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
Possibly. However I am not going to get into a discussion about this because it has nothing to do with the architecture (i.e. M1 versus x64). What you've described applies to x64 as easily as ARM...and that's my point. There is nothing special about ARM in this regard.
Yes. I can clearly edit 138GB files on 16GB of RAM. Even 500GB files I can edit with 16GB of RAM.
This machines "fly" not because they are able to magically reduce RAM requirements but rather their implementation is very well designed.
Yep, but not at full speed as the application has to load in those components that aren't present when it needs to work on them.
That said how is this any different on the M1 than on x64? Hint: It isn't.
Key words. They work faster because they can process data faster. They cannot process data faster than x64 if that data has to come from secondary storage.
Just for fun, on my Mac with 128 GB of RAM that 138GB video file takes up 1.66 GB of RAM. Not maxing out my RAM even though the video is 138GB.
I am not interested in your 128GB system. I am interested in how a workload that requires 32GB of RAM doesn't require 32GB of RAM on an M1 Macintosh.
I understand what you're saying however it is irrelevant to a discussion if M1 Macs are significantly more memory efficient than x64 Macs. They're not.
Then you don't require 128GB of RAM. Regardless this comment is irrelevant as this same file with the same application would utilize 1.66GB of RAM on an x64 system as well.
Your claims were, unless some of us misunderstood what you were saying, that a 2GB file would require 2GB. But that is not the case. So I am just replying to your claims.
That is the point most of us are making
Just because you have large files does not mean you need large amounts of RAM.
You overlook the fact that the RAM is on the same die as the processing cores, which means significantly faster read/writes compared to anything Intel or AMD can bring to the table (although AMD is working towards that goal with Infinity Fabric). You also do not realize that your claim that a 2GB video file will use 2GB of RAM is not even valid because of how every modern desktop operating system and processor handle memory management, especially when handling large files such as video. This is not a comparison of "ARM" to Intel/AMD, this is a comparison of Apple's M1 chip (which uses the ARM ISA, but nothing more since the processor itself is designed entirely by Apple) to Intel and AMD. Qualcomm isn't placing their RAM on the same die as their Snapdragon processors in phones or the Surface Pro X, and the Pro X gets a lot of flack over its uneven, often sluggish performance when trying to run non-optimized apps. Not only is this approach unique to Apple, it is unique to the M1 processor, as the RAM is not part of the SoC on any iPhone or iPad.
Yes I think things are getting mixed up here. Its not Arm vs x86 that has the advantage here. Its Apple's ENTIRE SOC vs Intel and AMD. The fact that everything is on the same chip helps, and it is shown in reviews.
The subtitle for this thread should be "All ARM are NOT created equal."
Completely irrelevant. We're not discussing memory to processor core speed, we're discussing secondary storage to memory speed. Please do try and understand the discussion at hand.
Has Apple magically matched secondary storage speed with that of RAM? If so why bother with RAM at all? If not then???
I won't debate that point because, IMO, people over exceed their memory requirements. Hence my qualifier of "require" not "think I need".That is the point most of us are making
That said this is a completely different topic than M1 Macs can do the same amount with less RAM than Intel systems can with more RAM.
This is a response from something that you brought up - that 2GB files require 2GB. If you didn't want to discuss it maybe you shouldn't have brought it up?
Yes. Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. I don’t know what nitpicking you’ve been arguing but my point has always been that these *perform* better than devices with equivalent or more RAM.
That was my point from the start. You’re the only one that decided to talk about data capacity in the RAM itself...
Uh no, I responded to this comment of yours:
So clearly that is not what you've been saying all along.
Wow. Are you intentionally missing my point? These machines perform tasks FASTER than Intel devices with far and away more RAM......AKA PERFORMANCE. It’s *right there* in my post that you quoted. I used that word for a reason!
This is not the way it comes across, especially given your response is posted in a thread titled "8GB RAM is a disappointment?". The question isn't "Is the memory system on the M1 Macs faster than other platforms?" The question is, essentially, will 8GB of RAM be sufficient. Your response implies it will be compared to systems with 12GB or more of RAM. It's not a question of speed but rather size. Go back an re-read your post with this in mind.