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've read somewhere that apples m1 8 gigs a ram = 16 gigs of intel?
- Thread starter Ratsaremyfreinds
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. It's not true. It defies the laws of physics. 8GB of RAM cannot equal 16GB of RAM; it simply isn't physically possible.
However, the new M1 Macs are very good at managing memory and swapping data to their very fast SSD storage when required. As a result, performance is excellent – far better than you would probably find on an equivalent spec Intel machine. So it will be fast and perform well, but if you need 16GB then you need 16GB – simple as that.
However, the new M1 Macs are very good at managing memory and swapping data to their very fast SSD storage when required. As a result, performance is excellent – far better than you would probably find on an equivalent spec Intel machine. So it will be fast and perform well, but if you need 16GB then you need 16GB – simple as that.
No, it’s not true.
It's really hard to say without seeing some benchmarks or something. The tasks that need a lot of memory are very specific, and you will know when you don't have enough ram. I tried to stress-test a 2015 MBA with 8GB of ram, in Logic I loaded a bunch of instruments with a ton of large samples. I was able to load a lot more than I thought I could, but when it ran out of ram the computer slowed to a crawl. It was basically unusable at that point. I think for situations like this the amount of memory is a hard limit... but you really have to push it with specific tasks/applications and know what you need it for.
For standard switching between active applications or caching websites the fast ssd should handle better, so the way the Mac handles memory will make it more seamless on less RAM. The everyday things people do will be seamless with 8GB I think.
So unless you know the heavy tasks you plan to do that will need the RAM, it's okay to go with 8GB. Of course if you want to do things that'll really push the Mac in the future 16GB is a safer bet. Also the M1 Macs, even though entry level, are almost as powerful as the Intel 16 inch MacBook Pro and those start at 16GB. So if you really want to stretch what's possible on your M1 MacBook 16GB makes it more of a balanced computer. But I think most people aren't going to get anywhere close to that.
For standard switching between active applications or caching websites the fast ssd should handle better, so the way the Mac handles memory will make it more seamless on less RAM. The everyday things people do will be seamless with 8GB I think.
So unless you know the heavy tasks you plan to do that will need the RAM, it's okay to go with 8GB. Of course if you want to do things that'll really push the Mac in the future 16GB is a safer bet. Also the M1 Macs, even though entry level, are almost as powerful as the Intel 16 inch MacBook Pro and those start at 16GB. So if you really want to stretch what's possible on your M1 MacBook 16GB makes it more of a balanced computer. But I think most people aren't going to get anywhere close to that.
I don't think it is quite as black and white as some here are saying. It depends a lot on your work. If you use a lot of apps at the same time but each with relatively modest memory requirements then you might find that 8 GB works as well as 16 GB because the virtual memory swapping to SSD is so fast when switching applications. It seems to be practically instantaneous from a human perception perspective.
On the other hand, if you are a user of programs like Photoshop that thrive on memory, you will not see 8 GB as equivalent to 16 GB. If the application needs a lot of memory, it probably needs it continuously and in that case swapping to SSD is slow. This seems contradictory but it really comes down to human perception.
When doing a major task switch like switching from one application to another, you are taking many hundreds of milliseconds. The SSD on the M1 can move data at close to 3 GB/s. So unless your applications are larger than 1-2 GB you won't notice much delay. For the M1 though, 3 GB/s is slow compared to memory bandwidth at 60 GB/s. Slowing down any computer operation by 20x is going to make applications appear sluggish at best and unusable at worst.
Edit: Ninja'd by @Pugly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On the other hand, if you are a user of programs like Photoshop that thrive on memory, you will not see 8 GB as equivalent to 16 GB. If the application needs a lot of memory, it probably needs it continuously and in that case swapping to SSD is slow. This seems contradictory but it really comes down to human perception.
