M1 iMac running out of memory

[adh1003]

I think the word "used" is an unfortunate choice of words with respect to RAM, because people think "used" equals "used up."

That is true in the general case, but here we have machines showing memory pressure warnings in Activity Monitor and even giving popup alerts about memory exhaustion which indicates a very serious condition for the kernel.

This is not the behaviour of a computer which is using otherwise-free memory for cacheing. This is the behaviour of a computer that is at the cusp of completely failing to be able to serve any further user requests at all because of critical resource exhaustion - yet the resource in question is the maximum available for the hardware platform, in a brand new computer that's only just come onto the market, where the problematic resource is not in any way user upgradeable, and where the user isn't doing anything that seems to constitute high load in 2021 (just browsing the web!).

Please see post above to compare the screenshots people have given for their struggling M1 computers, to a 2019 Intel 16GB Macbook Pro.

Well that definitely makes me feel a little bit better about the high RAM usage, I hope that's the case with the 16GB iMacs that the machine is basically trying to utilize unused RAM for more efficient performance instead that it is running out of RAM.

Unfortunately, the reported error alerts and Activity Monitor screenshots from M1-based computer owners in this thread show that they are most definitely running out of RAM.

 

[ZebedeeG]

This is my fourth Mac since 2009, and at various times I've used RAM configured as 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB & 24GB.

I've always been able to tell when one of my computers is "struggling" with not enough RAM. Beachballs, stuttering, having to Force Quit apps, etc., and this M1 iMac (8/16/2TB) has yet to display any of those symptoms no matter how much I throw at it!

Sure, I've seen memory pressure go into the yellow. But my actual user experience is still great, so whilst Activity Monitor is very useful, from my experience the memory pressure is only a rough guide (it wasn't always that high when other computers started struggling).

If my M1 iMac was user upgradeable I certainly wouldn't be looking to buy extra RAM, and given that I couldn't get it to show any signs it's struggling even by opening everything at once and a silly number of websites, I don't think that I'll be wishing it was upgradable any time soon.

But of course my use is going to be different from the next person...

I don't use anything which on it's own uses a significant proportion of this computers resources, so perhaps with an app or ten using a GB each and websites each consuming a GB here and there (perhaps typical "consumer" use), my computer has no difficulty in keeping "all the plates spinning" so to speak.

If I were to throw in a couple of very large and resource hungry applications like Photoshop & Xcode it might be a different story entirely, but that said some people do seem to be getting pretty impressive results out of what is not, at the end of the day, marketed as a "Pro" machine.

...and honestly this isn't just a matter of being an Apple fan and defending them no matter what. The 24" iMac is an upgrade to the 21.5" machine, and nothing's perfect but it does seem to be a huge leap forward. The successor to the 27" model is likely to be phenomenal..!

(Apple make crap mice - there I said it! 😆)

 

[Alex_Mac]

This is my fourth Mac since 2009, and at various times I've used RAM configured as 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB & 24GB.

I've always been able to tell when one of my computers is "struggling" with not enough RAM. Beachballs, stuttering, having to Force Quit apps, etc., and this M1 iMac (8/16/2TB) has yet to display any of those symptoms no matter how much I throw at it!

Sure, I've seen memory pressure go into the yellow. But my actual user experience is still great, so whilst Activity Monitor is very useful, from my experience the memory pressure is only a rough guide (it wasn't always that high when other computers started struggling).

If my M1 iMac was user upgradeable I certainly wouldn't be looking to buy extra RAM, and given that I couldn't get it to show any signs it's struggling even by opening everything at once and a silly number of websites, I don't think that I'll be wishing it was upgradable any time soon.

But of course my use is going to be different from the next person...

I don't use anything which on it's own uses a significant proportion of this computers resources, so perhaps with an app or ten using a GB each and websites each consuming a GB here and there (perhaps typical "consumer" use), my computer has no difficulty in keeping "all the plates spinning" so to speak.

If I were to throw in a couple of very large and resource hungry applications like Photoshop & Xcode it might be a different story entirely, but that said some people do seem to be getting pretty impressive results out of what is not, at the end of the day, marketed as a "Pro" machine.

...and honestly this isn't just a matter of being an Apple fan and defending them no matter what. The 24" iMac is an upgrade to the 21.5" machine, and nothing's perfect but it does seem to be a huge leap forward. The successor to the 27" model is likely to be phenomenal..!

