On the flip side there are a ton of review videos doing almost everything under the sun on 8GB RAM.
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.
M1 iMac Fan/s
- Thread starter throwinrocks
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like the one with the guy comparing his 4K video editing experience against an iMac Pro which would have cost almost 10 times the price. His opinion that the 8Gb base model was very capable in its own right was quite telling, but the actual video of what he was doing, demonstrating the system's performance was much more telling.
Anyone can have an opinion. Actual practical experience and factual reporting is rather more useful.
All that said, I've been pushing my 8GB mid-tier model with 512SSD rather hard over the last week or so, and have not experienced any problems with it 'maxing out the RAM'. Personally, I have zero complaints about it, but I didn't expect any, since my 8Gb MBA has also performed pretty much flawlessly since I got it, and that's become a bit of a road warrior.
I don't doubt that there are some users who need more RAM for the nature of work they do, but I'm not inclined to think they are as common as some opinions would have us believe.
Agreed - most users (90%) are fine with 8GB of Unified Memory using Apple Silicon.
The other 10% who need more memory, should get the 16GB or more.
I found both my BASE M1 Mini and iMac are more than snappy, no spinning beach balls, and no fans - compared to the Intel Macs that are just plain awfully slow with double triple or quadruple the RAM.
As a former engineer, I enjoy being aware of technical details. As some have mentioned here, the teardown videos are a great way to learn about these things. But I don't think Apple is responsible for disclosing anything other than the kinds of specs that they now provide. Compared to other PC manufacturers, Apple does a much better job of making the buyer aware of what they are getting.
So my simple-minded solution to this is to wait and order my new Apple products AFTER the teardown videos are available. Another couple of months is no big deal.
So my simple-minded solution to this is to wait and order my new Apple products AFTER the teardown videos are available. Another couple of months is no big deal.
Hi. My comment may be a little far from the subject but it can also be related. Always wanted to know why so many iMac devices users install a myriad of browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Brave and now Edge. What's wrong with Safari or what is it that is does not do that others do better? To my understand, having Chrome and Safari opened at the same time is an invitation to RAM strangulation.
Unfortunately, my work requires Chrome for their complete suite to function, communicate, share, and collaborate.
I use Safari (personal pages), Chrome (work), Firefox (ad blocked pages).
I definitely cannot speak for others, but at least for me, it totally depends on what Macs I am using.
I use Safari the most, almost 100% of the time on my Macs that have an up-to-date OS version.
But, I also use a lot of older Macs, and sometimes newer Macs, but with OS versions that are no longer supported.
Safari almost always stops getting updates with the OS stops getting updates. For example, High Sierra's latest update was back in Nov 2020, and that was the last time Safari was updated for High Sierra as well.
While not all 3rd-party browsers are liker this, Firefox still continues to get security updates, making it more secure to use than Safari on High Sierra. Firefox usually continues to get updates on a particular MacOS version for about 3 or more years after Apple stops supporting the OS.
With the Mac HW outlasting the supported MacOS version so often these days (just use this thread as reference), there are plenty of people out there with powerful Macs that are no longer getting security updates, or people are choosing not to use newer OS versions for various reasons (32-bit support, SW support, Catalina sucks, etc), and using 3rd-party browsers is a good way of keeping a Mac very functional and useful, while keeping it more secure versus using Safari.
Another reason is that some websites don't always work well on Safari. It is rare, and the same could be said about other browsers as well. Sometimes I will use a different browser depending on the website used.
BTW, this is not just a Mac thing, as I do the exact same thing on my Windows laptop. I have Firefox, Edge, and Explorer, and use each of them a lot more than I use a browser other than Safari on a modern Mac.
Safari is fine, but Chrome might be an issue.
I use Safari and Firefox simultaneously all the time without issue.
The problem is that 16GB is currently the limit. So those of us who want/need more aren't catered to.
I manage four 2011 iMacs which can take 32GB RAM. If I'm to keep new machines for anything like 10 years I'll want them to have more than 16GB RAM especially when there's no longer any opportunity to upgrade the RAM later. Also psychologically to buy a new machine with less RAM than what a 10 year old machine can take just feels totally wrong and built in obsolescence.
