think just like ipad, if you don't do parallel task it should be okay enough.. if you do high end weird thing parallel like server don't..
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.
I am really torn between 8GB vs. 16GB RAM
- Thread starter Booji
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure but wouldn't that also affect you now? The way the claim was phrased made it sound like because the M1 is a first-gen chip, its going to hit an artificial roadblock in a couple of years just because its the first chip in the line.
I can still use my iPad 2 for email, watching videos and running some Apps but there are a lot of Apps that won't run on it. But that's okay. It's almost ten years old. The battery is still fine, the screen is great and it's still usable. And I can make use of it. I still have an iPad 1 that I haven't turned on in a few years but I should turn it on just to see if it can do anything.
The M1 is far more though given that it's being compared to high-end chips these days.
My oldest working computer in the house is from the 1970s - I used it in the past week.
Not necessarily. Things don't need to move from RAM to GPU back to RAM with Apple SOC. GPU can directly access the RAM contents since its unified. That one scenario has major benefits.
Not to mention it has been reported that NSObject is much faster retaining/releasing on Apple Silicon
I got the 16GB mini to replace the 8GB. What a difference!! I can now use Docker and many other things without any memory pressure issues. To those reading who haven't ordered yet, do yourself a favour and go with 16GB. It's just safer
Intel really hasn't been impressive for many years. I didn't really gain that much performance going from a 2010 Mac Pro 6-core to a 2019 i9 iMac 8-core.
Year after year the iPhone and most of the time iPad SOCs have been major improvements. I would expect the M2 to be much better.
Yeah, but I was stupid to listen to those YT reviews that led me to believe 8GB would be enough so I could save some cash.... big mistake
I believe regular consumers who are wondering if they need 16GB of RAM probably have usage that don't demand 16GB of RAM. If they did, they would've already gotten 16GB RAM or more on their current machine, or they are already having poor experience on their current machines with less than 16GB of RAM. Imo those who actually need 16GB RAM already know that they do.
Apple obviously won't mind people paying more than what they need.
For users who don't have issues with current machines with 8GB of RAM or less, they probably don't need 16GB of RAM.That's current usage though. You might need to run some application in the future that requires more.
Firefox back around 2001 and 2002 (named Phoenix and Firebird back then) used to run in under 100 MB of RAM. Today I see it using 3-5 GB of RAM.
a little effect but since most the webapp in the server linux, should be okay. Not yet bought because low low /non here. Maybe around jan/feb will be bought Mac mini.
Which it is for many, if not most people.
For virtualisation purposes, more RAM is always recommended.
Well, 20 years is a long time to be future proofing.
Extrapolating from your example, than people should be buying computers with 128GB RAM at the least.
This is the kicker to me - why Apple would sell a "Pro" model with only 8 GB (even the older i5's from 2020 with the same); I had the 2020 13" with the 8th Generation i5 with 8 GB RAM, and going from that to the M1 with 8 GB - I have not had any issues. I'm not using the computer for anything hard core in terms of video rendering or photo editing - though I do dabble; and the 8 GB is PLENTY for me. I would also add that the base model seems to run my only real "game" I play - World of Warcraft - on high setting without hiccups (which is a huge improvement from my older i5 model)! I think I would have generally upgraded had it been available sooner than it was, and may end up exchanging it down the road if I really really want to; but I am super happy with the new M1 I got (plus Apple does charge incredibly high prices for RAM).
Well, 20 years is a long time to be future proofing.
My latest computer has 64 GB of RAM and I do plan to upgrade to 128 GB eventually. It will take up to 256 GB.
But still, the M2 being noticeably faster won't hold an M1 computer back? The only thing that can cause the M1 to hold you back is for your usage to change drastically; like going from word processing to 3d animation.
No one has claimed that, what's being discussed is if it's necessary to spend the extra $200 for that extra RAM.
What are the values and raw value for Life Percentage Used under Health Indicators in DriveDX? Actually, maybe you can just post a screenshot of that screen.
It's under a buck a day if you keep it for a year. If you keep it for ten years? Under ten cents. No brainer.
Well, 20 years is a long time to be future proofing.
I'm using a cluster of three systems right now:
2008 Dell XPS Studio with 48 GB RAM
Late 2009 iMac 27: with 16 GB of RAM
2015 MacBook Pro 15 with 16 GB of RAM
So 72 GB of RAM across three systems. I spread my applications out over the three systems on three monitors.
It is seriously nice to have a lot of RAM on these old systems as performance is decent to very good, even on these ancient systems.
So at least you have similar results between the two. If you have questions about the results, I would be willing to bet that BinaryFruit would answer any questions you might have about the accuracy of results DriveDX is showing.
I have not looked into the specific version of Apple SSD you have, but DriveDX actually compiles a database of individual drives and their statistics in order to create their health and life ratings.
With only 4 days of usage, I am not surprised that everything has a 100% rating. I have an older Samsung 850 EVO that is at least 3 years old that still shows 100% for all ratings as well.
Unless you learn otherwise, it appears your numbers are correct in the amount of SSD writes that are taking place due to memory swap.
Based on that, I am going to say that my assumptions in my previous post are close to correct and that systems which heavily rely on swap for memory put a great deal of wear on an SSD. I was assuming it was possible to see 100 GB of writes per day for normal usage, and you were seeing 30GB / day with no usage to 230GB / day with intense web browsing. The most alarming figure was the 1.2TB written for 3 hours usage of Xcode.
At this point, with indicators leading to the fact that the 250GB SSD only has a rating of 150TBW, I am going to have to say that my opinion is that 16GB RAM is a requirement for anything other than just casual usage. Although the internal SSD may last far beyond the TBW rating, I would not personally be comfortable with going way beyond that rating on a non removable drive.
That being said, if you are only planning on keeping the M1 for a year, or are planning on selling it when the next model arrives, the 8GB RAM model is attractive.
I don't consider myself to be cheap, but I definitely don't like being taking advantage of. Now I am going to have to get over the mental hurdle of paying $200 for $25 worth of RAM ?
Cost per day over 10 years is trivial. So is power consumption.
I have never seen someone coming back from a fight wishing they had less ammo or a less powerful gun