8GB RAM is a disappointment?

[djjeff]

That's a file size, not the amount of memory required to run it.

Video files don't run, they're viewed or manipulated (i.e. editing).

 

[4sallypat]

Yes, they are. A 2GB video file consumes 2GB regardless of whether it's being processed by an Intel or ARM based system.

Well that may be your thinking but the M1 Unified Memory behaves alot different than your standard DDR3/4 RAM.

My new base 8GB M1 is amazing - it runs circles around the 16GB quad core i7 Mini Server!

Plus no more heat pumping out the back, no more fan spin ups, no more lag and the best part: - it runs cool all day long!

Now I can get rid of the laptop cooling fan underneath it and sell my old Intel i7 Mini!

Hello M1 !

 

[djjeff]

Well that may be your thinking but the M1 Unified Memory behaves alot different than your standard DDR3/4 RAM.

My new base 8GB M1 is amazing - it runs circles around the 16GB quad core i7 Mini Server!

Plus no more heat pumping out the back, no more fan spin ups, no more lag and the best part: - it runs cool all day long!

Now I can get rid of the laptop cooling fan underneath it and sell my old Intel i7 Mini!

Hello M1 !

You appear to be confusing performance with memory requirements. The unified memory architecture is useless when the system needs to pull memory from secondary storage (i.e. the SSD). The speed of the M1 and its unified memory becomes irrelevant at that point. You 16GB i7 Mini Server would outperform the M1 on tasks which require 16GB of memory.

I don't say this as a memory snob, I am typing this on an 8GB laptop. Oh, and then there's this:

If an 8GB M1 is working fine for you then you didn't need a 16GB i7, you could have done just as well with an 8GB version.

 

[SuperMikey]

Hello,

I'm looking at buying my son a Mac book Air for homework and he has started to learn coding and uses unity .

I'm from the pc world ( ducks down ) Is the 8gig base Mac book Air going to last him a 5 years or so ? Or would i be best putting 16Gig in the machine ?

Pc wise it's always more ram the better but reading here i;m unsure wit the Mac book Air . And also is the 7‑Core GPU compared to the 8‑Core GPU noticeable for standard things ?

Thank you

​

Hi, I’ve just tested Unity with a current project on an 8gb mbp, it does swap out quite a chunk (~2-3gb for my medium size project) however... I haven’t actually noticed any obvious performance drop caused by this, it’s very fast- e.g. it’s running my game 60fps 1440p full screen, where my old 2015 13” mbp I could barely run it at 30fps 640x480!

All said however, I’ll probably be looking to upgrade mine in a year or so. For a 5yr life, I’d suggest the 16gb might be wise future proofing as I don’t think memory usage of apps is going down.

 

[NT1440]

No, it's not. ARM does not magically reduce memory requirements by 33%

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the real world usage reviews or not....

 

[pmiles]

Video files don't run, they're viewed or manipulated (i.e. editing).

Right... they are files with a file size... such as 2GBs. That is not the amount of RAM necessary to view, edit, or store it.

The amount of RAM required to run anything is not equal to the size of the file. You suggested that a 2GB file requires 2GBs of RAM to run (run means view, edit or otherwise manipulate it in any way).

 

[djjeff]

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the real world usage reviews or not....

I am paying attention to my many years using computers, my degree in computer science (i.e. programming), many years in IT (and still currently so), and my enjoyment of all different types of computers.

A 2GB file consumes 2GB regardless of which architecture it is on. Been that way since the 68K days, been that way since the PPC days, and it's still the same today with x64 and M1.

 

[djjeff]

Right... they are files with a file size... such as 2GBs. That is not the amount of RAM necessary to view, edit, or store it.

The amount of RAM required to run anything is not equal to the size of the file. You suggested that a 2GB file requires 2GBs of RAM to run (run means view, edit or otherwise manipulate it in any way).

If you're going to edit a 2GB file there are multiple ways it can be done:

• The file is loaded entirely into memory. Where memory is available this is usually the preferred method.
• Parts of the file is copied from secondary storage into memory as the parts are needed. The overhead of copying the file from secondary storage to memory is incurred throughout the editing session.

So yes, it's possible to edit a 2GB file on a 1GB system. However doing so slows down the process. Why hobble a fast processor by having it wait on, relatively speaking, slow secondary storage?

That said none of this means the M1 requires less memory than an x64 system.

 

[pmiles]

If you're going to edit a 2GB file there are multiple ways it can be done:

• The file is loaded entirely into memory. Where memory is available this is usually the preferred method.
• Parts of the file is copied from secondary storage into memory as the parts are needed. The overhead of copying the file from secondary storage to memory is incurred throughout the editing session.

So yes, it's possible to edit a 2GB file on a 1GB system. However doing so slows down the process. Why hobble a fast processor by having it wait on, relatively speaking, slow secondary storage?

That said none of this means the M1 requires less memory than an x64 system.

What people are trying to say is that the SoC allows memory to be accessed more efficiently than it does on a non-SoC, thus it *probably* doesn't require the same amount of RAM for the same performance that a non-SoC does.

