8GB RAM is a disappointment?

[magbarn]

Hard to say based on what you say, since you're not comparing to an 8GB Intel version, nor with native software in both cases.

Fact my 2012 Mac mini with 16gb had green memory pressure while processing the same number of raw files while my M1 Mac mini with 8gb was pegged solidly in the yellow. There's no M1 Magic going on in there allowing the 8gb to magically behave like a proper 16gb machine. You're right that the native version of Lightroom may or may not be more efficient fixing or worsening this issue. I really wanted to get along fine with the Mac mini 8gb version as I plan on replacing it as soon as the next gen ones come out to minimize my investment, but I regularly import and edit more or less the same number of RAW files so I will constantly be hitting that ceiling.

I have since placed an order for 16gb Mac mini and will now need to wait well into January for it.

I'll admit my use case is not that common as most will be served well with 8gb of RAM only.

 

[Sanpete]

Fact my 2012 Mac mini with 16gb had green memory pressure while processing the same number of raw files while my M1 Mac mini with 8gb was pegged solidly in the yellow. There's no M1 Magic going on in there allowing the 8gb to magically behave like a proper 16gb machine. You're right that the native version of Lightroom may or may not be more efficient fixing or worsening this issue. I really wanted to get along fine with the Mac mini 8gb version as I plan on replacing it as soon as the next gen ones come out to minimize my investment, but I regularly import and edit more or less the same number of RAW files so I will constantly be hitting that ceiling.

I have since placed an order for 16gb Mac mini and will now need to wait well into January for it.

I'll admit my use case is not that common as most will be served well with 8gb of RAM only.

Rather there's no magic to allow the 8GB M1 to behave like your 16GB machine while running non-native vs native, as you recognize. We still await more rigorous tests about how memory works with these M1s. You may well be right, but it's hard to be sure for now.

Not suggesting you shouldn't go with 16, as you already know your use case, with the software we have for now, won't work well with 8. Definitely the right move to move up.

 

[armoured]

I'm hoping the native versions will be much more efficient. When trying to import 200-300 RAW DSLR files my 2012 i7 2.6 Mac mini with 16gb of ram is able to import in Lightroom without stuttering down to a crawl like my 8gb M1 Mac mini does with the memory pressure firmly in the yellow zone. I'm hoping when the native Lightroom Classic comes out it will relieve the memory pressure by being more efficient than Rosetta. Nevertheless, I've already placed an order for the 16gb Mac mini as I don't know when Adobe will get around to releasing the Native version.. There's no "magic" that allows the M1 to use less memory manipulating 45 MP Mirrorless/DSLR files than Intel version.

This is precisely the type of case where more RAM will make a big difference (although disk speed of the catalog and where you're importing from matters too). Basically Lightroom will use up most of the cores as long as the system can keep feeding it image data (and let it write out), as it will work on multiple images at a time. And large image files/decoding raw etc means more memory is better. A bit simplistic but four or six cores with large images starting with 12/14 bit raw files, that's a lot of memory.

In contrast I recently did some heavy work using aperture and lightroom simultaneously (I still haven't fully transitioned from aperture). On a 32gb system, the speed constraint was clearly disk speed, ram was plentiful, cpus well away from full load.

 

[armoured]

Rather there's no magic to allow the 8GB M1 to behave like your 16GB machine while running non-native vs native, as you recognize. We still await more rigorous tests about how memory works with these M1s. You may well be right, but it's hard to be sure for now.

Sorry, but there's no magic either way: sure, native M1 software might use a bit less ram (no rosetta2), but the driver of ram usage for lightroom during a large import/raw decode/standard edits/create and modify previews operation is the image data, not the program code even moderated through Rosetta2. M1 native software will not magically reduce the amount of ram used - there's no 'magic beans' system setting the M1 enables.

 

[armoured]

You've got it backwards about who's speculating. I pointed out facts, that we don't know much about whether there are differences between how memory is handled between M1s and Intels, and that the same OS operates differently on different platforms. You've reached conclusions about both that are highly speculative.

It might make sense to adjust how memory is used if the "pain" of using less is decreased.

