I am really torn between 8GB vs. 16GB RAM

[sky87]

Interestingly though I've been trying out an 8GB and a 16GB MBA, and both have gone up to 8-9GB of swap. The difference is that the memory pressure on the 8GB goes up to around 50% and occasionally into the yellow, whereas the 16GB has stayed under 25% and never into the yellow.

More on my RAM usage under my normal usage conditions.

On the 16GB it seems that a couple of things (so far) drive up memory pressure and swap. This includes sorting through Photos using the default Mac app and opening a lot of Safari tabs and pdfs. Opening a lot of Safari tabs and pdfs drove memory pressure up to around 40% just very transiently - it appears that the computer is incredibly aggressive with moving things to swap and all of a sudden memory pressure dropped to under 20% with swap ballooning up to 9GB. Right now it is sitting at a memory pressure of 15% with a swap of >8GB (out of 9GB).

So I think based on my anecdotal experience with the 8GB and 16GB units - both can and do go up to fairly high levels of swap under my normal usage, but the memory pressure is the thing that appears to differ between the two. I think for my case it is probably safe to disregard the amount of swap being used.

Current feeling for me is - 8GB is adequate for my needs, but I really have more sense of security with the 16GB. So more likely to stick with the 16GB, even if it is in my less preferred colour (space grey - I would have preferred silver!).

 

[ian87w]

I think we can make a pretty easy decision tree.

1. If your existing machine has 16GB or more RAM, then get 16GB.
2. If your existing machine has less than 16GB RAM, and you are wondering if you need 16GB, just get 8GB of RAM.

Imo people who actually needs the max RAM will know that they do and wouldn't be wondering about it.

 

[alien3dx]

More on my RAM usage under my normal usage conditions.

On the 16GB it seems that a couple of things (so far) drive up memory pressure and swap. This includes sorting through Photos using the default Mac app and opening a lot of Safari tabs and pdfs. Opening a lot of Safari tabs and pdfs drove memory pressure up to around 40% just very transiently - it appears that the computer is incredibly aggressive with moving things to swap and all of a sudden memory pressure dropped to under 20% with swap ballooning up to 9GB. Right now it is sitting at a memory pressure of 15% with a swap of >8GB (out of 9GB).

So I think based on my anecdotal experience with the 8GB and 16GB units - both can and do go up to fairly high levels of swap under my normal usage, but the memory pressure is the thing that appears to differ between the two. I think for my case it is probably safe to disregard the amount of swap being used.

Current feeling for me is - 8GB is adequate for my needs, but I really have more sense of security with the 16GB. So more likely to stick with the 16GB, even if it is in my less preferred colour (space grey - I would have preferred silver!).

color memory not important if you dont do serious stuff. But work like me , i do separation thing like only play music in ipod , laptop test , imac test , macbook test. Dont like docker , vm thing.

I think we can make a pretty easy decision tree.

1. If your existing machine has 16GB or more RAM, then get 16GB.
2. If your existing machine has less than 16GB RAM, and you are wondering if you need 16GB, just get 8GB of RAM.

Imo people who actually needs the max RAM will know that they do and wouldn't be wondering about it.

it depend on os also. Linux the lesser ram , win 8 gb is pure enough while mac need 16 in my sweet spot.
Macos will coup either 4gb or 8gb or 16 gb but it will be in swap mode.

 

[armoured]

So M1 changes the rules mostly in Europe there is no premium paid fir more ram. It’s all about the SSD.

What does this mean, that there is no premium paid for more ram? Apart from currency and VAT differences, the premium seems to be about the same in Europe?

 

[armoured]

On the 16GB it seems that a couple of things (so far) drive up memory pressure and swap. This includes sorting through Photos using the default Mac app and opening a lot of Safari tabs and pdfs. Opening a lot of Safari tabs and pdfs drove memory pressure up to around 40% just very transiently - it appears that the computer is incredibly aggressive with moving things to swap and all of a sudden memory pressure dropped to under 20% with swap ballooning up to 9GB. Right now it is sitting at a memory pressure of 15% with a swap of >8GB (out of 9GB).

