Eta on 32g of Ram for M1/M2? When can we expect the new Mac Book Pro 16’?

[Fomalhaut]

It definitely can't otherwise Apple would have offered 32GB configurations at least for MacBook Pro / iMac. Same with 2TB limit.

The current M1 SoC package probably can't support more than 16GB RAM without moving to higher-capacity RAM modules, because of the the limited space of the package.

However, the M1 architecture almost certainly can support large amounts of RAM - depending on the memory controllers, address bus width and the physical size available on the package.

There is nothing inherently preventing the construction of a physically larger M1 variant that has space for more RAM and can include more CPU and GPU cores. Same M1 microarchitecture generation, just bigger.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I’m confident it can’t. There is zero reason why more ram wouldn’t have been added as an option if it could handle it.

You need to separate the current M1 package and the M1 architecture.

The former is too small to fit enough RAM modules to exceed 16GB (unless they move to a higher density module), and the latter almost certainly can address much larger memory spaces.

 

[1am0]

...also, according to schematics there'll be: lid angle sensor, magsafe connector, sd-card reader, hdmi and completely different types of LCD-screen.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I guess the memory controller could be the limiting factor. Otherwise Apple could have used the M1 in a bigger package with four memory modules in the new iMac, matching the memory options in the replaced Intel models.

My guess is that Apple wanted to meet a price point with significantly better performance at that price than the Intel offerings. Basing it on the existing A14 designs reduced risk, and met the requirements for entry-level machines.

Had they waited and then released a > $2000 machine with more memory, they may have gained a good number of power-users, but lost all the millions of people who are looking for a $1000-1300 laptop.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Could Apple have used four modules on the M1 instead of two?

No, the SoC package is not large enough. The 2 RAM modules are on the right hand side of the package.

 

[darngooddesign]

No, the SoC package is not large enough. The 2 RAM modules are on the right hand side of the package.

View attachment 1770485

Why couldn't the SoC be larger?

 

[quarkysg]

No, the SoC package is not large enough. The 2 RAM modules are on the right hand side of the package.

View attachment 1770485

Actually Apple could have placed another 2 RAM modules to the left of the SoC. The RAM modules could also be placed horizontally instead of vertically. In this instance we could have 8 x 8GB RAM modules, for a total of 64GB. The data line traces would probably be quite symmetric and hence result in consistent data signal quality. The challenge then is how to route those 128 (256 even if the M1 supports 256-bit data lane) data line traces between all those RAM modules to ensure that data signals are not degraded due to trace lengths and signal noise. It could be done, but will likely increase engineering time and that would then impact cost.

If this is done tho, the battery life of the M1 MacBooks would be lower and more heat would be generated, resulting in more heat removal, and so on and so forth. So at the end of the day, my view is that it is a engineering trade-off instead of a technical limitation of the M1, considering the target market the released M1 Macs are meant to address.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Actually Apple could have placed another 2 RAM modules to the left of the SoC. The RAM modules could also be placed horizontally instead of vertically. In this instance we could have 8 x 8GB RAM modules, for a total of 64GB. The data line traces would probably be quite symmetric and hence result in consistent data signal quality. The challenge then is how to route those 128 (256 even if the M1 supports 256-bit data lane) data line traces between all those RAM modules to ensure that data signals are not degraded due to trace lengths and signal noise. It could be done, but will likely increase engineering time and that would then impact cost.

If this is done tho, the battery life of the M1 MacBooks would be lower and more heat would be generated, resulting in more heat removal, and so on and so forth. So at the end of the day, my view is that it is a engineering trade-off instead of a technical limitation of the M1, considering the target market the released M1 Macs are meant to address.

I'm not sure if that's true (in bold). It's not obvious where the actual "package boundary" lies, but from this image, it would indicate that the it's probably just the central part of the previous picture (i.e. the silver-colored section and the RAM modules. Here is a view without the "silver lid" (CT scan images):

I think this image represents the package in relationship to the RAM module size.

The square section in the center is the actual silicon die, with the RAM on the right. There wouldn't be room to add more RAM to the left in this case.

...and this photo is even clearer:

We can expect the next versions to be larger and have more space for RAM, or even stack it vertically as you suggest. The M1 is still quite a moderately size die compared to other CPUs, and even more so compared to GPUs some of which have 5-6 times the area.

 

[quarkysg]

I'm not sure if that's true (in bold). It's not obvious where the actual "package boundary" lies, but from this image, it would indicate that the it's probably just the central part of the previous picture (i.e. the silver-colored section and the RAM modules. Here is a view without the "silver lid" (CT scan images):

View attachment 1770538

View attachment 1770541

I think this image represents the package in relationship to the RAM module size.

View attachment 1770543

The square section in the center is the actual silicon die, with the RAM on the right. There wouldn't be room to add more RAM to the left in this case.

