The 2011 13" Macbook Pros can support 16GB of RAM:
I'm running Aperture (and FCPX, Logic, Motion, DVD Studio Pro) on a 13" MBP 2011 with 8GB of RAM. They all run great. I'm sure 16GB would be better, but not 5x better, which is how much more 16GB would cost at this point in time, as compared to 8GB.
Best course of action? Buy 8GB now, for next to nothing, then when 16GB comes down to a price proportional to the performance increase ($80?), upgrade if the 8GB isn't working for you.
First off, yes, you can go to 16GB. Not from Apple, but third parties do provide 8GB DIMMs that can take your machine to 16GB.
I think the issue, though, is whether or not it's worth it, and that is something that only you can decide, which is why you haven't been given a clear answer.
Why is it only something you can decide? Well, for one we don't know what you intend to use this machine for. If you're using it to browse the web and check email then it's absolutely overkill. If you're a video pro and are planning on editing HD video on your machine then it's not since that kind of application thrives on (needs?) as much memory as it can get.
Then there's price. 8GB DIMMs are uncommon and (relatively) expensive - at least they're more than twice the price of 4GB DIMMs - so there's a price premium to pay. No one here is going to know whether that cost is trivial or a burden on your finances.
So, as you can see, there are many variables that we can't answer, so we can't tell you what to do.
If you want a personal opinion, unless you know you're using an app that wants more memory I'd buy the 8GB machine and run with that for now and see how it goes. It's no harder to upgrade to 16GB in 6 months time if you find you need it - plus, by then the price may have dropped and you same some $$s, too.
b j t wrote:
The maximum is 8GB.
No, it is 16GB. Officially Apple only tested up to 8GB and only supports that much, but other sources have verified reliable operation to 16GB. That is why 16GB kits exist at OWC, where I usually buy my RAM.
so my question is is 16 gb good or too much i have a new 13" macbook pro i7 . i like to work with i photo and aperture and idvd.
The answer to this question depends entirely on how hard you push the computer. If you are running Aperture alone and editing and exporting raw files, you don't need 16GB. But two things would make you need 16GB. If you like to run multiple RAM-hungry apps at the same time, you'll need a lot more RAM than running only one at a time. Or if you started using an app like Photoshop and pile layers onto your photos, or turn them into huge panoramas, then you might speed things up with 16GB RAM.
Here is a demonstration of the speed difference 16GB can make in a MacBook Pro:
But remember that you won't see that speed if you don't edit files that big, and also some of the speed came from putting an SSD in place of the spinning hard drive, and his MBP is pretty high spec.
Personally I would put in 16GB only because the kits have gotten so cheap!
His graph starts at $1600 and ends at $930 in August 2011, but 5 months later the price for that is just $249 now. I wouldn't be able to say no to that.
didnt answer my question . yes you did have informartion not helpfull it didnt even apply to my situation. i dont know what to say . other than. ok thats cool. not to sound like i don't care. ok i don't. i was hopping for a simple solution to my question . its not a probleam. its just a matter of should i or shouldent i. if you have a mac and it runs slow while running all the programs i explained above like i dvd iphoto and aperture. and u feel like you wish you had more ram . something like 16gb . maybe you would see my question and maybe would of answered or told a friend and he might answer my question. who knows. thats what i was shooting for . who whants a mac and have to wate for single programs to run at a time . in that case i would of stayed at 8gb or maybe at 4gb .some models do come with that size ram . thanxs anyway.
No one here can give you a "simple answer". We can keep asking you questions about intended use, and you can guess at the answers. But in the end it will be what it will be.
You cannot solidly answer our questions, it seems, about being short of memory now. 8 GB of RAM is $50 at macsales.com or crucial.com. If $250 is too high (nice charts, Network23), just buy the 8 GB and see how it works out for you as most people particiapting in this forum with MBP have not paid that price and cannot give actual experience.
i did say what i was plannign to use it for. and all i wanted to know is wass 16gb overkill . maybe if you had some kind of experience in my situation or have used aperture iphoto and idvd you would have known how much ram it takes to run . lets leave this discussion for someone who actually use this types of programs and knows what size ram it took to run and maybe have some insight on what would be ideal. thanxs
Have you dreamed about having 16GB of RAM in your computer? Tired of all the witty responses you're getting on the forum? Are you losing sleep over not having enough memory? Jokes aside, if you want to get it, get it. It's not like it will hurt your computer if you get more and have a compatible machine. Only you determine how you spend your money.
