You’re literally the only person in this thread that has chosen to be pedantic about a claim that NOBODY made. Everyone else got my point. I’ve told you repeatedly what my posts meant, and have from the start. Just move along man.
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
You started this discussion by falsely claiming that a 2GB video file would by necessity use 2GB of RAM. Now you're changing your own argument to tie secondary storage to memory speed, yet you STILL ignore the fact that RAM on the M1 operates at the core (CPU speed) rather than the system bus speed, and that is completely independent from secondary storage (which is on average 2.5x faster than the Intel Macs they are replacing anyways). The memory speed is a crucial factor in system performance, so yes, it does need to be discussed in this context. Do NOT talk down to me when you can not even keep your own story straight. Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Why do the Intel-based Macs use almost identical amounts of system RAM compared to the M1 when performing identical tasks, yet are also using up to 2x the swap space on the SSDs at less than the half the overall performance?
2. Why can the base MacBook Air with the M1 processor handle up to 94 tracks in Logic Pro when the i3 MacBook Air chokes on anything over 9 tracks?
3. Why are so many reviews (Anandtech, Verge, CNet, iJustine, Rene Ritchie, etc.) consistently showing that these M1 Macs are routinely outperforming their immediate predecessors (and in many cases even the current 16" MacBook Pros) if the RAM is the bottleneck you claim it to be?
When the majority of reviews indicate the opposite is actually true, one has to question his methodology in testing.
The top comment to the review and the replies to it from the author of the video are instructive. He says, "if you run back to back final cut pro tests and not just open up the project and record for 10 minutes you will see this issue on both models." Not clear it's about a RAM difference.
Apparently the M1 macs with 8 gigs are plenty for most people. There are a some reviews where they throw 10+ running apps, multiple 4K videos playing, and 10+ safari tabs at it and it doesn’t flinch. I believe it was the Air without a fan too. I’m thinking these machines are much more comparable to the iPhone/iPad when it comes to ram management than Intel macs. There will always be people who need more, but the bulk of people will be just fine. $999 seems like a great value. I want one, but will hold off.
I started this with the following statement:
Where in the statement did I say this 2GB file would necessitate 2GB of RAM?
That said the point is if you require 32GB of RAM then an 8GB system isn't going to meet your needs (as many M1 fans would lead us to believe).
I've used computers for many years. I too had a degree in computer science (Mathematics / Computer Science if we're being technical). I too do programming. And I'm also still in IT after many, many years.
The point you seem to be missing is these new machines seem to do better with less memory than other similar machines do with more. It's not about raw numbers. It's about real world performance.
On paper what you're saying makes sense. In real life however, it appears to not matter nearly as much. That doesn't mean extra memory is a thing of the past and it doesn't have its place. It's just in real life usage, it would seem for many tasks that you really can get by with less. And not just "get by", as in you can put up with it if you can't afford better. I'm talking "get by" as in you might not even notice the missing memory.
You have a lot of experience. So pay attention to some of the videos with an open mind. I'm a fan of this one as it's not about benchmarks and how quickly he can open all the apps on the machine. He's actually testing this to see if it can be his primary video editing computer. He tests it by basically doing his job. It doesn't get more "real world" than this.
Seem to is not does. There has been no scientific data or explanation as to why "seem to" would translate into "does". The best explanation I could offer is the SSD speed of the M1 systems is faster than the SSD speeds on the Intel based systems. But that has nothing to do with the architecture.
Well I would agree with you to a degree, but if you had 10 plus apps/safari tabs running and multiple 4K videos, you’d start to see some lag on a traditional machine with 8 gigs.
This also doesn't explain how Logic can have 93 instruments compared to the equal Intel version the system replaces that struggles with even 10 instruments. It is definitely much better.
I really don't care. My involvement in this discussion isn't about how much memory people need (or not). My involvement is limited to the claim that M1 Macs can get by with less memory than Intel Macs because of the architecture of the M1 processor. If someone requires 32GB (or more) memory then they'll require the same amount on either platform.
Agreed - look at the origins of the M1 chip - it's from the iPad / iPhone A14 variant.
Have you noticed how quickly the apps work on iOS devices without the need for tons of RAM?
Well it's not a surprise that Mac OS is evolving towards iOS by using the core hardware to accomplish that.
Thank someone at Apple for bringing back RISC processors - remember the old PPC days ??
Anyone ???
Uh, maybe the Intel version struggles not because it's memory constrained but rather that it's processor constrained?
Two different operating systems with two different goals. Therefore they're not directly comparable.
Yes, I recall the PPC days. Still have a PPC in the basement ready to rock and roll (I use it for some video work).
It is entirely possible to improve macOS memory management. It doesn't matter if they are two different operating systems. They are all based on the same thing if you get down to it. Technically iOS and iPad OS are two different operating systems with two different goals now.
Yes, it is. That doesn't change anything about what I wrote. Each has different goals so therefore they cannot be compared.
There’s plenty of videos out there, but here’s one from this site. The M1 easily outperforms the Intel machine with the same amount of ram. Apple is doing something right with their chip.
All I know is that Brian Tong put up his 8GB Macbook Pro against his 64GB of RAM 16” MacBook Pro. The 8GB MBP consistently outperformed it at every task. And this was for intensive video production work.
Uh, how does this disprove this:
My involvement is limited to the claim that M1 Macs can get by with less memory than Intel Macs because of the architecture of the M1 processor.
Obviously he didn't need 64GB of RAM in his 16" MBP, 8GB would have done him just fine.
I think that is part of the issue. Like I have said before, it is very easy for Adobe After Effects to take up 110GB out of 128GB (since that is the limit I set in the preferences) with a 1080p 30 second 60 fps composition. The same .ae file works perfectly fine on 16GB of RAM. I think people see AE is taking up X amount of RAM so I need to get more (AE as an example here).
This makes it difficult to know how much RAM you need. I do not need 128GB of RAM (as you have stated before), yet programs use up 110GB out of my 128GB of RAM. So how can one gauge what is required?