...and this photo is even clearer:

View attachment 1770547

We can expect the next versions to be larger and have more space for RAM, or even stack it vertically as you suggest. The M1 is still quite a moderately size die compared to other CPUs, and even more so compared to GPUs some of which have 5-6 times the area.

Apple can just make the board the SoC is sitting on larger. No biggie. As I said earlier, the main issue will be the data lines routing as these are high speed lines carrying data signal. The boards can have multiple layers, but noise will likely be a major issue.

Heck, Apple could also place RAM modules at the top and bottom as well. RAM modules could also be placed at the back of the board as well and go crazy with the memory capabity, but that will be a nightmare to route, I would imagine.

 

[Sydde]

From those images, it looks like the RAM is actually quasi-modular, not burned into the SoC as has been suggested. Which makes sense: no need to produce two different SoCs for 8 or 16Gb. And that means going to 24 or 32 or larger does not require a chip redesign.

 

[Fomalhaut]

From those images, it looks like the RAM is actually quasi-modular, not burned into the SoC as has been suggested. Which makes sense: no need to produce two different SoCs for 8 or 16Gb. And that means going to 24 or 32 or larger does not require a chip redesign.

That's right. The RAM are surface-mounted modules (possibly made by Hynix) that integrate with the memory controllers on the processor die (which is separate). The limit on M1 RAM is a combination of the physical size of the package (sized to contain the 8+8 core die), and a marketing decision by Apple.

I would expect an MBP16 package to be at least 150% larger to accomodate 2 or 3 times the number of performance cores, maybe double the GPU cores, and at least 32GB RAM.

 

[UBS28]

It will be announced in Q3 2021. Probably will be available in limited amount in Q4 2021.

 

[BlueTide]

I have a base 8GB UM M1 Mini and it does NOT need any more UM ("RAM").
My 8GB Unified Memory runs circles around any Intel Mini with double or triple or quadruple the "RAM" and does it with coldness (no fan spin ups).

Good for you. This has started to come up with my M1 16GB Air. Not the end of the world, of course, but it does not take that much to run out, given how many apps are written these days.

 

[Fomalhaut]

View attachment 1771052

Good for you. This has started to come up with my M1 16GB Air. Not the end of the world, of course, but it does not take that much to run out, given how many apps are written these days.

Interesting. I've never seen this error on my M1 Mini, but have probably seen it a couple of times in the last 15 years of using Macs.

How much swap memory were you using when this happened, and is your SSD nearly full? (which might explain why it couldn't write to swap)

If you have ordered the apps by memory usage, you don't appear to be running any heavyweight apps, so it's surprising that you would have a memory error. Perhaps you have an app with a memory leak?

Here are my top apps by usage:

It's using over 8GB swap but doesn't seem to be under memory pressure that would cause an error.

 

[jumpcutking]

according to BOM list, there WILL be models with 32gb RAM.

That warms my heart!

 

[jumpcutking]

You are all awesome and thank you for a waft of technical information... I may or may not feel like this post was written by a bunch of Dr/s or sudo super Senior Engineers... but hey!

 

[BlueTide]

How much swap memory were you using when this happened, and is your SSD nearly full? (which might explain why it couldn't write to swap)

I don't recall about swap, nor I really care. SSD has hundreds of GB free. I am pretty sure I know the reason too. Before getting to that, the dialog itself is from Apple and not in order of memory use.

I am guessing the culprit is that many of the "small" apps are built on various (often web) frameworks that consume memory like no tomorrow. Once you keep these open all at once, it adds up.

Perhaps the reason I hit this more now is that for various reasons I am using more of these smaller utilities in personal life (some peeps need to be contacted via Line, some via Whatsapp, you get the picture). And various teams I work with require their own apps and tools.

Anyway, point being, 16GB RAM is not panacea. It does run out, and in some cases that happens with relatively light use too.

 

[jumpcutking]

I just saw the wonderful iMacs and I feel like bumping this thread. Rumors are circulating that we may see a professional workstation soon… and I really really really… need one.

I want to hit the mind blown emoji on some after effect renders. Please.

 

[Lemon Olive]

We'll see MacBook Pros this summer, yes.

 

[CWallace]

Latest rumors say the MBP 14 and 16 will be offered with up to 64GB.

For the LPDDR4X SDRAM the M1 uses, 4GB and 8GB are the most common capacities, but as noted there are 12GB modules and I believe higher densities are in development or in limited production. So the MBPs will either be using more than two 8GB modules or they could be using these higher-density modules.

 

[Beancamel]

i need a new laptop yesterday! i really hope they come out this year! Trying to hold off on the current M1 but its getting more and more down to the wire,,,,,

 

[Jorbanead]

I just saw the wonderful iMacs and I feel like bumping this thread. Rumors are circulating that we may see a professional workstation soon… and I really really really… need one.

I want to hit the mind blown emoji on some after effect renders. Please.

WWDC would be the most likely. If we don’t see something then, I would be surprised. The only thing holding them back right now AFAIK is display shortages.