Could elaborate on how the two structures are different? I am trying to decide if I want to keep my 8-core, 5700XT iMac with 64GB or return it and get the Mac Mini with 16GB of memory. I mainly work with Adobe suite, web development, marketing materials, etc. Plus a heavy office workload. Lot's of tabs open, several email accounts, and a bunch of other software. What do you think?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8GB RAM is a disappointment?
- Thread starter MacBH928
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Could elaborate on how the two structures are different? I am trying to decide if I want to keep my 8-core, 5700XT iMac with 64GB or return it and get the Mac Mini with 16GB of memory. I mainly work with Adobe suite, web development, marketing materials, etc. Plus a heavy office workload. Lot's of tabs open, several email accounts, and a bunch of other software. What do you think?
I wouldn't say people have been brainwashed to think more RAM is needed. There is plenty of test result you can look up showing clear advantages of having more memory. At least up to 64GB with diminishing returns beyond that. The question is will the memory play as much of a role in the ARM based Macs. That's what regular folks, who are not computer scientists, are trying to understand. I'm one of those people. The way we've gone about it before is by comparing Apples to Apples. That's not possible now. There is genuine confusion.
I wouldn't mind waiting. The issue is that I just received this machine last week, so I can either keep it and then sell it later or return it now. I could get something to hold me over, if needed. If I return it now I'll still have to get something to get work done since the Mini wouldn't be here for at least another two weeks.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
If you do a dummy purchase of a Macbook Air, after you click Buy you should see a 16GB upgrade option. With the Air it seems clicking 16GB also automatically ups you to 512GB storage (so no 16/256 option).
You can easily use up 8GB of RAM if you open 20+ Chrome tabs and don't want to close them.
Then the real test for browser function will be to open 20+ Chrome tabs which I normally do - I usually have at least 30+ tabs open at work and home.
Will compare it with the eagerly awaiting M1 Mini that I ordered and should be here early next week!
No I’m not, a unified memory structure completely invalidates the normal operations of the memory flow we’re used to.
There’s a reason you can open a 20GB image file on these devices and be able to work with them fluidly.
My java vm's doesn't care about the cpu arch, they use what they need regardless. Same for the databases, message queues, data processed by python, etc. My company uses mac minis as build servers, I don't know what will happen with m1 maxed out at 16 instead of 64GB. I was looking for the air being capable to use 32 gigs, cause I'll rather use a windows notebook than a pro with that abomination called touchbar.
Touchbar aside, you’re waiting for Apple’s performance chip machines. Everything that was announced is entry level (two port MBP in particular).
I think you’re going to be waiting until January for an actual upgrade to your use-case. From what we’ve seen on the ENTRY level, however, means the performance version of the mini is going to be an insane upgrade.
Pipeline complexity,
x86 - 5+9×N
ARM - 4×N
Above assuming zero cache misses,
ARM can execute instructions without waiting for condition checks
ARM Requires alot less registers to move memory around
x86 everything has to be stored in memory , most of the code we had was moving around data, arm not so much.
an example :
PCAP traffic required us to write it all in memory as it was coming off the line , than flush to nvme array. ARM we can push data off the line right into the disk array by using significantly less memory , i think we are around 12GB total vs 200ish gb before.
inspecting that traffic can be done right from the array , vs loading large chunks into memory to inspect.
i would never argue more memory is bad , my argument is how arm handles memory in the first place , how the code is designed. how it works in a technical aspect. any developer in the apple ecosystem does not get a complete picture of how it works since apple is doing alot of this on their own. if you go down the road of building arm applications and understanding how it works. it becomes a much clearer picture about how it is more efficient.
Last edited:
An entry level is perfectly fine for programming, I don't need a performance chip. Contrary to popular belief, most development tasks don't need much cpu power, and if they do, only for short bursts, which the Air is perfectly capable of handling. Most of the heavy lifting is handled by the build servers nowadays. Speaking of which, the Intel Mac Mini was marketed at least in part as a server machine, with 10 gbit networking and all, and it's suddenly just a hollowed out 'entry level'? Let's hope they don't expect these use cases to migrate to Mac Pro...
My 2013 15" MBP already had 16 GB of RAM. There is no excuse to sell laptops in 2020 with only 8gb RAM. And the prices that Apple charges to upgrade is insane.
Based on what you said, it sounds like the 16GB may be closer in performance to 64GB under Intel, right? Or am I reading it the way I like it to be to justify an excuse to buy the damn thing? ?
I was referring to a replacement to your Mini server rack you spoke of. THESE entry level devices are clearly not aimed at replacing 64GB configurations. This isn’t going to be the only Mini in the family and Apple never claimed that this was anything other than a replacement for entry level machines to begin with.
