That's what's special about it.... you don't have to deal with a front side bus as per an Intel based PC... the RAM and disk space are on chip.
Bus? What Bus? It's SOC.
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.
For student? MBP 16" 2019 Gray 2.3 i9 32GB 1TB 4GB 5500M
- Thread starter Gary Kline
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bus? What Bus? It's SOC.
I do not believe that swapping to disk is a mortal sin, especially with the fast storage we have today. But I do think that for the prices Apple charges for their hardware, arguably everything except the base model Mac mini and M1 MacBook Air basically, they should be giving users 16GB of RAM and probably 512GB of Storage as well. The hardware is too expensive to excuse the small amount of RAM - whether the users need it or not, they're paying enough for it.
I do believe 8gb is quite pathetic on a machine from 2021 upwards (considering older models are still on the refurb store occasionally), that's not the issue.
The issue really is with not understanding unified memory and how deleting the front side bus (not having to go through a memory pipeline to access your RAM/Disk) is really a significant game changer.
It's not comparable with the way Intel Macs work that still have a Front Side Bus and a North Bridge to go through to get to the RAM chips themselves, and then interrupts (meaning requests to access which blocks up the whole bus in traditional motherboard designs if any of these pathways want access to the CPU) which may be limited by their inherent bus speed vs M1 which deletes this whole issue, and therefore doesn't have the bottle neck of an FSB or North Bridge to deal with.
You would really have to have an IT background to understand what this means in terms of a traditional motherboard vs an SOC.
This is how a traditional computer works, it has all kinds of limitations for each of those pipelines that go to the RAM, PCI-E cards, etc, that have to interact with the north bridge, and traditional south bridge (albeit a lot of modern computers don't have a true south bridge anymore)
Everytime something needs to happen it has to be communicated through one of the pipelines and then to the north or south bridge controller and then the north or south bridge has to interact with the CPU, these are all points where bottlenecks can occur that don't occur with the M1, M2, M3 architecture because all of this now happens on the "CP/GPU" itself.
It's hard to find a good example of a diagram to compare a monolithic (formed of a single chip) CPU dye to but you get the point. But if you can't see why the board design below is slow, then you need the training to understand why.
Attachments
Last edited:
I understand exactly what it means. It is a massive shift in system architecture. Apple gets all the credit for the engineering of Apple Silicon.
The real world penalty of swapping to disk on Apple Silicon is basically zero, but these components have never been cheaper so there is also zero reason why a $1000+ laptop should need to swap to disk with typical usage.
I agree on the point as I said. I paid for the 16gb M1 Max option and I am glad I did, it still maintains relative performance to M2, and it's about as much RAM as you need, 32gb would be nice but it was too expensive for me.
Like I said 8gb is pitiful in 2024, let alone 2021. It's one of my bug bears along with the slow bus on base model M2 and M3 MacBook Pros...
I'd fix it if I could but Apple wouldn't listen to me...
Last time I had to speak to Apple directly I had to beg for a new top case even though mine was broken and clearly not my fault...
There are a lot of things I don't liike about modern Apple but this is one of the least most important issues for me.
Like I said 8gb is pitiful in 2024, let alone 2021. It's one of my bug bears along with the slow bus on base model M2 and M3 MacBook Pros...
I'd fix it if I could but Apple wouldn't listen to me...
Last time I had to speak to Apple directly I had to beg for a new top case even though mine was broken and clearly not my fault...
There are a lot of things I don't liike about modern Apple but this is one of the least most important issues for me.
Being "on the CPU package" and physically very close to the CPU actually is indeed special. Folks who act like Apple RAM is simply a plug-in commodity do not get it.
That's the key point - in real world usage there is no noticeable difference and thus no reason to add to the COGS and reduce margin. As with any product, every improvement adds to the base cost and if the customer sees no benefit then you don't do or else you wind up with a bunch of small improvements driving up the price or reducing margin for no valid reason.
Last edited:
The engineering of the system-on-chip is special there is no doubt. Apple has built a highly integrated and highly proprietary system that nobody else will ever be able to duplicate (for good or bad). The memory module itself though, is just an off-the-shelf chip. That was the point I was making.
Apple needs to do market research and see why their Mac sales are flat/declining. Is it because consumers expect more on the spec sheet? Do they not want to pay Apple's prices? Or is it just because everyone upgraded to M1 (a super-cycle as it were) and nobody is ready for an upgrade again so soon? The answer to that will tell Apple if they need to reduce margin or not.
I often use a warehouse example when explaining to friends why they need not get 16GB of Ram for their use case:
You have 2 warehouses , each with shelves to put things on (RAM), and to pul from as needed as well. Most of the time, one warehouse (8GB) is plenty large as a lot of stuff doesn't come in or go out. If you need more space, you use the second warehouse (SSD) and that's where the difference lies. In a traditional Intel based design, the warehouse is across the street and you walk over there, and add / get boxes of the shelf as needed. In AS, warehouse #2 is essentially an extension of one so you just go right to the shelves next to those in 1, and thus you don't see any performance hit. So in an Intel design if you are worried about running out of warehouse space in 1 you simply build a bigger warehouse (add RAM); in AS you don't need to build a bigger warehouse because you essentially already have one with teh base configuration.
A very simplified example but helps explain it to non tech folks.
Of course; any company needs to look at why sales are not growing and decide what to do to fix the situation or live with it as a cash cow until it dies. That, however, is different from upgrading a product just to upgrade it; because well, it's a cheap upgrade.