So if you can edit a 2GB file with a 1GB RAM system slowly on a non-SoC system, then it stands that you *may* be able to run it fast on an SoC system with the same amount of RAM. People bump up the RAM to improve performance just as much to meet a hard minimum requirement. Thus you can probably say that you don't need as much RAM on a highly optimized architecture versus a less optimized architecture... which means do more with less.

 

[djjeff]

What people are trying to say is that the SoC allows memory to be accessed more efficiently than it does on a non-SoC, thus it *probably* doesn't require the same amount of RAM for the same performance that a non-SoC does.

So if you can edit a 2GB file with a 1GB RAM system slowly on a non-SoC system, then it stands that you *may* be able to run it fast on an SoC system with the same amount of RAM. People bump up the RAM to improve performance just as much to meet a hard minimum requirement. Thus you can probably say that you don't need as much RAM on a highly optimized architecture versus a less optimized architecture... which means do more with less.

The manner in which the processor interacts with memory is not relevant when there's not enough memory to store the information the processor needs therefore causing the memory system to retrieve information from secondary storage. The Unified Memory configuration of the SoC applies to the CPU and GPU having access to the same memory so that there is no need to copy memory for use by the GPU. It has little, if anything, to do with secondary storage (i.e. the SSD). The fact that the SSD is on the same silicon as RAM likely reduces latency but not sufficiently so to eliminate the need for RAM. Otherwise Apple would just ship an 8GB system and call it a day.

That said I suggest if you are going to discuss this with me that you first obtain an understanding of the topic at hand.

 

[cardfan]

Mines more a play device. Not something I plan to keep years and years. 8gb is fine. It wouldn’t be for something I planned to keep long term. For this chip 16 is the max I’d want anyways for the price.

However for those wanting 32 or 64. Apple is charging 200 per 8gb (past the base of 8gb).

16gb is 200. 32gb will be 800 more. 64gb 1200 more than that. Can you say ouch? My 699 mini with 32gb ram would be 1699. With 64gb it’s 2899.

But let’s say I want something beyond 256gb hard drive. Lol. Add 400 more for a tb.

That’s 2099 for a Mac mini 32gb with a tb ssd. For all the great things about m1 this is still integrated graphics and no egpu. As I mentioned before I wouldn’t get more memory even if it was offered. Not with this first chip or same design really. Not yet.

 

[mainelyme]

I wonder how much faster RAM is than secondary storage these days. Both have made gains, but I get the impression that SSD speeds have increased much more quickly than RAM. Is it a 2x difference? 10x difference? 100x? I wonder if I'd even notice that my computer is swapping.

 

[vocalnick]

That said I suggest if you are going to discuss this with me that you first obtain an understanding of the topic at hand.

I think you’re doing a pretty great job of ensuring nobody will want to discuss it with you.

 

[djjeff]

I wonder how much faster RAM is than secondary storage these days. Both have made gains, but I get the impression that SSD speeds have increased much more quickly than RAM. Is it a 2x difference? 10x difference? 100x? I wonder if I'd even notice that my computer is swapping.

Memory transfers are significantly fast than a modern SSD. DDR4 memory is approximately 20GB/sec whereas the fastest SSDs are approximately 3GB/sec. SSDs have narrowed the gap but not sufficiently enough.

 

[djjeff]

I think you’re doing a pretty great job of ensuring nobody will want to discuss it with you.

That's fine, they're free to remain ignorant and avoid having a discussion with me. It won't make their comments any less wrong but it might make them feel better.

 

[brianmowrey]

The fact that the SSD is on the same silicon as RAM likely reduces latency but not sufficiently so to eliminate the need for RAM. Otherwise Apple would just ship an 8GB system and call it a day.

Not even 8 - Apple SOC wouldn't even need RAM at all.

 

[Luposian]

I'm pretty convinced Apple will keep their UMA, regardless of RAM quantity. We are already in their ecosystem. Having "secondary RAM" (SODIMM modules) would complicate streamlined functionality (access speed), design-wise. And, it serves to force users to pay more (Apple is all about that), one way or another (buy more RAM or buy a new system with more RAM) because, at the end of the day, it's all about the Benjamins. Apple is a business. They have stock holders. The M1 shift is all about making MORE money for Apple. Larger profit margins, because they control more. We're just benefitting by having faster systems...

I say this, realistically speaking, not as a hater, in any sense of the word... at least not anymore (I had no love for Apple/Mac, during the entire time they were "PC's posing as Macs"). They're real Macs again, so I accept that the pleasure of having one (a "real" Mac again) comes with "the cost of entry" to Apple's playground.

 

[dmccloud]

Was this the case all the way up until OS 9? I just don't remember people adjusting their RAM per application, neither on Windows 95. I thought all operating systems manage RAM just as MacOS does today.

Mac OS didn't have proper memory management or multitasking support until (to some degree) Mac OS 9 and then full support in OS X. At the same time, most users never needed to adjust those memory settings at the time unless they were running extensive workloads.