I agree nothing directly bearing on the amount of memory needed has been made public by Apple. The vast majority of Mac buyers don't even know what RAM is or why it matters. Apple has emphasized things that most people can understand: speed, energy usage, etc.

Changing how quickly RAM is used, and how fast swap is, can affect how much RAM is required to run smoothly. We don't really know if changes have been made in how RAM is handled in the M1s.

Let's be clear: you're speculating that there is some capability to drastically reduce the amount of RAM used that's inherent to the M1 system _that Apple hasn't announced or mentioned_.

Is that even remotely likely? Apple touted a lot of advantages of the M1 platform, and yet they didn't mention this?

Contrast this when Apple introduced the memory compression feature way back in Mavericks (10.9).

Mavericks memory compression review

Compressed memory is the only major storage feature in OS 10.9 Mavericks. Here's what it is and how well it works.

www.zdnet.com

This was specifically announced with a fair amount of technical detail (right down to the compression algorithm) that it would - in certain circumstances - reduce the amount of swapping and the speed hit that results - and that systems with less ram would benefit a lot (and at the margin, be able to 'get by' with less ram, all things being equal). This was a big deal esp when apple was still offering base systems with only 4gb of ram on-board (non-upgradeable).

So who do you think is being 'highly speculative'? I repeat: there's no NSMagicMemoryBeans() function.

What is clear (and was known before M1 came out) is that - as you yourself put it - "Changing how quickly RAM is used, and how fast swap is, can affect how much RAM is required to run smoothly."

It's VERY likely that this is the main advantage users are seeing with M1 ram usage - it runs more smoothly even if there is ram pressure because they have improved dramatically how quickly ram and swap work. That's a good thing and does mean some users will be fine wiht less ram (all things equal) compared to Intel platforms.

 

[armoured]

I'm not sure that statement is as true today as it used to be. My first computer was a Commodore 64, so I know what you're talking about. You used to get a new computer and it was outdated a year or two later.
... But the rate of growth seems to have slacked off considerably from the old days.

Now this is a really good and straightforward statement. It's true that the rate of growth has slacked off considerably, with relatively modest gains in speed and ram usage over time. And it's entirely possible that for a lot of users their usage profile hasn't changed as much as it would in the past.

One of my big uses is photography and there too, the rate of growth of image file size (sensor megapixels basically) has slowed down a lot - newer cameras often using ~24mp sensors even though that has been around for several years. (Yes, there are some doing 40+mp sensors, but 24mp seems to have been established 'good enough' for even demanding photography. (And a lot of users don't want massive increases in megapixels if it means their computers slow to a crawl when importing/processing...)

A lot more speculative: some of the restraint of demand for ram (slower growth) seems to have been driven by the fact that platform speed in intel has been limited. What remains to be seen is whether Apple's innovation in the M1 platform drives more aggressive growth in ram usage etc.

I mean this in terms of honest speculation, I think it will drive some as programmers realise they can do things that would have been impractical before, but at some point "good enough" for most users / use profiles starts to kick in. At some point, there's only so much you can add to a notes app/to do list, and it's not likely to drive ram usage much.

In real world usage, I find internet speed/latency to be a MUCH bigger factor for how much I'm waiting for my computer than ram, processor speed, etc, or anything else going on under the hood.

 

[Ethosik]

Sorry, but there's no magic either way: sure, native M1 software might use a bit less ram (no rosetta2), but the driver of ram usage for lightroom during a large import/raw decode/standard edits/create and modify previews operation is the image data, not the program code even moderated through Rosetta2. M1 native software will not magically reduce the amount of ram used - there's no 'magic beans' system setting the M1 enables.

I think part of the issue, and I have fallen for this too, is that due to many many MANY recommendations from people that "more RAM = better" when they actually do not need more RAM. For example, I wasted $600 in 128GB of RAM to upgrade my iMac. This is after market RAM prices here, so its not overpriced RAM here. I only do 1080p video editing. I had to get certified for video editing for my job, so I took several classes and tutorials that offer certifications. Many of the instructors (who were also involved in some pretty big movies) said 1080p video editing is fine on 8GB of RAM. So guess what I did, removed my 128GB, put in the original 8GB that came with my iMac. Sure enough, a whopping 20 seconds slower to render my video when the video takes 10+ minutes anyway. WOW, I must REALLY need 128GB of RAM then. I was quite furious.