About a year after I got the 2011 iMacs I upgraded them to 8GB RAM each. I think 8GB is no longer enough and I probably need to bump them up to at least 16GB. If 16GB is needed now, I can't see how 16GB will be enough in several years time.
Good to hear that they're quiet. If I'm going to buy machines to last a long time I'd want to get ones with the better fan configuration that should provide better cooling.
I know what you mean - when I had Intel Macs (2012 iMac, 2018 Mini, 2015 MBP, 2015 MBA, 2011 Xserve) I had to maximize RAM in those machines to keep them running. My favorite was the 2011 XSERVE & 2018 Mini with 64GB of RAM each that ran hot, fan spinning up, and throttles back due to the awful Intel's wasted clock and instruction cycles.....
Now that Apple Silicon is out, there is NO more need to max out the RAM. The Unified Memory SOC design removes the need to upgrade RAM - and it does it with super cold chassis, no fan spinning, and efficient RISC clock/instruction cycles thanks to the iOS integration.
People need to un-brainwash the "more RAM is more performance" thinking - these new M1 machines are more than adequate with less than 16GB of Unified Memory - they run so efficiently with less RAM due to SOC designs!
This does need to be remembered, I think. It has become common currency in posts from many that 8 and 16Gb is not enough in these systems, and we're in danger of it being repeated so often that everyone takes it as truth.
Away from here, in places where computers are put to use for a wide variety of work, the talk is much more about how capable M1 systems are, and how well they run. Instead of opinions being voiced, you can see these computers actually being used for a lot of complex tasks, and users observing how well they cope with demands.
Personally, I don't much care how Apple have achieved this, and I'd bet most other users don't either. I do however care about the fact that my 8Gb M1 iMac wipes the floor with my 2015 5K iMac with 32Gb RAM on even tough editing tasks where the 2015 chokes up.
Of course, you'd hope a 2021 system would outperform a 2015, so it's no big deal. But in many ways that's the point, because most users would, I think, be upgrading from an older system too - and seeing the same kind of improved results.
Would more RAM make it even better? I don't know, but the paradigm has changed which means that our thinking needs to as well. I do know that along with Apple themselves, competent developers and software houses out there will be well aware that as time passes, there will be a large marketplace of M1 8Gb users out there, and that building solutions that need more RAM will limit their sales and profitability. It's time (my opinion here) that some sanity was restored to systems and software development which otherwise has been spiraling into pure ridiculousness.
This is something keeping the base model M1 Mini open as an option for me. For £650 I get a desktop computer faster, or at least as fast as my £2.5k 16” MBP, just over a year old.
The base model Mini will be fine for my current needs, and if in a year or two it’s not, I won’t have made a huge investment in it cost-wise. And if what you say comes to pass, I might even get a few years use from it.
I’m waiting to see if a bigger M1 iMac or new Mini are announced tomorrow, if not I’ll be putting in an order for a base model Mini, or possibly the 512/8 version.
Here is the latest review of the M1 iMac from the guys at Max Tech, if you check it out @10:43 they point out what they consider the worse thing about the new iMacs, the lack of the heatsink and second fan on the base model:
Up to a 25% difference in performance, and perpetually running hotter than the high end model.
Again, I don't care that Apple did this, I just don't think we should be finding out from Max Tech and iFixit. They should have let us known the the stats given during the keynote were for the higher end model.
Sounds like a classic bait-and-switch to me.
Up to a 25% difference in performance, and perpetually running hotter than the high end model.
Again, I don't care that Apple did this, I just don't think we should be finding out from Max Tech and iFixit. They should have let us known the the stats given during the keynote were for the higher end model.
Sounds like a classic bait-and-switch to me.
This is not a bait-and-switch, and I think you’re confused as to what that is.
Apple is not luring consumers into their stores with a base model price and then upselling them on a higher end model. The topic of fans won’t come up unless you ask and the sales person is knowledgeable.
