16GB m1 pro is hot and fan is running for 75% of my normal workload,battery last only 10 hours

[idktbh]

first week single synthetic benchmarks: it's 2x powerful than a 66,000 bucks Mac Pro!!!
a week later : you're using it wrong!!!

m1 excels in single task benchmarks but struggle to multitask, the op workflow ins't even that heavy

 

[trifid]

So all the M1 wonders and excitement basically is bottlenecked by the 16gb RAM. Such a shame.

 

[Sanpete]

first week single synthetic benchmarks: it's 2x powerful than a 66,000 bucks Mac Pro!!!
a week later : you're using it wrong!!!

That didn't happen.

m1 excels in single task benchmarks but struggle to multitask, the op workflow ins't even that heavy

So all the M1 wonders and excitement basically is bottlenecked by the 16gb RAM. Such a shame.

The M1 gets outstanding performance in multitasking for a base-level machine. The OP's usage is very heavy for such a machine.

Apparently there needs to be an explanation posted at the top of every MacRumors forum page that 16GB is the same cap for the base MBP that was there before, and that the M1 does far more with it than its predecessors. For the vast majority of people that's the opposite of a shame.

 

[vddobrev]

I'm a pro user but I don't understand this line of questioning. Does no 'regular' consumer open a ton of tabs when shopping and looking and different reviews, etc? 10 tabs is nothing, sorry. It seems a perfectly reasonable use case. Looking at some personal examples I know some of my family members that are not techie also have a ton of tabs open in this same example.

Fair enough, but you are bound by the hardware that you have. So, either adjust your usage, or get a better Pro machine with more RAM.

 

[bill-p]

Not hard to understand those claims in the contexts where they're true, which are many.

Yeah, and when those contexts are asked to be elaborated, it just turns out most of those people who got 32GB machines didn't really "need" all 32GB all at once all the time.

At least not like in this scenario where we have 3 different browsers, all running 10+ tabs each, plus VS Code, plus Android Studio, plus some other things, running all at once, all the time.

I'm not knocking the 16GB RAM limit. Just stating the obvious: if people really really "need" more than 16GB, like in this specific context, then they really need 16GB.

 

[Sanpete]

Yeah, and when those contexts are asked to be elaborated, it just turns out most of those people who got 32GB machines didn't really "need" all 32GB all at once all the time.

At least not like in this scenario where we have 3 different browsers, all running 10+ tabs each, plus VS Code, plus Android Studio, plus some other things, running all at once, all the time.

I'm not knocking the 16GB RAM limit. Just stating the obvious: if people really really "need" more than 16GB, like in this specific context, then they really need 16GB.

Hard to disagree with a tautology, but regardless of that, it doesn't conflict with what people are saying. (It doesn't conflict with anything, being trivially true in all circumstances.)

A good number of people who have experienced the limits of the RAM on their own 16 and 32GB Intel Macs find their M1s do as well with similar tasks with half the RAM. Of course that's often impressionistic, and undoubtedly depends on what they were doing, and what kinds of limits they were experiencing before. But it's not unreasonable to think that the faster RAM access, swapping, and whatnot have overcome to a degree certain former RAM bottlenecks.

We agree that the present case apparently isn't like that, and there are undoubtedly many others that won't be.

 

[armoured]

A good number of people who have experienced the limits of the RAM on their own 16 and 32GB Intel Macs find their M1s do as well with similar tasks with half the RAM. Of course that's often impressionistic, and undoubtedly depends on what they were doing, and what kinds of limits they were experiencing before. But it's not unreasonable to think that the faster RAM access, swapping, and whatnot have overcome to a degree certain former RAM bottlenecks.

I agree overall - although I'd perhaps restate as "the penalty for modest swapping is less significant due to other system improvements."

For comparison: it used to almost always be the case that the best single upgrade was RAM - so that you would never hit swapping to the hard drive. That changed somewhat with SSDs - you don't want to habitually be swapping (running out of ram) with an SSD either, but the penalty became MUCH less noticeable if occasional swapping. Systems with HDDs would almost always grind to a complete halt if swapping actively.

I use two desktops and found that going from 16 to 24gb of ram made a modest difference day to day, but a noticeable difference (not dramatic but noticeable) for really heavy use. Going from 24 to 32gb makes no appreciable difference for my use, but a faster ssd is noticeable. It's not that the 24 doesn't ever swap, but it's rare enough that it's not significant. Not sure I've ever got the 32gb to swap. The threshold for other users will be different than mine of course.