(Apple make crap mice - there I said it! 😆)

It just sucks we don't have any info on the rumored larger iMac and those of us who only bought a 24" just because the larger iMac wasn't available yet will have to be stuck with a smaller screen or we will have to resell and lose value. Especially if the price will be close to that of 24". If the price is closer to iMac pro levels then that's another story, I wouldn't be able to afford that, but damm Apple, just give us an indication at least.

 

[ZebedeeG]

It just sucks we don't have any info on the rumored larger iMac and those of us who only bought a 24" just because the larger iMac wasn't available yet will have to be stuck with a smaller screen or we will have to resell and lose value. Especially if the price will be close to that of 24". If the price is closer to iMac pro levels then that's another story, I wouldn't be able to afford that, but damm Apple, just give us an indication at least.

I have to admit that Apple don't always make it easy.

Personally I'd think the best thing you can do, as long as your Mac runs the apps you need, is to "own" your decision and enjoy your Mac as much as you can until its time to upgrade again. You made the best choice you could with the information you had at the time - which is all any of us can do...

(Seriously - I bought some airline shares shortly before Covid hit. If only I'd bought Apple, or Amazon, but I thought they were overpriced... I'm not feeling so smug now! 🤣)

Could be worse - I bet a few people bought new 21.5" iMacs recently, totally unaware that the replacement was imminent and how much of an improvement it was likely to be... Ooops!

 

[ZebedeeG]

Also, don't forget that if you're thinking perhaps you should have waited for the larger iMac. Whilst we don't know what price it'll be it seems almost certain that with unified memory it'll be no more upgradable than the 24" iMac. So if you want / need 32GB RAM, if it's available it's going to cost you...

 

[Alex_Mac]

Also, don't forget that if you're thinking perhaps you should have waited for the larger iMac. Whilst we don't know what price it'll be it seems almost certain that with unified memory it'll be no more upgradable than the 24" iMac. So if you want / need 32GB RAM, if it's available it's going to cost you...

Well, I was already in the "waiting" mindset for the past couple of years when I was waiting for the next iMac redesign to happen cause I was so sick of seeing Apple putting out new Intel iMacs every year or so with some improvements but re-using the same old design for 10 years straight. Now that it is finally here I was so sick of the waiting that wanted to sell my 27" and get an M1 finally. I don't think I have the energy to wait any longer especially if the larger models are not available this year and if they are priced way higher than the 24". And the more I keep my Intel iMac the more value it loses.

 

[wilberforce]

It just sucks we don't have any info on the rumored larger iMac and those of us who only bought a 24" just because the larger iMac wasn't available yet will have to be stuck with a smaller screen or we will have to resell and lose value. Especially if the price will be close to that of 24". If the price is closer to iMac pro levels then that's another story, I wouldn't be able to afford that, but damm Apple, just give us an indication at least.

In some ways Apple has done something very unusual by giving everyone a heads up that Apple Silicon Macs are coming within two years.
Ever since the Osborne Effect, computer companies voluntary provide as little advance information as possible on new products; instead surprising us all when a new product drops.
We cannot say we have not been forwarned.

Osborne effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alex_Mac]

In some ways Apple has done something very unusual by giving everyone a heads up that Apple Silicon Macs are coming within two years.
Ever since the Osborne Effect, computer companies voluntary provide as little advance information as possible on new products; instead surprising us all when a new product drops.
We cannot say we have not been forwarned.

Osborne effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ok I get it but what's the point in hiding info from the same line of products? When Apple silicon first launched last year it was released with MAcBook Air and Pro at the same time. Why couldn't be the case for iMacs as well? I get it that there are global chip shortages and delays and the larger models can't be available yet, but hiding the info on purpose and force professionals to settle with a supposedly inferior model and smaller screen size? I don't think it makes sense.

 

[wilberforce]

ok I get it but what's the point in hiding info from the same line of products? When Apple silicon first launched last year it was released with MAcBook Air and Pro at the same time. Why couldn't be the case for iMacs as well? I get it that there are global chip shortages and delays and the larger models can't be available yet, but hiding the info on purpose and force professionals to settle with a supposedly inferior model and smaller screen size? I don't think it makes sense.