The M1 Air has no fan, the M1 MBP has 1 fan, and the M1 Mini has 1 fan. The only heat issues I’ve read about come out of these benchmark tests and processes that the vast majority of Mac users will never engage in.
For the good of humanity, please try to not to propagate the drama and unintentionally use terms that only serve to inflame.
You are correct, my choice of words were incorrect for the situation. Thanks for pointing that out.
I was thinking that Apple misleading consumers by falsely advertising the base model M1 iMac's design and performance metrics was bait-and-switch.
Watch the Max Tech and other real world testing scenarios. These are not just benchmarks, but realistic workflows that are typical for some users.
The MBA is mobile device with a battery and detached display, and the Mac Mini is a different design that is performing better than the iMac with two fans.
Still, what is your point about this? They are different Macs with different design, and have nothing to do with this situation.
Perhaps the point that Kierkegaarden was making was that the M1 runs fine with limited cooling?
The way I see it is that the 2 port iMac is the desktop equivalent of the MacBook Air: it is for people who will not be performing processor intensive tasks. The 4 port iMac is closer to the MacBook Pro, it is for people who want to run software that needs the full power of the M1 for sustained loads.
The advice I received from my local Apple Store was that the 2 port iMac would be sufficient for most people. Similarly 8GB RAM (older Macs have been running fine with 4 GB for quite some time, I was told, so 8 GB should be fine for a similar lifetime).
Personally, I’ll be buying the 4 port iMac for the additional ports and to have power in reserve to (hopefully) avoid the need to upgrade any time soon. I’m still undecided on memory capacity - M1 macs seem to be very fast when paging memory and I’m never going to edit any videos other than short family ones.
I also enjoy the technical details of the hardware (and consider myself pretty well informed). Although I am holding out for Apple Silicon that allows for > 16GB, I did play a little with the configurations for these new iMacs.
For my purposes and the fact that I already own Thunderbolt drive enclosures, I would have probably purchased a base iMac with 16GB RAM, while relying on TB to provide any additional storage or ports required.
I was pretty surprised, however, after watching the Max Tech video and seeing that there was actually a cooling difference between the models. If I were purchasing, that would have pushed me towards purchasing the mid tier model (while also gaining additional ports, Touch ID keyboard and an extra gpu core).
I think a lot of potential purchasers of the new iMac would probably be willing to spend an extra $200 if they were aware that their iMac would run cooler, quieter and faster. The fact that it comes with extras on top of that would make it an easier decision. For years I have always seen threads here about fan noise.
I just find it crazy that Apple would not at least let customers know one of the important benefits of spending $200 more (especially if one of those benefits were important enough to highlight during the product announcement)...
Firstly, I suspect that many users/potential users wouldn't notice a performance difference between the base model with single fan and the mid-tier with two. That some testing has shown a performance difference in benchmarking and testing (while some really hasn't much) just indicates that benchmarking and testing isn't the same as use. If we can assume that all the no-fan and single-fan M1 systems so far (ie, them all except the mid and top-tier iMacs) are all very usable systems, it tells us that these are all very capable systems, or that users are broadly not all that demanding - probably both, in fact.
Secondly, my bet is that Apple aren't letting customers know about the difference between the two models is that either they don't want to down-sell the base model, or that in their design and build experience of the systems, there isn't much difference users would experience. If the latter, the claim of 'bait and switch' might be a bit more relevant, where a customer goes in to an Apple Store for a base model, and is upsold by the staff to the mid-tier because it's '$200 better to use'.
Personally, I have a no-fan M1 MBA and a 2-fan M1 iMac. I can't tell much difference in performance between them. I'm not what used to be called a 'power user' though. On the other hand, most others aren't either.
I think it’s very safe to say that
1) base model consumer computers will be slow in 5 years due to some bottleneck
2) base model Pro computers will be slow for a Pro computer in 5 years due to some bottleneck
For consumer Macs, 8GB RAM is the most likely bottleneck.
For Pro Macs, CPU+GPU is the likely bottleneck.