just upgraded iMac late 2015 ram from 12 GB to 28 GB and it became too slow to use
I had added an 8GB RAM along with existing 4GB when I purchased this iMac in 2016. For all this long it was running fine when lately I thought to add more RAM. So yesterday I added 2 more 8GB RAM modules and as I turned the system on it starts running to slow.
Apps which were running smooth earlier are now running too slow.
On Civilization VI i can practically see every frame moving every second, which earlier was running very fine.
Old config RAM
- Slot 1 from bottom 4GB - system default RAM
- Slot 3 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
Now added RAM
- Slot 2 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
- Slot 4 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
imac upgrade memory
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I had added an 8GB RAM along with existing 4GB when I purchased this iMac in 2016. For all this long it was running fine when lately I thought to add more RAM. So yesterday I added 2 more 8GB RAM modules and as I turned the system on it starts running to slow.
Apps which were running smooth earlier are now running too slow.
On Civilization VI i can practically see every frame moving every second, which earlier was running very fine.
Old config RAM
- Slot 1 from bottom 4GB - system default RAM
- Slot 3 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
Now added RAM
- Slot 2 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
- Slot 4 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
imac upgrade memory
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Why would adding RAM change a game? Seems your system not only didn’t need it, but has more things it’s hanging on to. If you remove the memory, does the performance return?
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I had added an 8GB RAM along with existing 4GB when I purchased this iMac in 2016. For all this long it was running fine when lately I thought to add more RAM. So yesterday I added 2 more 8GB RAM modules and as I turned the system on it starts running to slow.
Apps which were running smooth earlier are now running too slow.
On Civilization VI i can practically see every frame moving every second, which earlier was running very fine.
Old config RAM
- Slot 1 from bottom 4GB - system default RAM
- Slot 3 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
Now added RAM
- Slot 2 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
- Slot 4 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
imac upgrade memory
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I had added an 8GB RAM along with existing 4GB when I purchased this iMac in 2016. For all this long it was running fine when lately I thought to add more RAM. So yesterday I added 2 more 8GB RAM modules and as I turned the system on it starts running to slow.
Apps which were running smooth earlier are now running too slow.
On Civilization VI i can practically see every frame moving every second, which earlier was running very fine.
Old config RAM
- Slot 1 from bottom 4GB - system default RAM
- Slot 3 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
Now added RAM
- Slot 2 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
- Slot 4 from bottom 8GB - Hyper Kingston 1867 DDR3 RAM SODIMM
imac upgrade memory
imac upgrade memory
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
edited 10 hours ago
At0mic
2,30421017
2,30421017
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
asked 11 hours ago
Varun VermaVarun Verma
161
161
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Varun Verma is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Why would adding RAM change a game? Seems your system not only didn’t need it, but has more things it’s hanging on to. If you remove the memory, does the performance return?
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Why would adding RAM change a game? Seems your system not only didn’t need it, but has more things it’s hanging on to. If you remove the memory, does the performance return?
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
Why would adding RAM change a game? Seems your system not only didn’t need it, but has more things it’s hanging on to. If you remove the memory, does the performance return?
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
Why would adding RAM change a game? Seems your system not only didn’t need it, but has more things it’s hanging on to. If you remove the memory, does the performance return?
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You should have matching DIMMS in order to maximize performance / dual channel functionality. Also note that RAM is going to operate at the lowest speed of all the DIMMS, which is another reason why they should all match.
That being said, it shouldn't be operating that slowly. I would start with removing the original 4 GB stick, possibly doing a PRAM reset, and maybe shuffling around which slots they're installed in, since the problem only starting showing when you used the two vacant slots with the new RAM, if I'm reading correctly. Also confirm that the system is recognizing all the memory you installed.
Finally, it's possible you got bad/defective memory. You can also try running diagnostics to rule out logic board issues etc.
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
add a comment |
I wouldn’t add memory to a system unless and until the memory pressure runs into the yellow or worse. More parts means more chance of failure, less chance that good compression and swap happen.
