TR Forums

I want to buy an overpriced macbook pro. I am debating between 8GB or 16GB.
Is it worth the extra $$ to get the 16GB ram or am I better of spending $$$ to get the Core I7 rather than I5?

I generally like to keep a lot of windows open.
-lots of chrome tabs
-word docs
-excel docs
-evernote
-VMware Fusion running windows 10

I currently have a 2011 macbook air with 4GB and im running all those things and its pretty slow.

Which config. More than one i7, i5 combo is available.

If you're going to be running VMs you want more than 8GB. Period.

just brew it! wrote:

If you're going to be running VMs you want more than 8GB. Period.

I was running VMs on my 2015 MacBook and that had 8GB (and a Core M).

Ideally you want 16GB if you want to run VMs locally on a MacBook although your best option is running VMs on a beefy server and accessing them remotely.

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

If you're going to be running VMs you want more than 8GB. Period.

I was running VMs on my 2015 MacBook and that had 8GB (and a Core M).

Ideally you want 16GB if you want to run VMs locally on a MacBook although your best option is running VMs on a beefy server and accessing them remotely.

Given the use case he outlined in the first post, 8GB is gonna be really tight. Depending on exactly what he means by "lots of Chrome tabs", things might be borderline even without the VMs!

I'm also not sure how well Windows 10 is going to work running from a remote server, but I suspect the answer is "not particularly well"...

IMO if you plan to run anything with a modern GUI in a VM while also using the host OS for other tasks, 16GB should be considered a bare minimum. 32GB would be better.

MacOS loves RAM, and VMs love RAM even more. Plus Macbooks are un-upgradable.

Always max the ram out on them.

Always.

I didn't see any 13 inch macbook pro's with Quad's. Unless they bring the u8xxx series I would be hesitant to get one. If you are working with VM's it might be better to spring for the 15 inch. I would without a doubt go 16 gigs over 8 in the 13 inch models.

If you're going to run Fusion (or any other VM host), there are two things you want:
1) as much memory as possible
2) as much disk as possible

The memory thing is obvious. You're using memory for both the host OS and any guest OS' that you choose to run.

The disk thing is non-obvious at first. Windows guests in particular are disk hungry becuase of the never-ending cascade of Windows updates, along with everything else. But either way, you need a reasonably sized guest disk image. But in addition to that, you're going to want to enable automatic snapshots so you can roll back if something breaks. These also take disk space. If you have a small disk, things start to get crowded very fast.

If you'll heavily use the VM you should get a large SSD as your system drive too. I use Hyper-V to set up my install images and the difference is night and day between an SSD and even a 7200 RPM spinner.

Not to mention if you end up starting multiple VMs at once the disk contention pretty much ends spinning disks, whereas SSDs will handle the contended load much better.

None of which is really a concern on a MacBook as they are all driven by hilariously fast PCIe SSDs these days. (But you should still get a large one)

mikedriver wrote:

I want to buy an overpriced macbook pro.

Wouldn't getting all 3 (CPU, RAM, and SSD) be truly overpriced as you wanted in the first place?

thanks all for the responses...
ironically.. I currently still limp along with my 2011 mba with only 4GB ram and i actually run lots of apps (word,xcel,evernote, photos,etc) , lots of chrome tabs (10?) and a fusion vm for win10 . granted it runs a bit slow but it runs.
im certainly not trying to run multiple vms at once.. just a vm for win10 .

macbook pro options are so damn expensive im trying to be wise. sounds like everyone is saying invest in ram first. if I spring for the 16 vs 8, will I really 'notice a difference'. vs springing for the I7 vs I5 (where Im guessing i wouldnt notice the difference until I crossed some threshold of # of apps)

Thanks
MD

mikedriver wrote:

I want to buy an overpriced macbook pro. I am debating between 8GB or 16GB.
Is it worth the extra $$ to get the 16GB ram or am I better of spending $$$ to get the Core I7 rather than I5?

I generally like to keep a lot of windows open.
-lots of chrome tabs
-word docs
-excel docs
-evernote
-VMware Fusion running windows 10

I currently have a 2011 macbook air with 4GB and im running all those things and its pretty slow.

16GB ram
MORE than 250GB SSD

then worry about the cpu last ...

mikedriver wrote:

thanks all for the responses...
ironically.. I currently still limp along with my 2011 mba with only 4GB ram and i actually run lots of apps (word,xcel,evernote, photos,etc) , lots of chrome tabs (10?) and a fusion vm for win10 . granted it runs a bit slow but it runs.
im certainly not trying to run multiple vms at once.. just a vm for win10 .

macbook pro options are so damn expensive im trying to be wise. sounds like everyone is saying invest in ram first. if I spring for the 16 vs 8, will I really 'notice a difference'. vs springing for the I7 vs I5 (where Im guessing i wouldnt notice the difference until I crossed some threshold of # of apps)

Thanks
MD

Agreed, CPU is the least important on that list. It's a nice to have, but not usually a constraint.

just brew it! wrote:

I'm also not sure how well Windows 10 is going to work running from a remote server, but I suspect the answer is "not particularly well"...

I’m on a Eurostar headed to London. I just remoted into a Windows 10 Pro VM on my home ESXi server via my iPad Pro. Performance was excellent via my 4G Tep hotspot.

just brew it! wrote:

IMO if you plan to run anything with a modern GUI in a VM while also using the host OS for other tasks, 16GB should be considered a bare minimum. 32GB would be better.