When doing a major task switch like switching from one application to another, you are taking many hundreds of milliseconds. The SSD on the M1 can move data at close to 3 GB/s. So unless your applications are larger than 1-2 GB you won't notice much delay. For the M1 though, 3 GB/s is slow compared to memory bandwidth at 60 GB/s. Slowing down any computer operation by 20x is going to make applications appear sluggish at best and unusable at worst.
Edit: Ninja'd by @Pugly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited:
No, not even half the
The idea comes from tests such as that run by Max Tech (YouTube channel) which demonstrate that the RAM in an M1 MacBook Pro is used efficiently enough to be roughly equivalent to twice as much in an Intel MacBook Pro. As always, it depends on the exact software you use, the type of use (programming vs. video, etc), and how far you are going to push it.
It may be worth watching some of these tests that demonstrate the kind of software you're using, if you are debating how much to configure in an M1 Mac that you're considering.
It may be worth watching some of these tests that demonstrate the kind of software you're using, if you are debating how much to configure in an M1 Mac that you're considering.
8 != 16
Anyone parroting this garbage is probably an idiot that bought a machine they didn't need in the past and now has an M1 that better fits their use case or is trying to justify their own gimped purchase.
I regularly get the same or more swapping on my 16GB M1 vs 16GB Intel doing the same stuff.
Anyone parroting this garbage is probably an idiot that bought a machine they didn't need in the past and now has an M1 that better fits their use case or is trying to justify their own gimped purchase.
I regularly get the same or more swapping on my 16GB M1 vs 16GB Intel doing the same stuff.
It's pretty slow for a PCIE 4 SSD actually. A WD SN850 or Samsung 980 Pro will do 7000mb/s.
I'd expect that kind of performance when Apple releases the actual "Pro" MacBook Pros. Apple claims that they have a PCIe4 block on the M1 but who knows how many lanes.
It does have the added benefit that the GPU doesn't need to have its own set of RAM space. You can get around this with Intel integrated graphics where you can share RAM but its a programming limitation, not a hardware limitation. Therefore, if the code is not there, with Intel integrated graphics, the data needs to be copied to RAM to GPU. M1 doesn't have this issue as essentially the GPU in the M1 can access any and all of the 8GB or 16GB of RAM.
About half the bandwidth of DDR3-800. It’s more in the neighborhood of DDR2-400. - And that’s just bandwidth; DDR should still have significant random access latency benefits.
But it’s also not just purely about the SSD itself. M1 operates on 64K pages where the Intel chips use 4K pages for example; Point is that the SSD in M1 isn’t actually faster than the SSDs in equivalent Intel Macs; But it’s used differently in terms of virtual memory on a hardware level.
If you *need* 16GB of memory; Like if you’re bogo-sorting a 12G array (please don’t, but that’s a different talk) 8GB of RAM isn’t going to deliver what you need regardless of how well paging is managed. Like others have said 8 ≠ 16.
I think the people you originally heard this from (or their source in turn) should mind what they say a bit more. Saying something like “for certain workloads, 8GB of RAM on an M1 might work as well as 16GB on an Intel Mac” can be fine, but making a blanket equivalency is misleading at best and anyone in any form of authoritative position like YouTubers or whatnot need to be careful about not spreading misleading information
In some ways yes but not how you think. Take a look at this (I time stamped it, look at the test where the HP Envy with 8GB of RAM did not finish but the M1 with 8GB did). Mostly due to the GPU memory sharing I mentioned in post 17.
Renders under what codecs and settings? This could just be a case of hardware accelerated video blocks. Tests that stress GPU, CPU, hardware accelerated blocks, other I/O and whatnot cannot really say anything because the performance characteristics is not necessarily tied to the memory. Especially not when we're not also testing with a (non-existent) otherwise identical 8GB 16" MBP
Yep, just like that video I posted from Linus. The M1 encoders are crazy, even competing with NVENC in some cases.