So I think based on my anecdotal experience with the 8GB and 16GB units - both can and do go up to fairly high levels of swap under my normal usage, but the memory pressure is the thing that appears to differ between the two. I think for my case it is probably safe to disregard the amount of swap being used.

Current feeling for me is - 8GB is adequate for my needs, but I really have more sense of security with the 16GB. So more likely to stick with the 16GB, even if it is in my less preferred colour (space grey - I would have preferred silver!).

I think your conclusion is probably correct for your case.

A bit speculative on my part, but I think what may be going on is that e.g. photos is swapping/retaining 'screen ready' versions of photos in your browser, possibly in multiple sizes. (Think: a jpeg file of a single colour may only be a couple hundred bytes due to compression, but the screen-ready version actually has X mpixels denoting precise colour and brightness for each pixel). There are calcs involved in expanding that jpeg too so does save time and some bandwidth (maybe not much but depends) to retain a screen-ready version. So all those pictures may not be needed soon but it's 'cheap' to swap them out to reduce memory pressure.

This may not be a big deal where everything on a fast ssd. It could be a dramatic improvement in performance if the original files are on a different disk or icloud/network. Again though: a bit speculative. (For tasks I do with large library in lightroom, performance is clearly and obviously limited by disk speed)

Possibly performance would be fine for 8gb too. But if you do it a lot, the lower memory pressure still provides some extra headroom.

(Swapping out webpages is smart - obviously most people don't immediately cycle through all of their dozens of open tabs in a short period of time, but leave them open and possibly not come back to a specific tab for days)

 

[alien3dx]

(Swapping out webpages is smart - obviously most people don't immediately cycle through all of their dozens of open tabs in a short period of time, but leave them open and possibly not come back to a specific tab for days)

if static website ya good but for which have login bad like "facebook" .Facebook keep updating information and something like chrome will chunk memory every second and if more then few days wonder how big swap is that.

Thats why diff web and mobile. Mobile can suspend the whole app but we need parallel in macos which arm cannot deliver .

 

[armoured]

if static website ya good but for which have login bad like "facebook" .Facebook keep updating information and something like chrome will chunk memory every second and if more then few days wonder how big swap is that.

Thats why diff web and mobile. Mobile can suspend the whole app but we need parallel in macos which arm cannot deliver .

Yes, I see what you mean - this approach makes most sense for static websites. I know there have been/are various attempts to 'freeze' webpages that are not actually being used/looked at. Somewhat reliant upon the website/browser 'not doing stupid stuff.'

Now, I'm not sure about eg facebook etc, but your general comment is right in that this is one of the reasons browsers can end up taking a lot of memory, if they keep trying to update and retain info that's not needed when they're in the background/not on screen. (Which I'm not saying specific ones do, just that the possibility is there and it's not as controlled in macos in the way it is in ios)

Personally I just dn't use websites like that much on computer. YMMV.

In practice for me I quit/restart browsers from time to time like people used to reboot computers. (And use multiple browsers so that if one's not behaving, I can do stuff in the other one)

 

[4sallypat]

Uhhhh I really think you misunderstood what is going on. Check out my post. The person said they replaced their i7 Mac mini due to heat, I responded saying that is why I am replacing my iMac since it maxes out the fans due to the heat.......where did I ask for advice here?!

And the fact that the new M1 macs can do even 4K work without ramping up the fans so much, even in the small laptop environment shows the problem with the Intel heat in the iMac. The iMac definitely has better cooling than the Macbook Air....which has none. Yet it can stay cool working on 4K videos. The SAME reason that user replaced their i7 Mac mini is the SAME reason I am replacing my iMac and why I replied to that comment......Again, where did I ask for advice here?

