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.
Do you really need more than base M1?
- Thread starter Bodhitree
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Luckily that's just an assumption, though you state it as a fact. I'm also hoping for improved display support from the base M2. RAM and number of supported ports could also theoretically increase.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple chases gaming in the future, now that the potential graphical prowess is there, and will likely improve faster than CPU performance with the M2 family. If the graphics keep improving dramatically, they might as well add in ray tracing support and try to snag themselves a bunch of customers they've left to Microsoft and PlayStation up until now.
That particular bus left a long time ago. Apple can scream about how cool Metal is, BUT...until it becomes as simple as "paint by numbers," game developers won't care. They will just continue to "paint by numbers" using Windows compilers.
Apple will definitely have to add hardware RT sooner than later, but “chasing” the gaming market would mean actively getting into the game and financing game studios + maybe making a console. I don’t see them doing anything like that. The more realistic scenario IMO that they simple continue to deliver the hardware and the tools and leave the rest to independent devs.
I know the 'bus left' a long time ago, but it's only been a few weeks since M1 Ultra came out, and in a couple of years even the 'Pro' will be impressive... A company of Apple's scale can choose to drive gaming forwards on the platform from now on if they think it's worthwhile for them.
I agree with you. I don't think they'll do it either, at least in the near future. I just think it's interesting that we're reached a point where they really could, now they're designing their own silicon.
As someone sated before I wish my M1 MacMini had more GPU power, but I'm fine with it. It still is my best Mac ever.
I think the Ultra and Pro versions are addressed to those who has hold on the launch of M1.
I think the Ultra and Pro versions are addressed to those who has hold on the launch of M1.
Especially given it's faster than the MBP 16 i9. Jeeze. I've used native tools on mine for use with the GPU and found it's snazzy in comparison to my 16. Everything past bas M1 is massively more powerful and likely overkill for a lot of things.
ALso keep in mind we still are not supporting the full hardware as of yet. It's still running these as a "PC" style hardware layer. Over time this is changing and will take advantage of what is new.
Were Apple to ever chase gamers, however unlikely, they'd have to make one drastic change. Currently to get the most GPU performance you need to buy the largest number of CPU cores, which is wasteful and expensive. For gaming they'd need an M-variant that has a moderate number of CPU cores, but a lot of GPU cores. They'd really have to go all in on gaming to justify that development, and they probably won't. Would be cool though, and would save me from having to buy a Windows PC or a games console in the future.
The M1 is great for 99% of customers, that's been established here.
For those who do video and photo and are on the fence wondering, here's my experience. I had work buy me a 16GB M1 Mac mini for work with the heavy lifting being FCPX and Lightroom.
Lightroom is a memory Wh0re, it might as well be the only think open and it'll happily go into my swap after going to develop one photo. On the other hand, Affinity Designer is shockingly swift. Obviously the big difference there is one is Metal and the other is not. For me personally, that doesn't change that I have to use Lightroom.
As for FCPX, performance is good but it would absolutely be better with M1 Pro. On exports, the GPU is beyond saturated and the CPU is at about 40%. It seems if I gave it M1 Pro or M1 Max, they would both properly saturate. I now use 1080p proxy media. I use LUT's and sometimes 3-4 color layers on top and I can play in real-time (with proxy) for most footage, but the GPU is very saturated. Layered edits with special blend modes or masking cause stutters even with proxy media. That kind of seems to be the line, but if you're doing hobby stuff you shouldn't hit this "wall".
For those who do video and photo and are on the fence wondering, here's my experience. I had work buy me a 16GB M1 Mac mini for work with the heavy lifting being FCPX and Lightroom.
Lightroom is a memory Wh0re, it might as well be the only think open and it'll happily go into my swap after going to develop one photo. On the other hand, Affinity Designer is shockingly swift. Obviously the big difference there is one is Metal and the other is not. For me personally, that doesn't change that I have to use Lightroom.
As for FCPX, performance is good but it would absolutely be better with M1 Pro. On exports, the GPU is beyond saturated and the CPU is at about 40%. It seems if I gave it M1 Pro or M1 Max, they would both properly saturate. I now use 1080p proxy media. I use LUT's and sometimes 3-4 color layers on top and I can play in real-time (with proxy) for most footage, but the GPU is very saturated. Layered edits with special blend modes or masking cause stutters even with proxy media. That kind of seems to be the line, but if you're doing hobby stuff you shouldn't hit this "wall".
That said, the M1 resembles a game console SoC a great deal. I can imagine something between a Mac Mini (less ports) and an Apple TV (more fan, more storage) for a cheapish and capable M1 console.
The base M1 is a great floor. Apple really raised the bar of the entry level, probably more than most non-tech people realize. With single core performance the same, all Macs will be generally fast... and it's only multicore performance where you really need it... and that's not everything... it's really only a few tasks that will really use all the cores.
It's really the best it could be, the low end is high performance at a low price. And the high end is double the performance for about double the price. (comparing M1 mini to M1 Max Studio) There isn't really a pain point in the lineup, because the entry Macs are so good.
I think the only problem is that the upgrades come in big chunks. If you need 32GB, but the M1 is fast enough...you have to spend. And same for graphics... just needing GPU performance means you have to spend. And then doubly so for 64GB of RAM... then you need a Max which doesn't give you any more CPU performance compared to Pro. Then it repeats for the Ultra.
Any Mac of the past 5-10 years would be great for web browsing, office documents...etc. The M1 pushes that further to being great for advanced needs of audio/video/programming... which is kind of like an iPad. Any iPad is pretty good at all the apps you can get on an iPad... even Garageband and iMovie you don't have to worry about it. Just buy the device and use it.
The high end is there for those with money to burn and those who know specifically why they need it. If you don't know why you need it, you don't need it.
