8GB RAM enough for 2015 MacBook Pro?

[sekker]

I see nothing you are doing where 16GB is critical.

I admit that I like having 16GB, but I've had to use 8GB 'loaner' machines, and the difference was not really noticeable in my uses that are even more RAM intensive.

[jdc]

Im in the 8GB is OK camp as well.

Not sure I have seen 2015s there in ages? Budget? As long as you arent in NY, adorama has some deals on 2017s...

[clay]

8gb is fine. If the $$ isn't an issue, get the 16 just for a little future-proofing.

I use an 8gb 2015 MacBook Pro for pretty demanding audio recording. Works fine.

[Fritz]

I've a '13 MBA w/8G. I am working the same as you do with the exception of mixing music with ProTools. Up to about 100 tracks with as many if not more processor draining plugs. And the version and the MBA are not "approved" last I looked.
I have seldom had an issue.

[Zoidberg]

RAMd®d wrote:
So it's 16Gs minimum for me.

Agreed. And agreed with the maxim of "you can never have enough RAM" -- in that, you won't regret having "too much" but you'll always regret not getting more.

[samintx]

cbelt3 wrote:
You can never have enough RAM.

Exactly what my mother told me!

Seriously :agree:

Was always told that thru the computer years

[jdc]

The only relevant posts are Lew, sekker, clay and fitz. All real world users.

The OS hitting the drive might happen, but newer MBPs don’t have a “SSD” like the one in your current MBP — which is prob maxes around 280 MB/s. The “flash” type drives in MBPs are getting 3000 MB/s — a 10X increase in speed.

[Sarcany]

jdc wrote:
The only relevant posts are Lew, sekker, clay and fitz. All real world users.

The OS hitting the drive might happen, but newer MBPs don’t have a “SSD” like the one in your current MBP — which is prob maxes around 280 MB/s. The “flash” type drives in MBPs are getting 3000 MB/s — a 10X increase in speed.

"SSD" and "Flash" can be used interchangeably in this context... And Apple is phasing out the word "flash" from their tech specs since "SSD" is the more commonly understood word.

...A mid-2009 would have a SATA 3 bus (whole big kerfluffle about Apple having to issue a firmware update to unlock SATA 3 speeds), which would max out an average SSD. Could easily get 700MB per second.

The 2015 MBP (with > 256GB storage) can hit 1.4GB per second read speeds. Very fast, but only about twice as fast as the 2009 with 3rd party SSD upgrade. (The flash modules are slower with 256GB or less storage.)

If you're running High Sierra, you can easily detect a decrease in performance of a SSD in a 2015 "silver" MBP, especially if you're running the latest Office and Adobe apps. If you've got FileVault enabled with APFS, it's slow enough that you'll feel the difference with every task, even on a brand new 2017 MBP.

...And BTW: Apple striped two flash drives to get 3000MB per second on the new iMac Pro. You're not going to get that kind of speed out of a Mac laptop's flash drive.

[NewtonMP2100]

....4GB is not enough....8GB is just enough/adequate [ for regular to light use ].......16GB is ideal and for futureproofing........

[jdc]

Actually a mid 2009 MBP has SATA II. I don’t remember the software thing but sure.

impossible to get 700 MB/s with a single SSD. Max rated SSD is 550 MBs.

And the last test I read at barefeats had the 2016 MBP scoring 3000 read/2200 write. 2015s were slower — 2000/1500.

Regardless of all that — posters above have real world use with 8 GB saying it works fine. Can’t get a better opinion.