On an old airbook with 4gb - mostly used for simple stuff - completely usable when there's modest swapping (which is often with so little ram), starts to become unusable if constantly/actively swapping (excess browser tabs open can do that, or too many programs open). You don't open a photo editor on that machine casually.

Anyway for laptop usage I'll probably be fine with 16gb. Sure, I may occasionally notice, but in a laptop, quit other programs to get things done. Different use case than an always-on desktop.

Note: I've had a runaway process (iconservices something) with some kind of serious leak gobble up memory at multiple gigabytes a minute; that kind of problem can bring even a system with lots of memory to the edge of unusable pretty quickly. On a modern machine with ssd was able to kill kill kill in terminal to get things under control; don't want to think what that would have been like with an HDD system disk.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

after scanning this thread, my usage, even browser usage, is very light duty.

still confused why people need three browsers and 30 tabs unless doing some kinda testing.

 

[consumeritis]

My guess is that the main culprit is not the browsers, but rather Android Studio.

Android Studio is a real hog and routinely brings my Linux system (non-Apple desktop, 8GiB, Intel) to its knees just on its own. Builds especially eat up all available RAM and then some.

Browsers are memory hogs too, but you're only interacting with a couple of those tabs at a time. The rest can be swapped out and paused by the browser. I'm pretty sure the M1 can handle web browsing. Any machine that can't open 20-30 browser tabs really would be crippled.

 

[jido]

I mean, a Mac with 8 GB can handle a hundred “normal” browser tabs no problem. 30 is nothing.
Must be another app

 

[Sanpete]

still confused why people need three browsers and 30 tabs unless doing some kinda testing.

In this case it's doing some kinda testing.

 

[torncanvas]

How is it pathetic to replace base machines that were capped at 16GB with base machines that are capped at 16GB?

There’s a general expectation that the capability of machines should increase over time. In this case, the CPU and GPU performance have drastically increased, making the machine far more capable of what it used to be.

As a result, from a product design perspective, with a 16GB ceiling, the machine appears lopsided. It has the capability of a $3000+ machine, but for $1300, except for only the RAM. Normally this is trivially remedied by upgrading the RAM post-sale.

I wouldn’t use the word ‘pathetic’ myself, but I find the sentiment valid. It’s a frustrating limitation that, from a product design perspective, feels arbitrary.

 

[Serban55]

thats why Apple has the best in class return policy
You can return your mac until january, no issues . And wait for the 32 gb ram macs that will come starting March, hopefully . Until then maybe Android Studio will be native and more easy with 32 gb ram
Its clear your main need is 32gb, and after that the cpu and gpu
Some macs will top at 16gb ram, some at 32, some at 1T...AFTER the transition will be over....Apple started with their mass selling ones, and for that kind of users is more than enough
It was a real issue IF Apple transition would take 5 years...but we all know that almost all the macs will be under M chips by end of the next year
So, people like OP, tried to see the entry level M1...its clear limited for its usage, he can return it and wait a few months until the 32 gb ram comes out

 

[armoured]

I mean, a Mac with 8 GB can handle a hundred “normal” browser tabs no problem. 30 is nothing.
Must be another app

I find this extremely variable, whether because there are lots of 'not-normal' pages (I suspect depends on browser and how bad the advertising is/blockers in use), or whatever - but sometimes browsers can be real memory / activity hogs. Shouldn't be but is sometimes.

Also it seems some are running betas of browsers and some browsers updated frequently, with some releases less stable than others.

As for how many browsers/tabs should be open - personal preferences. I don't usually have multiple dozen tabs open, but three browsers and a couple dozen isn't unusual.

What I'm interested in and haven't seen much comment on is whether Rosetta usage significantly impacts memory usage. Balanced against that is whether first versions of apps compiled for M1 are entirely ready/stable or introduce their own minor issues (effectively betas). (Side note, I think this happens not so much because of the processor transition, but because developers switch to newer/different APIs from older ones they're still using in their codebase, and bugs creep in doing that transition - but I'm doing so inference as not a programmer myself).