So no, more ram = better is not always the case. I basically flushed $600 down the toilet and it would have the same benefit.

People look at their systems, whether its 8GB of 128GB. They see program X taking up Y GB of RAM and think they need that much RAM. With Adobe After Effects, that same 1080p video takes up 110GB of my 128GB RAM (since I only allow AE to max out to 110GB of RAM). For 1080p video! I don't think anyone here will say you NEED 128GB of RAM when you are just working with 1080p h.264 footage that was able to be worked on 10 maybe 15 years ago with less powerful systems.

 

[MacCraig Pro]

Everyone talks about 8GB being enough today ..... But in 2, 4 or 6 years? Is 8GB enough then too?
All computers I have had require more RAM than less after years go by. The software is updated and sets higher requirements.

If you have the money, why not update RAM then the life of the computer increases.

Up until a month ago, I was using a 2011 MBP with it's originally specced 4Gb of RAM and a 128Gb HDD; it was more than sufficient enough for me for web browsing, zoom calls, basic iMovie use, word processors and other such stuff.

I think people get het up on the RAM these days thinking they need more than they do; yes if you do a lot of movie editing and use Final Cut Pro or Adobe apps then you might need a little more, but I find 8Gb more than enough on my new M1 MBA.

My MBP was 'stuck' on 10.13 though and still ran older Apps; I suppose if you want to 'keep up' you need more RAM, but likewise in 2,4 or 6 years is your processor going to be enough too?

 

[Ethosik]

Up until a month ago, I was using a 2011 MBP with it's originally specced 4Gb of RAM and a 128Gb HDD; it was more than sufficient enough for me for web browsing, zoom calls, basic iMovie use, word processors and other such stuff.

I think people get het up on the RAM these days thinking they need more than they do; yes if you do a lot of movie editing and use Final Cut Pro or Adobe apps then you might need a little more, but I find 8Gb more than enough on my new M1 MBA.

My MBP was 'stuck' on 10.13 though and still ran older Apps; I suppose if you want to 'keep up' you need more RAM, but likewise in 2,4 or 6 years is your processor going to be enough too?

But people counter this statement saying 8GB is not enough for 50 browser tabs and three different browsers! I do not know ANYONE that has that many tabs open, especially the general public which is more suited to the 8GB versions. I don't see my family, friends or even co-workers having THAT MANY tabs open. It is just not good. You cannot possible need to reference all 50+ tabs at the same time. Bookmark it and come back to it hours later or days later. I can only manage about 10 tabs before I start getting confused and bogged down by switching to the incorrect tabs. Especially when they become so small I might waste several seconds switching to the wrong tabs.

 

[armoured]

I think part of the issue, and I have fallen for this too, is that due to many many MANY recommendations from people that "more RAM = better" when they actually do not need more RAM. For example, I wasted $600 in 128GB of RAM to upgrade my iMac.... I don't think anyone here will say you NEED 128GB of RAM when you are just working with 1080p h.264 footage that was able to be worked on 10 maybe 15 years ago with less powerful systems.

This is well put and I agree - there are limited marginal gains above some point for all uses. And I'm certainly not saying more RAM is always better (or at least without recognition of cost) so therefore boost your system to 128gb - at some point the additional benefit is close to zero.

Personally I think 16gb is the sweet spot but readily admit this is driven by my use case and experience. For others it may well be 8gb.

I do use systems with 24gb/32gb - 24gb is an improvement but not dramatic most of the time, can and will live with 16gb esp in a laptop. For me 24gb to 32gb didn't really give any significant gain, close to unnoticeable. I don't find it a big constraint that the entry level laptops top out at 16gb.

But I'm not doing 8k video or multi-hundred-gb dataset analysis. I suspect those doing that type of work know what needs they have.

 

[Ethosik]

This is well put and I agree - there are limited marginal gains above some point for all uses. And I'm certainly not saying more RAM is always better (or at least without recognition of cost) so therefore boost your system to 128gb - at some point the additional benefit is close to zero.