Lol at Linus’s tiny hands in that thumbnail
Apple Silicon represents a paradigm shift in computer engineering, making it impossible to directly compare an M1 system-on-a-chip to anything that came before. It changed everything and you can't compare RAM requirements from one to the other. To use an automotive analogy, it's like saying a car with fuel injection can't possibly run because it doesn't have a carburetor. With airplanes, saying jet engines can't make a plane fly because they don't have propellors. With boats, a powerboat can't possibly move because it doesn't have sails. Sometimes technological change happens so abruptly that people have to re-frame their perspective of everything that came before. The M1's understated arrival marked one of those paradigm shifts in computing.
I will state for the record that yes there are RAM-intensive professional applications that perform better on Apple Silicon with 16GB than with 8GB. Some professionals need more than most. Just like some professionals need to drive a cement mixer, it doesn't mean that's what everyone else needs too.
My day-to-day Mac needs are probably similar to 95% of those reading this -- Safari, Mail, iTunes/Music, Messages, Photos, iMovie, and Garageband. I have an M1 Mac Mini 8GB RAM base model and it's been absolutely ideal. I've even tried to choke it by running literally installed app simultaneously and it handled it flawlessly. My Late-2012 Quad-Core i7 iMac w/ 16GB RAM would occasionally ramp-up the fan when doing day-to-day tasks; the M1 has been absolutely silent no matter what I've thrown at it. I've never once wished I'd purchased 16GB instead of 8GB, and the aging Intel-inspired voices in my head yelling "YOU ALWAYS NEED MORE RAM!!! BUY MORE RAM!!!" are finally silent. Like my cooling fan.
I will state for the record that yes there are RAM-intensive professional applications that perform better on Apple Silicon with 16GB than with 8GB. Some professionals need more than most. Just like some professionals need to drive a cement mixer, it doesn't mean that's what everyone else needs too.
My day-to-day Mac needs are probably similar to 95% of those reading this -- Safari, Mail, iTunes/Music, Messages, Photos, iMovie, and Garageband. I have an M1 Mac Mini 8GB RAM base model and it's been absolutely ideal. I've even tried to choke it by running literally installed app simultaneously and it handled it flawlessly. My Late-2012 Quad-Core i7 iMac w/ 16GB RAM would occasionally ramp-up the fan when doing day-to-day tasks; the M1 has been absolutely silent no matter what I've thrown at it. I've never once wished I'd purchased 16GB instead of 8GB, and the aging Intel-inspired voices in my head yelling "YOU ALWAYS NEED MORE RAM!!! BUY MORE RAM!!!" are finally silent. Like my cooling fan.
I have a M1 MBA with only 8GB of RAM and I have to agree. I know (IT and Dev background for over 25 years) that 8 GB does not equal 16GB when it comes to RAM, but Apple has engineered these puppies so effectively that the new M1 line can fake it really well.
I have tested this MBA pretty hard and it just keeps going. My 2018 Dell G7 7790 i7 with 16GB of RAM is slower (except when it gets to use the graphics card--GTX 2060) and my top-of-the-line 2015 MBP with an i7 and 16GB of RAM can't even compare.
So if you have mostly light workflows--including Affinity stuff, light video editing (1080p max), and MS Code then go for it.
If you have HEAVY INTENSE workflows, then honestly I wouldn't get the 16GB in the M1 line, I would wait for the next generation of laptops--since it is like 3 months at this point.
If one needs 16GB or RAM then one needs 16GB of RAM regardless of whether they're using an Intel or M1 based Macintosh. The paradigm shift from Intel to M1 hasn't changed that.
Saying they're slower isn't saying a lot about memory requirements. They could be slower due to any number of factors with the amount of memory being just one.
M1 is an impressive feat of engineering and a testament to what is achievable when one designs for both performance and power efficiency, but a paradigm shift? Come on. There is not much principally new technology in M1 (if at all), that chip is mostly about flawless execution, extreme optimization and manufacturing process advantage.