And to your question, I did ask for advice and was told to MAX it out (which is why I got the 128GB of RAM). How was I supposed to know it wouldn't help? I never used that much RAM before and coming from the Mac Pro with 8GB how was I supposed to know it didn't provide any benefit? And I was told the new systems would clearly benefit, I mean come on 9 years of CPU enhancements alone should have benefited my workflow, but they did not. People probably thought it would help because 90% of people moved to 4K HEVC video editing and not still on 1080p h.264 like me.

There are some things that the Mac mini M1 is doing that beats a $15,000 2019 Mac Pro.....so yeah if I used it for that specific use case and DID have a $15,000 Mac Pro that the Mac mini beats it, I would be replacing it too. I don't see why you are nitpicking my comment to death. It was just a "Hey thats why I am replacing my iMac for too because of the heat it produces and the fans annoy me"

Yes, agreed, the point was that I ditched the cooling fans underneath BOTH my 16" MBP and 2012 i7 Mini because both INTEL machines ran way too hot - especially in my temperature climate (Southern California).

The point @xWhiplash was saying that no matter desktop or laptop, the Intel designed Macs run way too hot, fans are noisy, and thermal throttling occurs.

So RAM was my question too when I got the 8GB base M1 Mini - it was NOT an issue and probably due to the unified memory and efficient RISC design, it runs circles around BOTH my i7 w/ 16GB Intel devices.

My M1 base Mini with 8GB so much more efficient, snappier, no more beach balls, and ice cold to the touch (even in hot Southern California)...

 

[Johnny907]

I think Apple is well aware of the limitations of 8GB of RAM, and have noticed the popularity of BTO configs with 16GB, because around Christmas a lot of Apple Stores started stocking MBA and MBP units in a 16GB/1TB configuration. Not offering ready made 16GB config options out of the gate was a silly move for Apple.

 

[BeatCrazy]

I'm not doubting everyone's use case is different, but I really tried to push my 8GB M1 Mac mini today. I was watching TV via AT&T TV (via browser), had a few sites open via Safari, and was burning a DVD.

This was the most I could do. I don't care about Swap Used.

 

[Johnny907]

I'm not doubting everyone's use case is different, but I really tried to push my 8GB M1 Mac mini today. I was watching TV via AT&T TV (via browser), had a few sites open via Safari, and was burning a DVD.

This was the most I could do. I don't care about Swap Used.
View attachment 1702703

You were literally maxing out your memory. If not for Swap saving your bacon it would have crashed like Windows Vista. Relying on Swap like that is going to destroy your SSD, so unless you plan on only keeping that thing for a couple years maybe consider upgrading to 16GB.

 

[BeatCrazy]

You were literally maxing out your memory. If not for Swap saving your bacon it would have crashed like Windows Vista. Relying on Swap like that is going to destroy your SSD, so unless you plan on only keeping that thing for a couple years maybe consider upgrading to 16GB.

I used to do the same tasks with my 32GB iMac Pro and also had swap. How is it "maxing out", if I'm still green? Maybe you can point me to some posts here from people that "destroyed their SSD" because of swap?

 

[1BadManVan]

You were literally maxing out your memory. If not for Swap saving your bacon it would have crashed like Windows Vista. Relying on Swap like that is going to destroy your SSD, so unless you plan on only keeping that thing for a couple years maybe consider upgrading to 16GB.

You really need to do some more research on current ssd life span. That is absolutely so far from correct I’m surprised you actually posted this without doing even a shred of research

Goodluck on the over spending based on very old “facts”

 

[1BadManVan]

I used to do the same tasks with my 32GB iMac Pro and also had swap. How is it "maxing out", if I'm still green? Maybe you can point me to some posts here from people that "destroyed their SSD" because of swap?

He’s clueless, that’s all that is. Even the 16gb m1 constantly uses swap, even if it has ram to spare.

 

[Andrea Filippini]

I am ready to push the button on my M1 Pro but am leaning towards 16GB as I have always chosen to upgrade RAM in the past and have never regretted the decision. My use case where I think I might need is for video and photo editing in Adobe.