Personally I think 16gb is the sweet spot but readily admit this is driven by my use case and experience. For others it may well be 8gb.

I do use systems with 24gb/32gb - 24gb is an improvement but not dramatic most of the time, can and will live with 16gb esp in a laptop. For me 24gb to 32gb didn't really give any significant gain, close to unnoticeable. I don't find it a big constraint that the entry level laptops top out at 16gb.

But I'm not doing 8k video or multi-hundred-gb dataset analysis. I suspect those doing that type of work know what needs they have.

Oh obviously. I don't think anyone is arguing differently that there can be use cases that require even 128GB. Heck I know some businesses that have servers with 4 TB of RAM and it NEEDS that much RAM. If you are running a lot of virtual machines, 8K or 16K video editing, lots of statistical processing, and many more tasks require a lot more RAM. But those people wouldn't be looking at these systems anyway. I went ahead with the 16GB Mac mini to replace my iMac for my 1080p work. JUST in case I need to do some 4K work, while highly unlikely, it would be better to have it and not need it. In my experience 1080p is fine with 8GB of RAM and 4K is fine with 16GB.

 

[armoured]

Up until a month ago, I was using a 2011 MBP with it's originally specced 4Gb of RAM and a 128Gb HDD; it was more than sufficient enough for me for web browsing, zoom calls, basic iMovie use, word processors and other such stuff.

I am writing right now on a 2014 11" (love this form factor) with only 4gb. It is 'sufficient' for my purposes only with light use - mainly limited to browsing, email, etc - and even for browsing it is fairly easy to hit noticeable slowdowns in memory. Any heavier use means I really have to quit out of other programs and can't eg browse while machine does work in the background.

It's amazing it still runs as well as it does but it is almost always on the edge for (my) normal use, meaning I have to think about it - memory is almost always full, large chunks of memory are compressed, and swap file is large-ish.

I have a desktop machine for heavy use - not as convenient as it sounds because I'm only 'behind the desk' maybe a quarter of the time. (And never when you really want/need it). I should have/would have upgraded long ago but for several years I have not found the newer versions that compelling - particularly the much-reviled keyboards.

The M1s are absolutely compelling as an upgrade/better capabilities - and I'll go for 16gb. I know from experience with other machines that 8gb is on the edge in terms of memory sufficiency - occasional slowdowns guaranteed - even if I could get by.

 

[armoured]

In my experience 1080p is fine with 8GB of RAM and 4K is fine with 16GB.

Entirely reasonable. But if buying a machine now, it doesn't seem crazy to think 4k will become increasingly common in the next 2-5 years.

But people counter this statement saying 8GB is not enough for 50 browser tabs and three different browsers! ... You cannot possible need to reference all 50+ tabs at the same time. Bookmark it and come back to it hours later or days later.

Want, need, and habits are different things.

Not unusual for me to have three different browsers open (sometimes more) at once with 10 or so tabs on each open, occasionally far more. "Normal?" Probably not, but works for me. I don't have any problem keeping straight which browser tab is where because I sort-of use each browser for different things.

I dislike bookmarks because I have to manage them (delete order etc) for them to be useful; I do use them but only for "I will need to find this info six months from now." Even then, most of the time internet search is more efficient.

It's far more efficient (for me) to leave a window/tab open and hide if it's in the way. To each his own. My way requires a bit more memory and therefore money but worth it - for me.

 

[Sanpete]

Sorry, but there's no magic either way: sure, native M1 software might use a bit less ram (no rosetta2), but the driver of ram usage for lightroom during a large import/raw decode/standard edits/create and modify previews operation is the image data, not the program code even moderated through Rosetta2. M1 native software will not magically reduce the amount of ram used - there's no 'magic beans' system setting the M1 enables.

Let's be clear: you're speculating that there is some capability to drastically reduce the amount of RAM used that's inherent to the M1 system _that Apple hasn't announced or mentioned_.

Is that even remotely likely? Apple touted a lot of advantages of the M1 platform, and yet they didn't mention this?