It's a pretty clean breakdown. The regular M1 is as good or better than the old 15" MacBook Pro. The M1 Pro/Max is twice as good in multicore, and the Ultra is 4 times as good. And it breaks down by price the same too... M1~$700-$1500 M1Pro/Max~$2000-$3500 and M1 Ultra $4000+.
Of course the MBP gets all the nice extras of amazing screen, speakers and ports.
It's really the best it could be, the low end is high performance at a low price. And the high end is double the performance for about double the price. (comparing M1 mini to M1 Max Studio) There isn't really a pain point in the lineup, because the entry Macs are so good.
I think the only problem is that the upgrades come in big chunks. If you need 32GB, but the M1 is fast enough...you have to spend. And same for graphics... just needing GPU performance means you have to spend. And then doubly so for 64GB of RAM... then you need a Max which doesn't give you any more CPU performance compared to Pro. Then it repeats for the Ultra.
Any Mac of the past 5-10 years would be great for web browsing, office documents...etc. The M1 pushes that further to being great for advanced needs of audio/video/programming... which is kind of like an iPad. Any iPad is pretty good at all the apps you can get on an iPad... even Garageband and iMovie you don't have to worry about it. Just buy the device and use it.
The high end is there for those with money to burn and those who know specifically why they need it. If you don't know why you need it, you don't need it.
It's a pretty clean breakdown. The regular M1 is as good or better than the old 15" MacBook Pro. The M1 Pro/Max is twice as good in multicore, and the Ultra is 4 times as good. And it breaks down by price the same too... M1~$700-$1500 M1Pro/Max~$2000-$3500 and M1 Ultra $4000+.
Of course the MBP gets all the nice extras of amazing screen, speakers and ports.
Last edited:
Never is a long timeI'll see your "probably" and raise you to "definitely never will"
Never is a long time
True -- normally I'm a "never say never" guy..
But -- Apple has been consistently not caring about Mac gaming for decades
On this subject, I'll stick with "never" until proven wrong
I nearly bought a MBP for personal use, partly for the screen. On paper it sounded brilliant. But before pulling the trigger I went to an Apple store to check out the differences. I spent a full hour or more comparing the screens of all the modern MacBooks side by side. Aside from being brighter, I was unable to discern any other improvements, AT ALL. (This was soon after release, before Apple sorted out the problem of enabling the higher refresh rate in software.) In low light I bet the mini-led looks a lot better, but not in store.
However, the Pros have the negatives of the horrid notch, though it's better hidden than expected, and more significantly the edge shadow, all around the screen. The edge shadow is so off putting for me that I'd much rather own the Air- while technically inferior, it doesn't have a weird and glaring defect staring you in the face every time you open any app with a white background, like a web page.
I don't disagree with you... all I'm left with is hope ??True -- normally I'm a "never say never" guy..
But -- Apple has been consistently not caring about Mac gaming for decades
On this subject, I'll stick with "never" until proven wrong
"Not caring" is a vague statement. Some folks claim that Apple doesn't care about the Mac altogether.
The problem isn’t the hardware. There has to be a sufficient market share to justify triple A games for macOS. There just aren’t enough Mac users to attract the big game studios. The only way we will get top quality Metal games is if Apple itself creates them.
Anyway the M1 Mac is decent hardware for streaming game providers, as long as you have a fast and reliable internet connection.
Problem is base M1 models are extremely limited by RAM and storage. Double both for big bucks and you have a useable system that will be o.k. for some years. At which point you will realise that only the base models have a really good resale value (compared to what you pay).
Hence I bought the base Studio which will not only last some extra years over a Mini but will also have better resale value.
Well and having some headroom is always nice....
Hence I bought the base Studio which will not only last some extra years over a Mini but will also have better resale value.
Well and having some headroom is always nice....
Here's the problem, Apple doesn't advertise games for the Mac at all. Not that there isn't plenty of Macs owners that aren't gamers. We had for a number of years a few game providers that sold some games on the Apple store, but most game companies need enough revenue to make it worthwhile. So because the Mac allows buying software games readily from cloud or download it locally, most game companies have switched to selling direct via web. I regularly play Blizzard games until they stop updating them. Run fine in Rosetta 2 the ones that still are supported on Macs.
Last edited:
Didnt watch the video (horribly inefficent way to get across non-visual info) but the base M1 is fine for almost all of us. That doesn't mean it's only capable of 'light' tasks. It's faster than an i9 and no one would say an i9 machine is for people who just web browse.
The limitations of the M1 base aren't power. It's 1) that we're restricted to 16gb of RAM, so for people who need more RAM but not more CPU, they need to buy the CPU they don't need just to get 32g+ and 2) only 2 ports with only 1 external screen supported.
I don't think we'll see the base models support 32G for a while, but I'd like to have dual screens. More CPU/GPU though? I don't really need it.
The limitations of the M1 base aren't power. It's 1) that we're restricted to 16gb of RAM, so for people who need more RAM but not more CPU, they need to buy the CPU they don't need just to get 32g+ and 2) only 2 ports with only 1 external screen supported.
I don't think we'll see the base models support 32G for a while, but I'd like to have dual screens. More CPU/GPU though? I don't really need it.
For normal office workers is more than enough the base M1, I was crazy enough to get the 8gb version wich was a mistake because now that I'm diving into some gaming and virtualization I'd like to have 16gb at least.
Anyway its been almost one year and a half so I guess I'd jump into the M2 base model with 16 gb as soon as its released
I also wish I’d gotten the 16gb RAM. I can’t tell you how many times my Air has stuttered and slowed because I apparently had too many browser tabs open at once (and who doesn’t?!) — but as far as the processor goes I have no complaints about the M1; it’s can handle much more and does it faster than I expected.