I am now reading so many reviews that the M1 is a new paradigm and 8GB seems to be more than enough for anyone but the most demanding users.

Making it harder is the fact that all of the models available through third party re-sellers like Amazon offer discounts of up to 5%, but they are limited to 8GB models.

I am biased to go for the 16GB anyway, but still foregoing the discount makes the net price of the upgrade very expensive.

Go for the 16GB. Noway to consider 8 GB. Even if M1 is more efficient, in the near future you could have a RAM bottleneck. That RAM is unified and you can't upgrade it after the purchase. So absolutely choice 16 GB.

 

[mo5214]

You really need to do some more research on current ssd life span. That is absolutely so far from correct I’m surprised you actually posted this without doing even a shred of research

Goodluck on the over spending based on very old “facts”

You really need to do some more research on current ssd life span. That is absolutely so far from correct I’m surprised you actually posted this without doing even a shred of research

Goodluck on the over spending based on very old “facts”

I've seen SSD dies on Mac from 2015, and that's with "average" usage. Given this, the fact that these M1 Macs have soldered on SSDs, and the fact that machine would be out of warranty/Apple Care by at most 3 years, and after 5 years they usually marked as "obsolete" by Apple and would not be supported by that point. The lifespan of this machine could be projected at about 5 years.

As hard evidence. I don't think that's there is gonna be anyone who are willing to sacrifice their new M1 Mac for some SSD Endurance test to see what's the expected endurance of these drives as Apple doesn't provide the numbers. Which is understandable, given their business model of "trying to get you to buy new devices every few year".

 

[mo5214]

Go for the 16GB. Noway to consider 8 GB. Even if M1 is more efficient, in the near future you could have a RAM bottleneck. That RAM is unified and you can't upgrade it after the purchase. So absolutely choice 16 GB.

until some Mad scientist or a crazy person started putting a BGA heat gun to it, that is, and starting to source the LPDDR chip (if they could at all). But for mere mortal, that's probably the correct choice. 8GB would probably lead to swap, which could lead to SSD dying faster.

I suppose it's up to each person's plan of how long they want to keep their M1 Macs for.

 

[sky87]

He’s clueless, that’s all that is. Even the 16gb m1 constantly uses swap, even if it has ram to spare.

Yup I've mentioned earlier here that I currently have both a 8GB and a 16GB. Under my normal usage both will use lots of swap (I've seen up to 9GB of swap on both), the difference is that the 16GB has much lower memory pressure than the 8GB. I've seen the 16GB sit there with memory pressure under 20% and lots of available memory with 9GB of swap...

 

[mo5214]

Yup I've mentioned earlier here that I currently have both a 8GB and a 16GB. Under my normal usage both will use lots of swap (I've seen up to 9GB of swap on both), the difference is that the 16GB has much lower memory pressure than the 8GB. I've seen the 16GB sit there with memory pressure under 20% and lots of available memory with 9GB of swap...

This article might explains it :

Why is my MacBook Pro already using swap memory?

I have a late 2013 MacBook Pro 13" with 8 GB of memory. Lately my MacBook Pro uses swap memory, when it has enough free memory. Is this normal and can I do something about it? Also when I only have

apple.stackexchange.com

I just checked my rMBP 2015 15" and I see no swap usage however. I would've checked the M1 Air as I heard the Memory Management scheme is different but I already had packed it for return. (Sudden realization that I needed the 16" screen size, bigger battery (to plug in devices with, those are the only battery hogs now) , and will be waiting for M1X or whatever 16" M1-based system)

 

[Ethosik]

I've seen SSD dies on Mac from 2015, and that's with "average" usage.

Drive use is not the only reason why an SSD would fail. They are definitely more reliable than HDD, but there is still a chance they can fail even if it has not been written to often. I had to RMA some Samsung SSDs that failed and it was far lower than the TBW and within months of owning it.