In fact, we’re seeing the same thing on 2017 iMac and newer in production. We get Apple NVMe SSD and they are so fast, the stock 8 GB of RAM is faster in almost all cases than bumping up to 16 or 32 GB of RAM.
There are some very limited cases where you need more memory, but generally, you want to not run web browsers and other buggy / leaky code and adding more RAM just gives them more room to make a bigger mess before you clean them up.
Even Photoshop and Illustrator - crank their undo buffers down to an accurate size for the needs instead of giving them 8 GB of RAM for scratch so they keep around undo from 4 hours ago.
These days, the performance bottleneck is almost in order:
- The human
- The human not cleaning up software (think 50+ browser tabs, with all sorts of JavaScript trackers running in each tab, web apps, node apps, electron apps, etc..)
- Just bad software (things that take CPU in the background, constantly wait for network tracking and can’t work offline or communicate only when there’s something to do)
- Network slow
- Server slow (SMB / local servers)
- Storage slow (especially non SSD / non NVMe storage)
- Maybe now you might need a CPU bump or some more RAM - but maybe not, so measure before and after to change setup.
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
1
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "118"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Varun Verma is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fapple.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f352828%2fjust-upgraded-imac-late-2015-ram-from-12-gb-to-28-gb-and-it-became-too-slow-to-u%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You should have matching DIMMS in order to maximize performance / dual channel functionality. Also note that RAM is going to operate at the lowest speed of all the DIMMS, which is another reason why they should all match.
That being said, it shouldn't be operating that slowly. I would start with removing the original 4 GB stick, possibly doing a PRAM reset, and maybe shuffling around which slots they're installed in, since the problem only starting showing when you used the two vacant slots with the new RAM, if I'm reading correctly. Also confirm that the system is recognizing all the memory you installed.
Finally, it's possible you got bad/defective memory. You can also try running diagnostics to rule out logic board issues etc.
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
add a comment |
You should have matching DIMMS in order to maximize performance / dual channel functionality. Also note that RAM is going to operate at the lowest speed of all the DIMMS, which is another reason why they should all match.
That being said, it shouldn't be operating that slowly. I would start with removing the original 4 GB stick, possibly doing a PRAM reset, and maybe shuffling around which slots they're installed in, since the problem only starting showing when you used the two vacant slots with the new RAM, if I'm reading correctly. Also confirm that the system is recognizing all the memory you installed.
Finally, it's possible you got bad/defective memory. You can also try running diagnostics to rule out logic board issues etc.
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
add a comment |
You should have matching DIMMS in order to maximize performance / dual channel functionality. Also note that RAM is going to operate at the lowest speed of all the DIMMS, which is another reason why they should all match.
That being said, it shouldn't be operating that slowly. I would start with removing the original 4 GB stick, possibly doing a PRAM reset, and maybe shuffling around which slots they're installed in, since the problem only starting showing when you used the two vacant slots with the new RAM, if I'm reading correctly. Also confirm that the system is recognizing all the memory you installed.
Finally, it's possible you got bad/defective memory. You can also try running diagnostics to rule out logic board issues etc.
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
You should have matching DIMMS in order to maximize performance / dual channel functionality. Also note that RAM is going to operate at the lowest speed of all the DIMMS, which is another reason why they should all match.
That being said, it shouldn't be operating that slowly. I would start with removing the original 4 GB stick, possibly doing a PRAM reset, and maybe shuffling around which slots they're installed in, since the problem only starting showing when you used the two vacant slots with the new RAM, if I'm reading correctly. Also confirm that the system is recognizing all the memory you installed.
Finally, it's possible you got bad/defective memory. You can also try running diagnostics to rule out logic board issues etc.
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
edited 9 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
answered 11 hours ago
Hefewe1zenHefewe1zen
942410
942410
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
Are you able to make a benchmark and measure matching / non-matching DIMM? It was a thing back in Core2 Intel chip and logic board days, but for the last 5 years this has been a rounding error or zero measurable change.
