will likely resurface; it will just take longer for your Mac to slow down...
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Mojo
If you restart your Mac every couple of days you will free up RAM that has been "captured" and is no longer available. This is one of the downsides to leaving a Mac running for long periods of time without a reboot.
This is incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of how memory is used by the OS. Memory usage is divided into four bins: Wired, Active, Inactive and Free. Wired is stuff that should never be paged to disc, Active is stuff that can be paged out but really shouldn't be, Inactive is stuff that can be paged out at any time, and Free is just that - free, currently not in use. The amount of Wired memory doesn't really change much - it's certain parts of the OS. The Active bit goes up when you start more programs or use more documents, and then goes back down when you close them. What happens when the machine has been in use for a while is that Inactive memory goes up and Free goes down. THIS IS A GOOD THING! What actually happens is that the OS makes use of the free memory for non-critical things like disk cache and keeping recently used data in memory in case you need it again. There has to be a small buffer of Free memory if a process urgently needs more, but beyond that, any memory reported as Free is waste - the OS can't come up with anything useful to do with it.
Rebooting every now and then will turn Inactive, potentially useful, memory into Free, guaranteed useless, memory. From a memory usage standpoint, rebooting slows the machine down.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
The OCZ drives are pretty good actually. I've installed a couple of Vertex 2s in a Mac Pro recently and they fly. They are fully Mac certified too. My only complaint is that the 2.5" versions don't come with a bracket that allows them to properly fit into a Mac Pro, its only good for an iMac.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Administrator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_admin.png)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd just like to add to P's post that memory management depends on applications behaving appropriately. While the OS has a lot to do with how well management works, apps can and do lose allocated memory-they leak. Certainly most apps don't leak very often, but some will leak a bit now and then. The only way to really recover that "leakage" is to reboot.
I'd say that for most users, an occasional reboot will only noticeably slow things down for a short time. If you actually close apps when not using them, the impact is even less. OS X is really built to run 24/7 (unlike certain other, not named here commercial OSs), and if all your applications are well behaved there should be no reason to reboot very often. But it shouldn't be a problem for 90+% of Mac users.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
All I can say that for whatever reason the memory gets tied-up on my Macs and after a reboot they speed up noticeably. YMMV. It costs nothing to try it and see how it works for you...
And it really makes no sense to leave a Mac running 24/7 unless you happen to be using it 24/7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Moderator ![](http://forums.macnn.com/_gb_images/_img_ranks/star_5_moderator.png)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Mojo
All I can say that for whatever reason the memory gets tied-up on my Macs and after a reboot they speed up noticeably.
Then you should try to figure out which process is causing that. That is not normal, and is in fact a pretty serious bug.
Originally Posted by Mojo
And it really makes no sense to leave a Mac running 24/7 unless you happen to be using it 24/7.
It makes excellent sense to leave it running and just put it in standby mode when you're not using it.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
It makes excellent sense to leave it running and just put it in standby mode when you're not using it.
Yup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_img_misc/_gb_mb_previousthread-off.gif)
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
Forum Rules
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
![](_gb_images/_gb_clear.gif) |
|
![](_gb_images/_gb_sitenav_spacer.gif) |