Buying a new macbook pro - is RAM most important? or is it Core i5 processor?

[jossol]

I'm planning to buy a new macbook, and can't figure out if I should get the 13 inch 2.66GHz dual core with an upgrade to 8GB ram, or instead get the Core i5 15 inch at 2.4GHz and 4GB ram. I'm switching from a PC. Will use VMWare Fusion mainly for MSoffice (MSWord/Excel) and Outlook only. Posts I've read seem to conflict on RAM, many say its most important for VMWare, others say max 1GB allocated, and that too much allocated to Windows boot actually degrades performance. Any guidance appreciated!

[rebootuser · Accepted solution]

Hi Jossol. Personally I'd always say the more RAM the better when it comes to running a desktop based vm environment. I run a Core2Duo 2GHz with just 2GB of RAM on a testing machine and the CPU is barely touched. It's the same as in our ESX environment, RAM is consumed at a much higher rate than CPU, especially if just using a vm with Office etc.

However, to be honest it sounds as if both options will do what you want with very little trouble. As a CPU is generally a lot more expensive to upgrade than RAM (generally cheaper and more convenient to purchase a new laptop) it may be the better option to go with the Core i5 option now and then upgrade RAM when the next release of Windows arrives and is bound to demand even more memory to run.

Regards

Owen

If you found this or any other post helpful please consider the use of the Helpful/Correct buttons to award points

[asatoran]

... Will use VMWare Fusion mainly for MSoffice (MSWord/Excel) and Outlook only....

If you have enough RAM for OSX and the virtual machine, then more physical RAM on the host will not make the virtual machine run faster. Often people advise more physical RAM because they want to run multiple simultaneous VMs. In your case, if you're only going to run one Windows VM, then allocating 1-2GB of RAM to the VM still gives 2-3GB of RAM for OSX. For "basic" Word/Excel/Outlook, this may be enough for you. Larger documents can use more RAM. Windows 7 and Vista use more RAM than XP, so that can also be an issue.

...others say max 1GB allocated, and that too much allocated to Windows boot actually degrades performance....

In my experience, 1GB of RAM for an XP VM, 1.5-2GB of RAM for a Vista/7 VM. I've read the same, that allocating too much RAM could make it worse, but I find Vista/7 needs almost 1GB just for itself, so 1GB allocated doesn't leave much for apps. (XP uses around 300-400MB of RAM, depending on your AV program, so over half a gig left for apps.) Allocate more RAM if you will open more or larger documents, or your Outlook PST is large, but start with the above figures. Me personally, my Win7 VM w/MSOffice 2010 I have allocated 2GB of RAM and it runs fine. On my Macbook Pro (2.4GHz C2D, 4GB RAM) I cannot open too many OSX apps while the VM is running, but it is acceptable for me. Speed of CPU has not been a factor as I do not do anything CPU intensive in the VM. (No games, no Photoshop, no Autocad, etc.) C2D is more than adequate to run MSOffice.

YMMV of course, but If all you're going to do in the VM is MSOffice, then you probably won't see a difference. However, as suggested, it is easier to upgrade RAM later so the Core i5 is probably better long term unless you need the RAM right now.

[admin]

can't figure out if I should get the 13 inch 2.66GHz dual core with an upgrade to 8GB ram, or instead get the Core i5 15 inch at 2.4GHz and 4GB ram

Personally the deciding factor for me between these two would be the screen size - do you value portability (13") or screen space (15")? I agree with others that either machine will probably do what you want.

Abstractly, RAM usually has a much bigger impact than CPU, unless you're doing serious number crunching. Going from 4 to 8 GB allows OS X to keep more things cached, even if the memory is not directly used by the virtual machine or by running programs. I would favor more RAM and a slower CPU rather than the reverse.

As for the argument about getting the i5 for future-proofing, I'm not convinced. Assuming a somewhat recent CPU, it's actually pretty far down on the list of things I care about - RAM, disk space, GPU, and screen are all above it. Since this is a laptop, GPU and screen are not upgradable and would matter far more to me. I would also consider getting a base 13" and later upgrading the RAM if I found I needed it and possibly after prices had come down.

too much allocated to Windows boot actually degrades performance

It's not that too much is allocated to Windows, it's that too little remains for OS X. Having more RAM makes it easier to avoid this scenario.