– bmike♦
10 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
It depends on what you're doing, but having more memory bandwidth in general shouldn't hurt. Gaming and general purpose usage isn't going to be affected much by this, but simulations, compiling/developing, etc could definitely. That being said whatever happened to the OP doesn't seem normal. Could be some weird incompatibility or quirk as I've seen Apple hardware be particularly finicky when it comes to RAM.
– Hefewe1zen
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
Agreed on older hardware. For me 2014 / 2015 is when all that went away. You’re right, something really strong is happening here. Also, my answer might be better off on a more general question. There’s going to be something on frame rate drastically dropping like a chrome tab or something just pegging the CPU and nothing about RAM or you’ve nailed it and it’s flakey RAM. We’ll need OP to triage a little more.
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
1
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
@Hefewe1zen Here some benchmarks which show that the whole single vs. dual channel performance is simply irrelevant for consumers. Some HPC code is carefully enough written that you can see performance gains from more memory bandwidth, but in practice latency and most of all quantity is what matters for memory. (Compilers also don't improve noticeably either - at least not when I last played around with that for compiling HotSpot).
– Voo
6 hours ago
add a comment |
I wouldn’t add memory to a system unless and until the memory pressure runs into the yellow or worse. More parts means more chance of failure, less chance that good compression and swap happen.
In fact, we’re seeing the same thing on 2017 iMac and newer in production. We get Apple NVMe SSD and they are so fast, the stock 8 GB of RAM is faster in almost all cases than bumping up to 16 or 32 GB of RAM.
There are some very limited cases where you need more memory, but generally, you want to not run web browsers and other buggy / leaky code and adding more RAM just gives them more room to make a bigger mess before you clean them up.
Even Photoshop and Illustrator - crank their undo buffers down to an accurate size for the needs instead of giving them 8 GB of RAM for scratch so they keep around undo from 4 hours ago.
These days, the performance bottleneck is almost in order:
- The human
- The human not cleaning up software (think 50+ browser tabs, with all sorts of JavaScript trackers running in each tab, web apps, node apps, electron apps, etc..)
- Just bad software (things that take CPU in the background, constantly wait for network tracking and can’t work offline or communicate only when there’s something to do)
- Network slow
- Server slow (SMB / local servers)
- Storage slow (especially non SSD / non NVMe storage)
- Maybe now you might need a CPU bump or some more RAM - but maybe not, so measure before and after to change setup.
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
1
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I wouldn’t add memory to a system unless and until the memory pressure runs into the yellow or worse. More parts means more chance of failure, less chance that good compression and swap happen.
In fact, we’re seeing the same thing on 2017 iMac and newer in production. We get Apple NVMe SSD and they are so fast, the stock 8 GB of RAM is faster in almost all cases than bumping up to 16 or 32 GB of RAM.
There are some very limited cases where you need more memory, but generally, you want to not run web browsers and other buggy / leaky code and adding more RAM just gives them more room to make a bigger mess before you clean them up.
Even Photoshop and Illustrator - crank their undo buffers down to an accurate size for the needs instead of giving them 8 GB of RAM for scratch so they keep around undo from 4 hours ago.
These days, the performance bottleneck is almost in order:
- The human
- The human not cleaning up software (think 50+ browser tabs, with all sorts of JavaScript trackers running in each tab, web apps, node apps, electron apps, etc..)
- Just bad software (things that take CPU in the background, constantly wait for network tracking and can’t work offline or communicate only when there’s something to do)
- Network slow
- Server slow (SMB / local servers)
- Storage slow (especially non SSD / non NVMe storage)
- Maybe now you might need a CPU bump or some more RAM - but maybe not, so measure before and after to change setup.
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
1
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I wouldn’t add memory to a system unless and until the memory pressure runs into the yellow or worse. More parts means more chance of failure, less chance that good compression and swap happen.