 

[mo5214]

Drive use is not the only reason why an SSD would fail. They are definitely more reliable than HDD, but there is still a chance they can fail even if it has not been written to often. I had to RMA some Samsung SSDs that failed and it was far lower than the TBW and within months of owning it.

But in this case. You can't just replace the SSD as it's soldered on, and paired to the system regardless of how the SSD failed. Personally I wished that Apple would go back to using replaceable SSDs. (I mean, they got that in the 2019 Mac Pros)

 

[Andrea Filippini]

until some Mad scientist or a crazy person started putting a BGA heat gun to it, that is, and starting to source the LPDDR chip (if they could at all). But for mere mortal, that's probably the correct choice. 8GB would probably lead to swap, which could lead to SSD dying faster.

I suppose it's up to each person's plan of how long they want to keep their M1 Macs for.

16GB is the new gold standard and even more if your computer has an integrated graphic card that shares memory with the OS. M1 is surely a great machine but I don't know its lifespan. My 2009 iMac is still works great with minor improvements (native OS Snow Leopard, 8 GB, HDD 7200 rpm...now OS High Sierra with upgrade ram to 16GB and switch to SSD). But without improvements probably its lifespan would be dramatically reduced. With these specs, probably it will work well for another decade.
But it's no more Steve Jobs era, so draw your conclusions.

 

[Never mind]

You really need to do some more research on current ssd life span. That is absolutely so far from correct I’m surprised you actually posted this without doing even a shred of research

Goodluck on the over spending based on very old “facts”

And this is why I put a grain of salt on many of these posters on this forum. It’s a shame that we can’t get the right information all the time and have to dig and to find the actual correct information. Some don’t do the proper research and go away thinking what some curbside expert is saying is the truth. Thanks for posting this

 

[mo5214]

16GB is the new gold standard and even more if your computer has an integrated graphic card that shares memory with the OS. M1 is surely a great machine but I don't know its lifespan. My 2009 iMac is still works great with minor improvements (native OS Snow Leopard, 8 GB, HDD 7200 rpm...now OS High Sierra with upgrade ram to 16GB and switch to SSD). But without improvements probably its lifespan would be dramatically reduced. With these specs, probably it will work well for another decade.
But it's no more Steve Jobs era, so draw your conclusions.

Personally I think that Apple are coming for us Mac Users. Software wise they are iOS-ifying it further with Big Sur and M1 Macs, and they are making life pain for those who are not "getting with the program"

Here are a few bullet points.

- M1 only runs signed code. (Best you can do is self-sign)

- M1 only allows you to install latest macOS on default security settings.

- Big Sur employs SSV/ARV (Signed System Volume/Authorized Root Volume(?)) that only boots of apfs snapshots.

-- Any change to System volume requires disabling SSV/ARV and SIP (a given at this point), and a convoluted mounting of System drive to gain write access, which you must re-seal after modifying by creating a new snapshot, otherwise it would refuses to boot.

-- Now on Intel running Big Sur, there is a workaround that allow you to boot from live volume. But it doesn't work on M1 Macs. (Wouldn't be such a problem if they don't make Big Sur such an ugly OS. New sounds and icons? yuck! ><)

- Dropping said security settings on M1 Macs?, you lose iOS App execution (It would nag you to set security to default)

At this point I felt like it felt more like juiced up iDevice than a Mac.

Note: I've been told 12 years ago that this would happen. Didn't believe it then, still can't believe it now.

Even Post-Jobs era. This is pretty low. They already have us in their garden. (It's their own chips now, its not like we gonna jump ship to Windows at this point). The least they can do is give us control over what we do with the thing (Like in PPC days, with upgradable CPU) instead of trying to force-feed us new disposable machines every 3 years.

But I suppose it's their business model now.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@mo5214 You are 100% spot on..

Unfortunately for us, we have little recourse.

No way in hell I'm going to Windows full time (at least no time soon).

Frustrating for sure. Great post by the way!