A decidated VM server is the way to go.

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

IMO if you plan to run anything with a modern GUI in a VM while also using the host OS for other tasks, 16GB should be considered a bare minimum. 32GB would be better.

A decidated VM server is the way to go.

1. Given that the OP is looking at a MBP, I assume mobility is part of the use case. Using a dedicated VM server will require a reliable, high-speed mobile broadband connection at all times, which may be an unwarranted assumption.

2. Use case for the VM is not a "headless" server; as I've already pointed out once, OP specifically mentioned Windows 10. Even with a fast, low-latency broadband connection, responsiveness of the UI is going to suffer.

3. Setting up or leasing a dedicated VM server costs money. (Though I suppose if the OP is considering a MBP in the first place, they're OK with throwing money down a hole... )

just brew it! wrote:

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

IMO if you plan to run anything with a modern GUI in a VM while also using the host OS for other tasks, 16GB should be considered a bare minimum. 32GB would be better.

A decidated VM server is the way to go.

1. Given that the OP is looking at a MBP, I assume mobility is part of the use case. Using a dedicated VM server will require a reliable, high-speed mobile broadband connection at all times, which may be an unwarranted assumption.

2. Use case for the VM is not a "headless" server; as I've already pointed out once, OP specifically mentioned Windows 10. Even with a fast, low-latency broadband connection, responsiveness of the UI is going to suffer.

3. Setting up or leasing a dedicated VM server costs money. (Though I suppose if the OP is considering a MBP in the first place, they're OK with throwing money down a hole... )

You totally glazed over the fact I was on a high speed train half way across the world and remote performance was fine.

Local VM’s are passé. AWS or a dedicated home/work server are the way to go. Is cost a factor when a MPB budget is in play?

End User wrote:

You totally glazed over the fact I was on a high speed train half way across the world and remote performance was fine.

Local VM’s are passé. AWS or a dedicated home/work server are the way to go. Is cost a factor when a MPB budget is in play?

Recommending a remote VM solution before we even know what the OP wants to do with his Windows 10 VM and what his mobile connectivity options are is ridiculous. Other people's use cases are not necessarily the same as yours.

Should it be considered? Sure. Does it make sense in this case? Maybe, or maybe not. I'm leaning not, but let's wait for the OP to clarify before passing final judgement.

just brew it! wrote:

End User wrote:

1. Given that the OP is looking at a MBP, I assume mobility is part of the use case. Using a dedicated VM server will require a reliable, high-speed mobile broadband connection at all times, which may be an unwarranted assumption.

Recommending a remote VM solution before we even know what the OP wants to do with his Windows 10 VM and what his mobile connectivity options are is ridiculous. Other people's use cases are not necessarily the same as yours.

Should it be considered? Sure. Does it make sense in this case? Maybe, or maybe not. I'm leaning not, but let's wait for the OP to clarify before passing final judgement.

I would not do it if it was not as good as local.

End User wrote:

You totally glazed over the fact I was on a high speed train half way across the world and remote performance was fine.

Yeah, you were on a premier rail line in the world's financial capital.

Why would JBI be warranted in assuming this was normal?

End User wrote:

I would not do it if it was not as good as local.

I keep hearing a lot about you, and how good you have it.

Thanks?

Glorious wrote:

End User wrote:

You totally glazed over the fact I was on a high speed train half way across the world and remote performance was fine.

Yeah, you were on a premier rail line in the world's financial capital.

Why would JBI be warranted in assuming this was normal?

End User wrote:

I would not do it if it was not as good as local.

I keep hearing a lot about you, and how good you have it.

Thanks?

You are missing the point. There is no fracking free wifi on the Eurostar. I was on a generic phone connection @ 200+ km/h - the worst possible mobile connectivity connection yet remote VM performance was acceptable - from a server in Canada!!! If performance is that good in that situation it should be amazeballs from home.

OK, that's quite enough. Ugly posts sent to the bit bucket.

End User wrote:

You are missing the point. There is no fracking free wifi on the Eurostar. I was on a generic phone connection @ 200+ km/h - the worst possible mobile connectivity connection yet remote VM performance was acceptable - from a server in Canada!!! If performance is that good in that situation it should be amazeballs from home.

Well, I most certainly did "miss the point" about "free wifi", seeing as how that has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that you can't just assume everyone has better connectivity than a chap in London on a rail corridor used by all sorts of executives and the like.

End User wrote:

You can travel cheap in Europe.

Huh? I don't think Acela is "expensive" either, but I'd make exactly the same point about it.

End User wrote:

And if an admin has a problem with that then they don’t travel on a budget.

Look, all of sudden it's all "Free", "cheap", and "budget" with you.

Which is odd, because I didn't say anything about cost. The closest I came was "financial", to make the point that London (much like NYC) is one of the most interconnected places on the planet.

Geez. Did I hurt a sore spot?

To be clear, have you ever been in a place where the roads don't exist yet, to support your stuff and the only connectivity available to anyone is satellite, in which you have the wonderful choice of picking between ~100 ms of latency with sub-dialup bandwidth or DSL-bandwidth and ~600+ ms?

When you are outside.

I know people who do or have done that sort of thing.

Compared to that, what? A train from -London- to -Paris- is, just, like, the worst scenario imaginable?

OK, this equine is no more. It has joined the choir eternal.