I tend to agree with you. Many people are now paralyzed by indecision (because there is not enough information to make a wise decision); indecision = not buying anything = no sales for Apple

 

[thingstoponder]

I wanna chime in here, as this is the first post I've seen actually addressing the RAM issue.

I got the maxed out M1 iMac to replace a dying 2019(!) iMac. I'm an illustrator, and primarily work with multiple high res/layered Photoshop/Creative Cloud files. (All software is current.) The processor on this thing really seems to be fantastic, but the RAM... oh man. I'm constantly getting alerts saying I'm reaching the max limit on memory and that I should close some applications. Rarely do I have anything other than Mail, maybe a minimized browser and music or podcasts open. I was told when I ordered this thing that that 16G isn't the same sort of 16G we think of in previous Macs- it reroutes the memory as needed throughout the chip so technically you're getting more than 16. But even with that, what's there just isn't enough. I remember being shocked at that number, and it looks like I had good reason. (Edit- this was a fresh install, not migrated from the old machine.)

If there's any creatives working on multiple large files at once (pretty standard), hold off until at least the 32 (or even 64, etc) is released. I'm quite sure when that happens I'll bite the bullet and just trade this one, as returning it now is out of the question.

IMHO, Apple burned way too many calories shouting about the pretty colors, and not enough with the important details.

Before Apple fixed the bug where it falsely reported massive amounts of SSD writes the activity monitor also displayed memory pressure as lower than it was. I think this is where the information about M1 Macs using less memory came from.

I was in an Apple store recently and tested an M1 8GB and 16GB iMac vs a 8GB and 16GB 5k iMac. The 5k iMacs used less memory every time with the same apps or in some cases more on the 5k iMac because I forgot to close some. I attribute this to the 5k iMacs having dedicated GPU memory therefore having more memory dedicated to the CPU. If the M1 RAM usage were as magical as was first reported then it would overcome that and still use the same or less memory, but it didn’t. It’s a myth as far as I’m concerned.

Just curious, how much RAM did your old iMac have?

 

[thingstoponder]

ok I get it but what's the point in hiding info from the same line of products? When Apple silicon first launched last year it was released with MAcBook Air and Pro at the same time. Why couldn't be the case for iMacs as well? I get it that there are global chip shortages and delays and the larger models can't be available yet, but hiding the info on purpose and force professionals to settle with a supposedly inferior model and smaller screen size? I don't think it makes sense.

What do you mean? The 24” iMac replaced the 21.5” 4K iMac. They didn’t force anyone to use a smaller screen size. How many professionals were using this model anyways?

 

[Alex_Mac]

What do you mean? The 24” iMac replaced the 21.5” 4K iMac. They didn’t force anyone to use a smaller screen size. How many professionals were using this model anyways?

Well, do we know for sure that the 24” replaced the 21.5” iMac and not the 27” also? Cause I’ve heard that Apple may not release an M1 iMac with a bigger screen, there may be a $5000+ iMac Pro version of M1 but that’s what I’m saying we don’t have a solid information from Apple so the professionals that wanted to get an M1 iMac are kinda forced to settle with the 24” cause they’re in the dark as far as knowing wether a M1 27” iMac will be released and when.

 

[thingstoponder]

Well, do we know for sure that the 24” replaced the 21.5” iMac and not the 27” also? Cause I’ve heard that Apple may not release an M1 iMac with a bigger screen, there may be a $5000+ iMac Pro version of M1 but that’s what I’m saying we don’t have a solid information from Apple so the professionals that wanted to get an M1 iMac are kinda forced to settle with the 24” cause they’re in the dark as far as knowing wether a M1 27” iMac will be released and when.

You’re hearing made up info from people who are guessing.

If it replaced the 5k iMac then they would have discontinued it. The M1 Macs have directly replaced the MacBook Air, 13” lower end MacBook Pro, low end Mac Mini, and the 21.5” 4K iMac and all those machines were discontinued. That’s it. They left the higher end higher end 13” MBP, higher end Mini, and 27” iMac because those have yet to be replaced.

There’s been zero rumors of an “iMac Pro”. It’s pure fiction at this point. Safe money is there will be a machine that will share the design of the 24” and replace the 5k iMac at the same price point it currently is.