Contrast this when Apple introduced the memory compression feature way back in Mavericks (10.9).

Mavericks memory compression review

Compressed memory is the only major storage feature in OS 10.9 Mavericks. Here's what it is and how well it works.

www.zdnet.com

This was specifically announced with a fair amount of technical detail (right down to the compression algorithm) that it would - in certain circumstances - reduce the amount of swapping and the speed hit that results - and that systems with less ram would benefit a lot (and at the margin, be able to 'get by' with less ram, all things being equal). This was a big deal esp when apple was still offering base systems with only 4gb of ram on-board (non-upgradeable).

So who do you think is being 'highly speculative'? I repeat: there's no NSMagicMemoryBeans() function.

What is clear (and was known before M1 came out) is that - as you yourself put it - "Changing how quickly RAM is used, and how fast swap is, can affect how much RAM is required to run smoothly."

It's VERY likely that this is the main advantage users are seeing with M1 ram usage - it runs more smoothly even if there is ram pressure because they have improved dramatically how quickly ram and swap work. That's a good thing and does mean some users will be fine wiht less ram (all things equal) compared to Intel platforms.

What I mean about speculation is that you keep asserting as fact things such as that the M1 can't significantly reduce the amount of RAM needed to run, say, Lightroom well, things you have no way to know, which are thus speculative.

I make no such assertions or denials, and therefore assert no speculations in that way. I point out possibilities as possibilities, not as established facts.

To clarify and expand on what I said maybe too briefly before about RAM usage, if the M1 is able to move data in and out of memory and/or compress it faster than the Intels it's replacing, and/or able to process it faster in the CPU and GPU, then more data can be passed through with the same amount of RAM. (It's like traffic on a road: the faster it is, the more can pass though on it in a given amount of time.) Similarly, with less RAM (a road with fewer lanes), it can do the same amount as the Intels (with more lanes). That again depends on whether the M1 really can do those things faster, and whether the software involved can take advantage of that, things we don't fully know yet.

It may not be simply that swap etc is faster, so we don't notice RAM limits as much, which you agree is probably a factor here. It may also be that speed of various kinds affects how much data can be passed through the same RAM for processing.

If there's a reduced need for RAM for those reasons, it's understandable that Apple wouldn't go into that in its publicity, at least directly, as even very smart people may have a hard time seeing such things unless they're explained in a more laborious way than would fit easily in publicity. And there's no strong reason for Apple to encourage people to use less RAM, I suppose.

 

[armoured]

What I mean about speculation is that you keep asserting as fact things such as that the M1 can't significantly reduce the amount of RAM needed to run, say, Lightroom well, things you have no way to know, which are thus speculative.

I make no such assertions or denials, and therefore assert no speculations in that way. I point out possibilities as possibilities, not as established facts.

To clarify and expand on what I said maybe too briefly before about RAM usage, if the M1 is able to move data in and out of memory and/or compress it faster than the Intels it's replacing, and/or able to process it faster in the CPU and GPU, then more data can be passed through with the same amount of RAM. (It's like traffic on a road: the faster it is, the more can pass though on it in a given amount of time.) Similarly, with less RAM (a road with fewer lanes), it can do the same amount as the Intels (with more lanes). That again depends on whether the M1 really can do those things faster, and whether the software involved can take advantage of that, things we don't fully know yet.

It may not be simply that swap etc is faster, so we don't notice RAM limits as much, which you agree is probably a factor here. It may also be that speed of various kinds affects how much data can be passed through the same RAM for processing.

If there's a reduced need for RAM for those reasons, it's understandable that Apple wouldn't go into that in its publicity, at least directly, as even very smart people may have a hard time seeing such things unless they're explained in a more laborious way than would fit easily in publicity. And there's no strong reason for Apple to encourage people to use less RAM, I suppose.

Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. You've been making speculative claims that there's some difference in memory management - enabled by the M1 - that dramatically reduces the amount of ram _used_.

There's no evidence for that. That's why I've been calling it magic beans.