My roommate in college does graphic design and builds his own custom cars for NFS: Shift on PC, and he uses all 16GB of memory. He doesn't use a Mac but built his own PC. Still, good to know.
If you're looking for faster startup times on your computer and booting zillions of applications, memory won't help as far as startup. It'll manage it well but you should look into a Solid State Drive.
i wish i could ask for the mngr or a geek specialist. its sad that most of my replys don't have any insight in what im asking . my question was simple . all i was expecting if any is a simple answer . would 16gb be overkill. well i guess some people spend too much time on there pc and cant wate to answer somones question to maybe feel needed or help someone in distress. who knows . in my google search i found out that aperture runs efficient at 10gb and i photo runs at 2gb also mic's takes 2gb at a grand total of 14gb . belive it or not. howe ever if you had 16gb of ram and had a macbook pro i7 if it even makes a deffrence . you would know this. oh thats who i was hoping to answer my question . so if you know nothing about a particular then leave it to those that do thanks.
didnt answer my question . yes you did have informartion not helpfull it didnt even apply to my situation. i dont know what to say . other than. ok thats cool. not to sound like i don't care. ok i don't. i was hopping for a simple solution to my question . its not a probleam. its just a matter of should i or shouldent i. if you have a mac and it runs slow while running all the programs i explained above like i dvd iphoto and aperture.
My best guess is that you are an 8GB kind of user.
So why would I say 16GB? Every laptop I have owned needed to have its RAM maxed out...eventually. If my current usage didn't need it, my usage with the higher system requirements of apps 2 years from now WILL need it. And because there are only two RAM slots available, if you install 2 4GB chips now and want to go to 16GB later you have to rip out the 2x4GB to be able to put in 2x8GB, leaving you with 2x4GB with nothing to do except maybe sell them. So I like to just upgrade once instead of twice, pay once instead of twice, and that means I max out as soon as it is affordable.
Again, if you want the easy answer, upgrade to 8GB and maybe that will last you until you get a new laptop.
1. You are a troll.
2. You didn't state what applications you run
3. You are a troll.
4. iDVD, Aperture and iPhoto can quite happily run on a 4GB machine. Will they run better with more memory? maybe but are you planning on running these all at the same time? or separately? Do you have 1,000 pictures or 1,000,000 since that will make more difference than anything else. Single images rarely run more than a few megabytes, so even a 4GB machine can easily handle that, but if you're trying to track millions of images then more memory is going to help.
Since you clearly can't appreciate the scope of your question nor the value of the answers you have recieved, please re-read my point #1.
Single images rarely run more than a few megabytes, so even a 4GB machine can easily handle that...
That's actually not totally true since the "few megabytes" is the JPEG compressed file storage space. When an image editor opens an image, it must uncompress it into RAM, and when you are opening a file from a 10+ megapixel camera, it won't need just a "few megabytes" anymore.
When an image editor opens an image, it must uncompress it into RAM, and when you are opening a file from a 10+ megapixel camera, it won't need just a "few megabytes" anymore
True, of course. However, last time I checked, JPEG wasn't getting 1000x compression ratios out of digital photos.
A 10 megapixel image will frequently take between 1 and 2 MB on disk *. Even if JPEG compressed the file 1000 times, that means it's still only 1GB of image data.
The same image in RAW format could be 10 to 15 MB. RAW is the actual image sensor data and typically isn't compressed, so gives a fairer representation of the image data.
Therefore, I stand by my statement. Even a 4 GB machine can run an image editing application that can handle most images, although there are caveats, of course.
That's why I asked the question of the image library, since any image app is going to want to load thumbnail images into memory, before you get to any individual image editing, and that index size is based on the number of images. A thousand thumbnails is no big deal, but a million might stress a 4GB machine.