 

[thingstoponder]

Again, this isn't 1999 anymore. Websites are not just static text with some images. We have ads, a LOT a massive amount sometimes of Javascript running, videos auto-playing, and much more. WHAT are those 18 tabs? Are they ALL YouTube?

Example of a SINGLE website using 2GB of RAM...on Windows before someone claims macOS optimization.

https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/7m39fo

If you really want to understand what is using RAM, you really need to be a software developer to understand all these things. You can't just say "I am only using 15 tabs!". Okay, but I have accidentally generated bad Javascript that was not optimized well that caused high CPU AND high RAM. ONE tab - the sole tab even. This is why people just need to let the system handle the memory without worrying about it too much. One day you visit a HORRIBLE site and only have 5 tabs open and are maxing out your 16GB of RAM. Other days you might have 50 tabs open - all static pages that barely take up any RAM.

Web 2.0 essentially made the "15 tabs" equivalent of asking "Why is my computer using 32GB of RAM, I only have 3 programs open!" Okay, but one of those programs is After Effects, so there you go.

Bingo. The web is a bloated mess and keeps getting worse. There’s this notion that web browsing is a light task but that’s not true at all. Web browsers are the number one thing making old computers feel slow. Native apps use way less resources than the average web site doing the same task.

I really think people just need to learn to not hoard browser tabs. There is zero reason to have 50 tabs open. And if you do don’t be surprised when it slows your computer to a crawl. If you had 50 apps open you wouldn’t be surprised, so why are you when it’s browser tabs? The average website uses more RAM than the average app.

Macrumors is using almost 500-900mb per opened tab as I see on my activity monitor . What the...

Thats the modern web for you. Been that way for years. I’ve seen basic news sites use 3GB of RAM and that was 5 years ago.

 

[Alex_Mac]

Bingo. The web is a bloated mess and keeps getting worse. There’s this notion that web browsing is a light task but that’s not true at all. Web browsers are the number one thing making old computers feel slow. Native apps use way less resources than the average web site doing the same task.

I really think people just need to learn to not hoard browser tabs. There is zero reason to have 50 tabs open. And if you do don’t be surprised when it slows your computer to a crawl. If you had 50 apps open you wouldn’t be surprised, so why are you when it’s browser tabs? The average website uses more RAM than the average app.



Thats the modern web for you. Been that way for years. I’ve seen basic news sites use 3GB of RAM and that was 5 years ago.

This makes total sense. I never took web browsing seriously as you described it. It’s just convenient to have multiple tabs open and not having to close and open them again and again but I get it. I was just under the impression that macOS and iOS managed safari tabs in a way that the the webpages that are not in your view don’t consume a lot of ram.

 

[thingstoponder]

This makes total sense. I never took web browsing seriously as you described it. It’s just convenient to have multiple tabs open and not having to close and open them again and again but I get it. I was just under the impression that macOS and iOS managed safari tabs in a way that the the webpages that are not in your view don’t consume a lot of ram.

Actually iOS/iPadOS does do that. They just drop out of ram when the system needs it and then reload when you go back to it. That’s why your iPhone and iPad doesn’t slow down like a Mac/PC. I don’t understand why Safari on the Mac doesn’t work like this.

 

[wilberforce]

I really think people just need to learn to not hoard browser tabs. There is zero reason to have 50 tabs open. And if you do don’t be surprised when it slows your computer to a crawl. If you had 50 apps open you wouldn’t be surprised, so why are you when it’s browser tabs? The average website uses more RAM than the average app.

Some people just like lots of tabs. I don't understand it myself, but see this post for example:

Do you feel like 64 gb of RAM isn't enough?

I usually have somewhere between 350-700 tabs open and I can guarantee that you will need more then 16 GB to do that comfortably. What you need to be looking at is the amount of swapping - Once that starts increasing that is a clear indication that the ram is being used for something else and...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Alex_Mac]

Actually iOS/iPadOS does do that. They just drop out of ram when the system needs it and then reload when you go back to it. That’s why your iPhone and iPad doesn’t slow down like a Mac/PC. I don’t understand why Safari on the Mac doesn’t work like this.

Ugh, it’s a shame macOS doesn’t do that. Wouldn’t it be easier though to have this feature now with the ARM transition across all Apple devices?