If all you're saying is that the M1 system is much faster and hence the _penalty_ of having less ram (and having to go to swap etc) is lower - that's what I've been saying all along. But it is a different claim than "M1 uses less ram" (or various deniable I-said-that-but-not-really assertions such as "well I didn't claim that, we just don't know either way, maybe apple has added magic beans to the mix."

So to put this simply: yes, some users who found 8gb to be a constraint before _might_ find that the improved speed overall makes 8gb manageable when they didn't before, or that swap slowdowns are no longer noticeable. But that does NOT mean M1 systems are using 'much less ram' or that memory management in M1 is dramatically different - just much faster in a way that makes usage in short-ram conditions much better.

 

[alien3dx]

I think part of the issue, and I have fallen for this too, is that due to many many MANY recommendations from people that "more RAM = better" when they actually do not need more RAM. For example, I wasted $600 in 128GB of RAM to upgrade my iMac. This is after market RAM prices here, so its not overpriced RAM here. I only do 1080p video editing. I had to get certified for video editing for my job, so I took several classes and tutorials that offer certifications. Many of the instructors (who were also involved in some pretty big movies) said 1080p video editing is fine on 8GB of RAM. So guess what I did, removed my 128GB, put in the original 8GB that came with my iMac. Sure enough, a whopping 20 seconds slower to render my video when the video takes 10+ minutes anyway. WOW, I must REALLY need 128GB of RAM then. I was quite furious.

So no, more ram = better is not always the case. I basically flushed $600 down the toilet and it would have the same benefit.

People look at their systems, whether its 8GB of 128GB. They see program X taking up Y GB of RAM and think they need that much RAM. With Adobe After Effects, that same 1080p video takes up 110GB of my 128GB RAM (since I only allow AE to max out to 110GB of RAM). For 1080p video! I don't think anyone here will say you NEED 128GB of RAM when you are just working with 1080p h.264 footage that was able to be worked on 10 maybe 15 years ago with less powerful systems.

Some people much don't understand.

In old times my customer bought itanium with 128 GB RM(Intel 64 bit).
** ours all is x86-64 from amd

1. More ram if not configure kinda useless.
2. Operating System not much supported.

For Video people ..

Extra ram can be create as ram drive. The ram drive can be used as scratch disk

Welcome to the Premiere Pro User Guide

Use this guide to learn about Premiere Pro and all its features. Premiere Pro is the industry-leading video editing software for film, TV, and the web.

helpx.adobe.com

For Developer

Reduce XCode build times (Example)

A protip by rerel about xcode and os x.

coderwall.com

For normal people, 8 GB is enough. But for person whom open a lot of YouTube in chrome, streaming benefit more from extra ram.

From my perspective m1, I can't said much because I cannot order one from apple website

Buy Mac mini

Mac mini — supercharged by the M2 chip — features a wide array of ports for a phenomenal desktop experience. Financing options available. Select a model or customize your own.

www.apple.com

** just receive upgrade my baseline 2017 from platter 1gb to sandisk 256 GB ,16 GB RAM.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Not true. Even $800 Canadian is more than enough for a gaming setup that will blow the doors clean off an Apple setup.

But I guess it all depends on what you mean by "decent". I take that to mean playing AAA titles at 1080p with good frame rates.

Yes, I define decent as 1440p to 4k at 60 fps.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. You've been making speculative claims that there's some difference in memory management - enabled by the M1 - that dramatically reduces the amount of ram _used_.

There's no evidence for that. That's why I've been calling it magic beans.

If all you're saying is that the M1 system is much faster and hence the _penalty_ of having less ram (and having to go to swap etc) is lower - that's what I've been saying all along. But it is a different claim than "M1 uses less ram" (or various deniable I-said-that-but-not-really assertions such as "well I didn't claim that, we just don't know either way, maybe apple has added magic beans to the mix."

So to put this simply: yes, some users who found 8gb to be a constraint before _might_ find that the improved speed overall makes 8gb manageable when they didn't before, or that swap slowdowns are no longer noticeable. But that does NOT mean M1 systems are using 'much less ram' or that memory management in M1 is dramatically different - just much faster in a way that makes usage in short-ram conditions much better.