So I'm kind of guessing that the memory usage for the M1s will stabilize/fall a bit over the next two-three months as more apps come out with M1 native versions, and the early M1 native versions are updated and the first major round of bug-stamping / stabilization is done. Even a minor memory leak inadvertently introduced during a rewrite can be noticeable.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

In this case it's doing some kinda testing.

Fair enough. It was a logical deduction and makes sense if that is indeed the case.

 

[ght56]

after scanning this thread, my usage, even browser usage, is very light duty.

still confused why people need three browsers and 30 tabs unless doing some kinda testing.

I cannot speak for others, but for me this is something pretty important. I find it preferable to have a bunch of webpage tabs or PDF tabs open simultaneously if researching and jumping around to different sources. For example, if I am researching something, I might open 10, 20, 30, or even 50+ tabs from various results from different search engine keywords and then go through each, scan through the source, close the ones I do not want, keep the ones open I do want, and then later go back through the ones I wish to use, integrate them into the analysis and source them.

That said, I've not found this to be nearly as big of a RAM hog as some other activities...Chrome does consume a lot of RAM, especially if you have a lot of free RAM, but it usually takes more than say 30 tabs of typical webpages to cause a slowdown on its own.

As for the multiple browsers, my guess would be to see how some sort of content visually looks on each browser or to check functional compatibility. An interactive dashboard, for example, might work extremely well on Chrome and Firefox, but might not work well on Safari, Edge, and legacy IE.

 

[ArPe]

If you’re not using most of your tabs simultaneously then close them. You have bookmarks to access them when needed.

I don’t understand why some people don’t keep their work flows and energy footprint tidy and efficient. Just because you’ve been given a world of resources doesn’t mean you have to use it all up in a meaningless inefficient way.

 

[Sanpete]

There’s a general expectation that the capability of machines should increase over time. In this case, the CPU and GPU performance have drastically increased, making the machine far more capable of what it used to be.

As a result, from a product design perspective, with a 16GB ceiling, the machine appears lopsided. It has the capability of a $3000+ machine, but for $1300, except for only the RAM. Normally this is trivially remedied by upgrading the RAM post-sale.

I wouldn’t use the word ‘pathetic’ myself, but I find the sentiment valid. It’s a frustrating limitation that, from a product design perspective, feels arbitrary.

It may feel arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it is, or make the feeling valid. More RAM requires more space in the package, more power, more heat, etc. Given that the Mini at least used to offer provisions for more RAM in the base model, it's likely that if they could have offered that option with the current M1 package they would have. (And they probably would have offered more ports on the Mini too, as it also cut back on those.) I think it's likely that 16GB is the practical physical limit with the current chips.

For the vast majority of people who would normally use a base-level Mini or Mac laptop, the 16GB limit will be no limitation at all. It's only those who previously couldn't use the base models who may still be unable to.

 

[torncanvas]

It may feel arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it is, or make the feeling valid. More RAM requires more space in the package, more power, more heat, etc. Given that the Mini at least used to offer provisions for more RAM in the base model, it's likely that if they could have offered that option with the current M1 package they would have. (And they probably would have offered more ports on the Mini too, as it also cut back on those.) I think it's likely that 16GB is the practical physical limit with the current chips.

For the vast majority of people who would normally use a base-level Mini or Mac laptop, the 16GB limit will be no limitation at all. It's only those who previously couldn't use the base models who may still be unable to.

The technical challenge is Apple’s responsibility, that doesn’t make the reaction of a user from a product design perspective less valid.

Maybe think of it this way. There will come some point where the max RAM of the base models will need to jump.

If you could choose when to increase the max RAM, based on the percentage generational performance increase, where would you set it:
15%, 10%, 10%, 200%, 30%, 30%, 25%

We’re currently in the 200% jump generation, and assuming future performance increases of 25-30% per gen like the A series chips up until now, is this not where most people would choose to set the step?

(Note I kinda made up previous gens, but my point is to show increases weren’t amazing and especially not the last couple)

 

[AlexOnBoard]

So I'm kind of guessing that the memory usage for the M1s will stabilize/fall a bit over the next two-three months as more apps come out with M1 native versions, and the early M1 native versions are updated and the first major round of bug-stamping / stabilization is done. Even a minor memory leak inadvertently introduced during a rewrite can be noticeable.

I totally agree with you, the m1 apps should be the problems right now and I also believe the overload issue could be solved after all the apps release their native and stable version. Especially the android studio and firefox in my case.