They said these are their most popular Macs, not necessarily entry level ones. They showcased some not-so-entry-level uses during the presentation. I think we have all been overstating what we need to get the job done and what we want or think we want. Maybe. Don’t know.
i dont know if i would go that far, my example and use case are alot different, it was an example of how memory usage changes between the 2 in certain workloads.
i think you could get by on 16gb , you would be surprised in the performance you will get out of that little bit.
The only way to justify the existence of the 8GB M1 is to confuse the $200 "savings" as an actual difference to the cost of manufacture. $200 is just Apple's upgrade markup.
In the end, if 8GB is enough, then 8GB buyers will be winners and 16GB will be fleeced. If it isn't enough, then the 8's are losers and 16 winners. I suppose the former is the best outcome, since the people buying 16GB probably won't miss their money as much as the other set.
But it's stupid. Every M1 should be a good value, not half of them. This trap is built into SOC. Plug-in memory is inherently better for the consumer. Yes, one needs more of it because one does not want to touch swap-territory. But that's ok, because plug-in RAM is $3 per GB. Which gets us back to the top of this post.
In the end, if 8GB is enough, then 8GB buyers will be winners and 16GB will be fleeced. If it isn't enough, then the 8's are losers and 16 winners. I suppose the former is the best outcome, since the people buying 16GB probably won't miss their money as much as the other set.
But it's stupid. Every M1 should be a good value, not half of them. This trap is built into SOC. Plug-in memory is inherently better for the consumer. Yes, one needs more of it because one does not want to touch swap-territory. But that's ok, because plug-in RAM is $3 per GB. Which gets us back to the top of this post.
while i agree with alot of what you are saying.
there are alot of folks who dont need 16 , i can use 4gb if they had it. i use a terminal and web browser. all my work is on other machines made for the workload.
would more ram be better for me....sure...i would notice a slight increase. 8gb is overkill for me.
i get excited to even have a conversation about ram on a ARM consumer platform. its been a dream of mine....haha
The fault computers manufacturers who solder on the memory to the motherboard make is that they do not envisage their customers usage habits changing. Their distorted thinking is that if they make a machine that only has 8GB of memory then the people who intend to purchase that machine are only going to be doing things that require 8GB of memory and nothing more. The problem is laptop users habits change (mainly employment related). They might need to run certain applications that they never had to before, applications that use up more and more memory. Suddenly that 8GB of memory is looking a bit woeful and due to the memory being soldered to the motherboard, upgradeability is impossible. Meaning a new machine woud have to be ordered.
laptop owners do not know what is going to happen 5 months or even a year down the lane when it comes to using their laptop. Having 16GB of memory as standard allows for future proofing. You may not need it now but you may do a few months or a year from now. Having a machine with only 8GB, customers run the risk of having to return them because their usage habits changed and they find that they require more memory to get their tasks done.
Some members have already commented on certain programs and applications that will not run or work smoothly on a 8GB memory machine. Granted these programs and applications may not be required now but what about in a few months or a year time. More so if the machine is used as a business machine and a new customer needs a job doing that requires a certain program or application to run but the machine cannot handle it due to only having 8GB of memory which then forces the business owner to make the decision do they lose the customer or buy a new machine with 16GB or memory.
I see people making positive arguments for 8GB of ram being acceptable in todays society. As someone who has directly worked in the computer manufacturing industry, I disagree with their arguments.
laptop owners do not know what is going to happen 5 months or even a year down the lane when it comes to using their laptop. Having 16GB of memory as standard allows for future proofing. You may not need it now but you may do a few months or a year from now. Having a machine with only 8GB, customers run the risk of having to return them because their usage habits changed and they find that they require more memory to get their tasks done.
Some members have already commented on certain programs and applications that will not run or work smoothly on a 8GB memory machine. Granted these programs and applications may not be required now but what about in a few months or a year time. More so if the machine is used as a business machine and a new customer needs a job doing that requires a certain program or application to run but the machine cannot handle it due to only having 8GB of memory which then forces the business owner to make the decision do they lose the customer or buy a new machine with 16GB or memory.
I see people making positive arguments for 8GB of ram being acceptable in todays society. As someone who has directly worked in the computer manufacturing industry, I disagree with their arguments.
Who said a performance series of ARM Macs are coming out in January? I was going to order one of these Macs as soon as reviews come out but if better chips are coming out in January I'll hold off; but I haven't seen any indication of that happening.
Well, if we were being delivered ARM without SOC, then I wouldn't have an opinion.
But whenever any PC brand moves to SOC, they will instantly weaponize it to disempower their consumers via these price gimmicks, leveraging their vast advantage over us in knowledge of our usage patterns to put the entry level just below adequate and then gouge us for upgrades with a razor-like precision that iteratively, year-by-year, leads to most consumers possible not getting a good value for their money across the entire product category.