Well, keep in mind also that it isn't just RAM. I have a 2015 15" MBP with the i7 2.8GHz and 16 GB of RAM. Admittedly it does have only onboard video. It DIES when I do wonderdraft or other high-intensity programs. Honestly it should die, I would upgrade but want to wait for the 14" models next year.

Anyway, my point is that the penalty on the m1 macs looks to be not just less but significantly less. In fact, it looks like the best moves they made were to speed up the SSD and SSD controllers in addition to the M1. This is a screaming machine and I can't wait to see what they put out next year when they do the real macs.

 

[armoured]

Anyway, my point is that the penalty on the m1 macs looks to be not just less but significantly less. In fact, it looks like the best moves they made were to speed up the SSD and SSD controllers in addition to the M1. This is a screaming machine and I can't wait to see what they put out next year when they do the real macs.

That's a good point - I entirely agree that the penalty can and may be so dramatically lower that for some it resolves the issue in favour of opting for the smaller memory. (I'll still go for the 16gb).

What's that old line - any significantly advanced technology can seem like magic? It may be that this jump in speed is enough for it to seem like (magically) less RAM is required.

My point remains: we do not need some hand-waving magic ram beans explanation to explain this. It can be true that (in some use cases) dramatically faster ram and ssds and cpus/gpus give dramatic improvements. But I see no reason to believe or claim it's actually using dramatically less ram (Apple isn't claiming that, and there's no leaks or analysis suggesting it's the case).

But it may well seem like it (and that's great!) - at some point, if the penalty is so small that it's as-good-as having more ram, then for that user, that's as-good-as it using less ram.

For me the improved battery life alone - at previous performance levels - would be enough to get me to buy the new Air, especially with lower heat and fan. The stonkin' performance is a huge money-for-nothing win.

 

[Ethosik]

Entirely reasonable. But if buying a machine now, it doesn't seem crazy to think 4k will become increasingly common in the next 2-5 years.

4K offers zero benefits for what I do. I can safely say I will not be doing 4K content. My clients don't even have fast enough internet to download the files they need and it is zero benefits.

 

[Ethosik]

Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. You've been making speculative claims that there's some difference in memory management - enabled by the M1 - that dramatically reduces the amount of ram _used_.

There's no evidence for that. That's why I've been calling it magic beans.

There actually is evidence of improvements.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326238434235568128

 

[Internaut]

Well, 8GB isn't troubling me but I do get buying an 8GB model. A little bit... You see, 8GB was fine on the basis that virtualisation wouldn't be a thing with my Air. I wasn't expecting virtualisation to be practical for around a year. Maybe I'm ultimately right. However, some very talented engineers in the open source space are making things happen at a quite frankly astonishing pace. As it stands, a MacBook 8GB will reasonably run a light Linux VM (think 2GB max, and probably better with an XCFE desktop rather than Gnome). At 16GB the possibilities start go get interesting.

 

[Populus]

Hi, I don’t want to have any argument, conflict or dispute with anyone on this forum, I just wanted to share my experience with a recently purchased 8GB of RAM M1 MacBook Air. After few hours using it, with just Safari with 10 tabs open, Music app and Books, it started to look like this:

As you can see, it reached the yellow zone on memory pressure, just before compressing it.

Then, after some more activity with BlackMagic Disk Speed Test and up to 15 tabs open the swap disk space reached 3 to 4GB of disk. Not that the performance is bad or anything, the SSD, on a brand new machine, is quick enough for us to not notice the access to swap space, but still, it shows that the system needs more RAM.

I'm going to test a bit more this machine, but I will probably swap it for a 16GB of RAM unit, paying the extra 230€.

 

[alien3dx]

There actually is evidence of improvements.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326238434235568128

not sure what it mean. but in oop world like java eat em all object to memory.garbage collection handle em all release.

 

[armoured]

There actually is evidence of improvements.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326238434235568128

This operation and speed is a measure of a memory operation using the cpu. I don't think it is a measure of how much ram is in use. And it's exactly the same operation in Intel and M1, just faster on the latter - so not a changé in memory model.

(Admit openly I don't know whether this operation goes directly to dram or through registers and ram caches. I presume through to ram via the other two, eventually.)