And I'm surprised some users interesting in the 20+ tabs, I've to say its just my personal habit. Most tabs are dev resources & documents, dev q&a, dev articles. As lots of tabs I might need to go back in a few hours, so I just keep them open. Only 2 to 5 tabs are my localhost testing page. As far as I concern, 20+ tabs shouldn't be an issue, no need to focus on them. But the 9GB memory usage of firefox nightly is unusual.

An update: The fan never runs again today after I closed the android studio. while anything else still the same.

Tabs example:

I cannot speak for others, but for me this is something pretty important. I find it preferable to have a bunch of webpage tabs or PDF tabs open simultaneously if researching and jumping around to different sources. For example, if I am researching something, I might open 10, 20, 30, or even 50+ tabs from various results from different search engine keywords and then go through each, scan through the source, close the ones I do not want, keep the ones open I do want, and then later go back through the ones I wish to use, integrate them into the analysis and source them.

That said, I've not found this to be nearly as big of a RAM hog as some other activities...Chrome does consume a lot of RAM, especially if you have a lot of free RAM, but it usually takes more than say 30 tabs of typical webpages to cause a slowdown on its own.

As for the multiple browsers, my guess would be to see how some sort of content visually looks on each browser or to check functional compatibility. An interactive dashboard, for example, might work extremely well on Chrome and Firefox, but might not work well on Safari, Edge, and legacy IE.

That is exactly what I'm doing for the tabs and browsers.

 

[leman]

From what yo describe, it sounds more like a problem with individual applications (like Firefox and Android Studio) than with the amount of your RAM or the machine in general. There is no good reason why Firefox would need 9GB of RAM for routine development workflow for example.

Then again, I think it's pretty normal for there to be some rough patches in the beginning, it's a completely new hardware after all. Personally, I am amazed by how quickly the software landscape adapts. There is a lot of excitement for Apple Silicon out there and native support is rolling out rapidly.

 

[RigSatMe]

From the very beginning, rule #1 with Mac: get RAM as much as possible!
Power PC, Intel, M1, no difference, macOS always is RAM lover.
Currently, on MBPro 15 (2019, 32GB RAM):
1. Opened Safari (5 tabs)
2. Opened Mail
3. Opened iMessages
4. Calendar
5. Apple Music (streaming radio)
6. Notes
7. Endpoint security
8. Microsoft Remote Desktop

Guess, how much RAM is used? This, where even Swap is created:

 

[torncanvas]

Relative to other systems and taken in aggregate, I don’t think macOS on AS is that RAM hungry.

Even though you can solder in 32GB of LPDDR4x like in the Dell XPS 13, Apple has chosen to limit these models to 16, so there’s no other choice if you’re wanting to develop for or on AS.

EDIT: while memory pressure doesn’t tell the whole story, in this case it seems those apps are using more RAM because they can and it may improve performance slightly in future tasks. But not because they have to just to prevent swapping.

 

[leman]

From the very beginning, rule #1 with Mac: get RAM as much as possible!
Power PC, Intel, M1, no difference, macOS always is RAM lover.
Currently, on MBPro 15 (2019, 32GB RAM):
1. Opened Safari (5 tabs)
2. Opened Mail
3. Opened iMessages
4. Calendar
5. Apple Music (streaming radio)
6. Notes
7. Endpoint security
8. Microsoft Remote Desktop

Guess, how much RAM is used? This, where even Swap is created:
View attachment 1680872

All that your screenshot tells us is that your system is very happy with the amount of RAM and that there is no problem.

The only relevant metric from the user perspective is memory pressure. In order to interpret other statistics, you need to understand how modern virtual memory works.

 

[armoured]

If you’re not using most of your tabs simultaneously then close them. You have bookmarks to access them when needed.

I don’t understand why some people don’t keep their work flows and energy footprint tidy and efficient. Just because you’ve been given a world of resources doesn’t mean you have to use it all up in a meaningless inefficient way.

I remember when people scoffed at having more than one application open at a time. Why? You can't use more than one. Why have more than one browser open? Because they behave differently or whatever.

People work the way they like to work. Sure, there's a cost. If someone wants to pay a bit more to have more memory to make working the way they like easier, so be it. This thread / discussion about m1 is partly just people figuring out what works for their use cases.