In fact, we’re seeing the same thing on 2017 iMac and newer in production. We get Apple NVMe SSD and they are so fast, the stock 8 GB of RAM is faster in almost all cases than bumping up to 16 or 32 GB of RAM.
There are some very limited cases where you need more memory, but generally, you want to not run web browsers and other buggy / leaky code and adding more RAM just gives them more room to make a bigger mess before you clean them up.
Even Photoshop and Illustrator - crank their undo buffers down to an accurate size for the needs instead of giving them 8 GB of RAM for scratch so they keep around undo from 4 hours ago.
These days, the performance bottleneck is almost in order:
- The human
- The human not cleaning up software (think 50+ browser tabs, with all sorts of JavaScript trackers running in each tab, web apps, node apps, electron apps, etc..)
- Just bad software (things that take CPU in the background, constantly wait for network tracking and can’t work offline or communicate only when there’s something to do)
- Network slow
- Server slow (SMB / local servers)
- Storage slow (especially non SSD / non NVMe storage)
- Maybe now you might need a CPU bump or some more RAM - but maybe not, so measure before and after to change setup.
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
I wouldn’t add memory to a system unless and until the memory pressure runs into the yellow or worse. More parts means more chance of failure, less chance that good compression and swap happen.
In fact, we’re seeing the same thing on 2017 iMac and newer in production. We get Apple NVMe SSD and they are so fast, the stock 8 GB of RAM is faster in almost all cases than bumping up to 16 or 32 GB of RAM.
There are some very limited cases where you need more memory, but generally, you want to not run web browsers and other buggy / leaky code and adding more RAM just gives them more room to make a bigger mess before you clean them up.
Even Photoshop and Illustrator - crank their undo buffers down to an accurate size for the needs instead of giving them 8 GB of RAM for scratch so they keep around undo from 4 hours ago.
These days, the performance bottleneck is almost in order:
- The human
- The human not cleaning up software (think 50+ browser tabs, with all sorts of JavaScript trackers running in each tab, web apps, node apps, electron apps, etc..)
- Just bad software (things that take CPU in the background, constantly wait for network tracking and can’t work offline or communicate only when there’s something to do)
- Network slow
- Server slow (SMB / local servers)
- Storage slow (especially non SSD / non NVMe storage)
- Maybe now you might need a CPU bump or some more RAM - but maybe not, so measure before and after to change setup.
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
answered 10 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
159k46286620
159k46286620
1
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
1
1
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
for me #4 would slide up to #2 most of the time... I've got a sketchy router
– dwightk
10 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
Yes - there are lots of people that can quash some or all of these. I was saying if you took 200 people that you meet on the street and they say “my mac is slow” - this list would be my experience. Sketchy network can really wreak havoc - specially inconsistent DNS and things you don’t expect to be checking the network (like an IDE / code editor - but little snitch will show those apps “chatting away” reporting on each thing you do in the editor)
– bmike♦
9 hours ago
1
1
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
Well #2 is directly improved by having more memory available. #3 is also again improved by more memory usually. So I guess, by your own list, adding more RAM is the most useful thing one can do? (personally I'd put the "non SSD storage" part at the top of the list, but considering how cheap memory is these days, there's really no reason to skimp on it).
– Voo
6 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
I would disagree. If you have bad software, adding more ram so #2 and #3 are harder to fix when you don’t confront the bad software sooner. I see your point @voo for one specific mac - if you assume you can’t change the software you run, throwing more RAM delays the pain or the eventual restart. The problem with general advice is RAM is a choice on over half the hardware you make when you buy and people are buying too much IMO out of fear that they can’t have good software choices.
– bmike♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Varun Verma is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Varun Verma is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Varun Verma is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Varun Verma is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Different!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fapple.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f352828%2fjust-upgraded-imac-late-2015-ram-from-12-gb-to-28-gb-and-it-became-too-slow-to-u%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Why would adding RAM change a game? Seems your system not only didn’t need it, but has more things it’s hanging on to. If you remove the memory, does the performance return?
– bmike♦
10 hours ago