 

[dmccloud]

I will be surprised if there is anything magic about M1's memory usage. The only architectural difference I can think of is that ARM machine code typically results in about a 5% larger code size, because x86 has better instruction density. But actual machine code is a very small portion of RAM usage.

Unified memory is also not magic. An Intel processor with integrated graphics also uses the main system RAM for GPU resources.

I would be surprised if Big Sur running on Apple Silicon has massively different memory usage to the same OS and same apps running on Intel, but I could be wrong.

The one advantage Apple does have is its extreme vertical integration. With absolute control over both the chip and the software running on it, they can write their drivers and OS to be as efficient as possible. Metal running on Apple Silicon may well avoid some copies, because M1's GPU doesn't need to pretend to be a discrete GPU and can expose the unified memory to the app.

Saying all that, 8GB still sounds a lot of memory to me. I remember when computers had a megabyte, or less!

If apps chew through that much RAM (unless they are actually dealing with massive datasets) then they need to be optimised. It really sucks how every time we get hardware improvements basic everyday apps (and websites) become less efficient in turn and expand to suck up the available resources.

I gave in and ordered 16GB because I always over-buy and am thinking I might want to run a VM or two, but honestly my current 5 year old Mac with 8GB is still fast and capable as anything. People worrying about 8GB not being enough for word processing or web browsing or photo editing are worrying for nothing, IMO.

Referencing the section I bolded above, you miss one critical difference between the Intel/AMD use of system RAM for the iGPU and Apple's approach. Both Intel and AMD have to access the RAM via the system I/O, which is slower than the processor. Apple's approach places the RAM on the same die as the processor, which means that all reads and writes to the RAM are happening at the core speed of the processing cores. Looking at several of the Youtube videos comparing the base MBA to the i3 Air or the base MBP to the i5/256GB Pro, the memory usage is similar between the two machines when running tests with either FCP or Logic Pro with the exception of the Intel rigs using more swap space on the SSD. If you can swap data in and out of RAM at the same speed the processor is running at and avoid the system bus, you have a significantly more efficient system even though the amount of RAM is unchanged. This is also why gaming performance on the M1 machines runs circles around their Intel predecessors. While we will likely never get the level of indepth breakdowns of the new M1 (or any M-series chip) that we get from Intel and AMD, it's safe to say that if this is Apple's opening salvo, what they come up with next will compete with even the top-tier Intel and AMD CPUs.

 

[Ethosik]

I am paying attention to my many years using computers, my degree in computer science (i.e. programming), many years in IT (and still currently so), and my enjoyment of all different types of computers.

A 2GB file consumes 2GB regardless of which architecture it is on. Been that way since the 68K days, been that way since the PPC days, and it's still the same today with x64 and M1.

This is not necessarily true. I have 5 hour 1080p h.264 video files that are over 200 GB in size. I do not have 200GB of RAM to load it all up.

 

[dmccloud]

Yes, they are. A 2GB video file consumes 2GB regardless of whether it's being processed by an Intel or ARM based system.

By that logic, most games and creative apps wouldn't be able to run on an 8GB system, regardless of OS or processor being used. That 2GB file uses 2GB of storage, but it wouldn't use 2GB of RAM on any machine. Most operating systems and applications will not load the entire file into memory in one fell swoop. They WILL load the section you are currently working on into memory, and as you move to another section of the video, the system will swap out the section you were working on for the section you switched to. The app you're using to run or edit that video may take up 2GB of RAM, but not the file itself. None of the video reviews where they are editing 8K video on either the base MBA or base MBP are even using the full 8GB RAM despite those files easily being over 20GB in size.

 

[NT1440]

I am paying attention to my many years using computers, my degree in computer science (i.e. programming), many years in IT (and still currently so), and my enjoyment of all different types of computers.

A 2GB file consumes 2GB regardless of which architecture it is on. Been that way since the 68K days, been that way since the PPC days, and it's still the same today with x64 and M1.

Yes, I understand basic math. I’m talking about *performance*. These machines are flying with less RAM compared to the Intel offerings.

 

[4sallypat]

Yes, I understand basic math. I’m talking about *performance*. These machines are flying with less RAM compared to the Intel offerings.

^^^
This is the correct answer - it's not the math anyone cares about - it's the fact that these RISC processors with less memory seem to work faster than the silly heat laden, multi instruction cycled Intel machines with memory laden hog chips...

 

[Ethosik]

I do not keep 200GB+ files around for no reason after I am done editing them and producing the final result. But I did find a 138GB video file in one of my backups (that I since deleted to free up space). I can edit this file just perfectly on 16GB of RAM. As in, I am not required to have more than 138GB of RAM to work on it.

I had one video file that was 500GB and that was just as fine on 16GB as this one - it was a 10 hour clip which is why it was so large.

 

[djjeff]

This is not necessarily true. I have 5 hour 1080p h.264 video files that are over 200 GB in size. I do not have 200GB of RAM to load it all up.

OK, your point being?