 

[thingstoponder]

Ugh, it’s a shame macOS doesn’t do that. Wouldn’t it be easier though to have this feature now with the ARM transition across all Apple devices?

I think it’s more a software thing, they just choose not to do it. I’m sure a lot of people are used to it on their iPhone/iPad and then think something is wrong with their Mac because it slows down doing the same things they do on their other devices.

 

[thingstoponder]

Some people just like lots of tabs. I don't understand it myself, but see this post for example:

Do you feel like 64 gb of RAM isn't enough?

I usually have somewhere between 350-700 tabs open and I can guarantee that you will need more then 16 GB to do that comfortably. What you need to be looking at is the amount of swapping - Once that starts increasing that is a clear indication that the ram is being used for something else and...

forums.macrumors.com

That’s just crazy. I get that you can rack up 20 tabs in the short term, but you’re better off culling them so you can actually focus on one thing at a time. There’s a reason reading list and bookmarks exists. If you have no plan to read something soon then put it in reading list.

 

[wilberforce]

That’s just crazy. I get that you can rack up 20 tabs in the short term, but you’re better off culling them so you can actually focus on one thing at a time. There’s a reason reading list and bookmarks exists. If you have no plan to read something soon then put it in reading list.

Well, they may have their reasons, but let's just say that method of operating has its consequences. Such as: an M1 with 16GB RAM is probably unsuitable for that type of usage.

 

[Jeremy A-H]

I've noticed the same issue since moving to the M1, yet never had this problem with the Intel chips. Right now, I have 20 tabs open in Safari as well as four in Microsoft Edge. I also have BitDefender Antivirus (native M1 version), WhatsApp and Spark running.

Memory used is showing at 13.56 GB, with 5.86GB compressed. This macrumors tab is using 1.3GB on its own, the other Safari tabs around 4GB, WindowServer 1GB, Spark 0.8GB, Bitdefender just under 1GB, WhatsApp just under 1GB, Edge 1.7GB, CleanMyMac (background task) is 1GB.

I'll be upgrading to a 64GB machine as soon as they become available!

 

[Jeremy A-H]

For many of us, multiple tabs is a necessary evil. I might start researching one topic (which would typically involve multiple tabs), then join a conference call that is discussing another, during which a fire drill takes place and you find yourself juggling three projects sequentially. I don't want to close the tabs associated with a project when I know I'll be returning to them half an hour or an hour later as bookmarking them doesn't save where you are on the page.

 

[theorist9]

Here's what I'd do:

1) Doubly-backup your machine, erase the drive, and install a new OS from scratch. I say doubly-backup b/c once you erase your new machine, you'll have only one copy of all your stuff; you always want at least two. Then do fresh installs of all your apps by downloading fresh copies from the Apple Store or the manufacturers' websites (i.e., don't copy any applications over from your old machine). [What I've just described is called a "clean install".] Then copy over your documents/music/photos/videos from your backup.

2) If the problem persists, contact Apple Support or bring it into an Apple Store. If you can't get a quick resolution, return the machine and get a new one.

 

[ZebedeeG]

I've noticed the same issue since moving to the M1, yet never had this problem with the Intel chips. Right now, I have 20 tabs open in Safari as well as four in Microsoft Edge. I also have BitDefender Antivirus (native M1 version), WhatsApp and Spark running.

Memory used is showing at 13.56 GB, with 5.86GB compressed. This macrumors tab is using 1.3GB on its own, the other Safari tabs around 4GB, WindowServer 1GB, Spark 0.8GB, Bitdefender just under 1GB, WhatsApp just under 1GB, Edge 1.7GB, CleanMyMac (background task) is 1GB.

I'll be upgrading to a 64GB machine as soon as they become available!

I have similar use to yours, and my 16Gb M1 iMac certainly does have to juggle it's resources more than my intel iMac with 24GB RAM. (According the Activity Monitor)

But at no point is the M1 showing any visible signs of struggling - not stuttering, no fans, no beachballs, slowdowns, etc.

So, what does it matter that the memory pressure is higher..? As long as the job gets done...

So far at all times the M1 always feels faster to use, despite having less RAM.

(Okay I do admit that it'd be nice to know I could put more RAM in if I ever needed it - but I think those days are now gone with Apple.)