Hmm. Do you think that Apple does not "do market research" ? Seriously? Also note that that how Apple's sales are related to the rest of the industry is a more relevant metric.
In reality Apple hasn’t released sales figures in years. Only revenue figures.
The most recent Mac revenue figures were poor despite the M3 coming to both the MacBook Pro and iMac at the same time – normally two big revenue generators.
Part of that is probably just because the M3 is not much to get excited about, and the iMac and MacBook Pro are otherwise imperceptibly changed.
But part must be that the prices have got wildly out of sync with the rest of the industry, aggravated by Apple’s stubborn persistence with 8 GB of base RAM and extortionate upgrade prices. Those upgrade prices are pure profit, so I understand why Apple is reluctant to change this arrangement. But when they finally go to 16 GB base RAM, sales will jump. I tried to hold out for that change but caved – but I am a hardcore Mac user who is practically locked into the platform (like many of you on a forum like this one, no doubt). Many other people are more flexible and evidently don’t see value in the current Mac range.
On that note, I have never seen so many persistent Mac sale prices at resellers. Obviously in America you have Best Buy, B&H, etc., with big discounts. But there are also unusual discounts in European places like sales through corporate channels. I think this shows Apple misjudged pricing and is trying to fix it. However, sale prices like that do serious harm to the brand. One of the nice things about Steve Jobs’s Apple was that you didn’t have to shop around for prices or worry that you were buying just before a price slash. If Apple wants to preserve its status as a premium tech brand, the discounts should stop – but clearly that means fixing the nominal pricing.
For all of these reasons and because the MacBook Air is probably the most important Mac, I hold out hope that Apple will do something interesting with the M3 Air – hopefully on pricing. Although the latest MacBook Pro and iMac starting at 8 GB of RAM, and the iMac at 256 GB of storage, does not seem to give Apple much room to make the specs more attractive.
Part of that is probably just because the M3 is not much to get excited about, and the iMac and MacBook Pro are otherwise imperceptibly changed.
But part must be that the prices have got wildly out of sync with the rest of the industry, aggravated by Apple’s stubborn persistence with 8 GB of base RAM and extortionate upgrade prices. Those upgrade prices are pure profit, so I understand why Apple is reluctant to change this arrangement. But when they finally go to 16 GB base RAM, sales will jump. I tried to hold out for that change but caved – but I am a hardcore Mac user who is practically locked into the platform (like many of you on a forum like this one, no doubt). Many other people are more flexible and evidently don’t see value in the current Mac range.
On that note, I have never seen so many persistent Mac sale prices at resellers. Obviously in America you have Best Buy, B&H, etc., with big discounts. But there are also unusual discounts in European places like sales through corporate channels. I think this shows Apple misjudged pricing and is trying to fix it. However, sale prices like that do serious harm to the brand. One of the nice things about Steve Jobs’s Apple was that you didn’t have to shop around for prices or worry that you were buying just before a price slash. If Apple wants to preserve its status as a premium tech brand, the discounts should stop – but clearly that means fixing the nominal pricing.
For all of these reasons and because the MacBook Air is probably the most important Mac, I hold out hope that Apple will do something interesting with the M3 Air – hopefully on pricing. Although the latest MacBook Pro and iMac starting at 8 GB of RAM, and the iMac at 256 GB of storage, does not seem to give Apple much room to make the specs more attractive.
There is precedent for Apple to re-sku a product in the middle of a cycle. They've done it before (dropped the 4GB original iPhone and dramatically cut the price of the 8GB model shortly after release for one thing).
I agree they need to do something, assuming they want the Mac to continue to grow. If they're OK with it slowly sliding off into the sunset like the iPod, then they don't need to do anything I suppose.
In 2004 the thought that the iPod had only a decade left was scary too. Nobody would have predicted that I bet.
First of all, I think the OP made an excellent decision - that's a LOT of Mac for the money...
Second, I agree with those who say that the 8 GB base models are disgraceful (so are the 256 GB drives).
We haven't seen any revenue figures with the M3 line available for anything CLOSE to the whole quarter. They were introduced on October 31, but were supply constrained for a month or more after that. MAYBE a month of the M3 line made it into last quarter. The best-selling models are still missing. The chips are probably supply constrained, so Apple put them in higher-priced MacBook Pros. No, that doesn't explain the iMac getting upgraded without the Air and the Mini
My suspicion is that the M3 line will sell pretty well, but nothing close to the M1 super cycle. The big pro machines (M3 Max MBP, Studio when it comes out) will sell really well, because they got a huge upgrade, while everything smaller got a nice, ordinary upgrade.
Second, I agree with those who say that the 8 GB base models are disgraceful (so are the 256 GB drives).
We haven't seen any revenue figures with the M3 line available for anything CLOSE to the whole quarter. They were introduced on October 31, but were supply constrained for a month or more after that. MAYBE a month of the M3 line made it into last quarter. The best-selling models are still missing. The chips are probably supply constrained, so Apple put them in higher-priced MacBook Pros. No, that doesn't explain the iMac getting upgraded without the Air and the Mini
My suspicion is that the M3 line will sell pretty well, but nothing close to the M1 super cycle. The big pro machines (M3 Max MBP, Studio when it comes out) will sell really well, because they got a huge upgrade, while everything smaller got a nice, ordinary upgrade.
I agree; the M1 was such a jump that it was a compelling upgrade for many users; and the M3ProMax and Ultra, if and when it is released) provided a good jump for many M1 users.