Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

chabig

macrumors G4
Sep 6, 2002
11,317
9,009
Don't bother. Unless a machine is severely RAM constained, performance isn't dependent upon how much RAM it has--even less so with SSD machines. A crude analogy is your car--it's performance (of course I'm talking about speed, not range) doesn't depend upon the size of the fuel tank.

But if you must, download and run Geekbench. https://www.geekbench.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: camelia

New_Mac_Smell

macrumors 68000
Oct 17, 2016
1,931
1,552
Shanghai
As above. But just look in the memory pressure graph of the activity monitor, assuming it was struggling before it should no longer struggle. Otherwise RAM makes diddly squat difference to the speed of a computer, that's dependent on the CPU.

To add another explanation because why not. CPU calculates everything, so the faster the frequency the more calculations it can do per second. Whilst working it puts data into the RAM, like a working out sheet; so the more RAM it has to work with, the more it can put floating variables into and use it when it needs it. The storage device provides applications which give the CPU instructions, so the faster the storage the quicker this is able to send and receive said instructions. A fast CPU and SSD can manage with very little RAM, RAM is more important in a slower machine or when physically blocking RAM in cases such as virtual machines; or running serious CPU calculations such as renders.

For this reason you cannot measure any performance difference as it doesn't directly make a difference. If the system was struggling before then adding more RAM will reduce CPU stress and artificially provide greater performance. However if the system wasn't stressed before then you won't notice any meaningful difference besides battery life.

Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig and camelia
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.