Andrei Frumusanu from Anandtech claims that Finnish version of the ad is totally wrong. He says the ram is 128-bit LPDDR4X. As you also said, I can't wait for the reviews. Hopefully, Anandtech is sampled some devices
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.
Max RAM limited to 16 GB?
- Thread starter ikkysleepy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There would be some pretty major NUMA implications to that system when your core wasn't accessing adjacent memory.
Not sure what you mean. We got entry-level Mac SoC, with specially integrated on-package high-bandwidth RAM. There is no purpose in using HBM at this level. There is little doubt that future Macs will come with more powerful RAM solutions, be it HBM or some other form of stacked high-bandwidth RAM.
I'll wait for some reviews. I really need a new mac and I was waiting to see the arm mac. But the 16gb max ram seams a bit low for what I am doing. My current configuration with Photoshop - when working with 10 m ooh eats ram like crazy and I hooked up un external ssd for swap. I hoped to get the new macs with at least 64 gb. But as someone mentioned it's new technology so I'll wait for someone to test the new macs with adobe, maybe we'll no longer need so much ram.
I think for your needs, better wait what Apple come up with for the iMac or Mac Pro. The MacBook Air and baseline Macbook Pro are not intended for such heavy workloads, Intel or AS.
Except that's totally what happened today. Clearly the 8th Gen Quad-Core Core i3 Mac mini model got replaced; RAM capacity on that is upgradable to 64GB, Ethernet Port can be upgraded to 10GbE, and it has four Thunderbolt 3 ports. Its successor has a fourth the maximum RAM capacity, half the number of Thunderbolt 3 ports, and only the option for Gigabit Ethernet.
That's messy. Like, I get them refreshing the Air and 2 port 13" Pro but not the 4 port 13" Pro; the two 13" Pros are pretty much two different Macs altogether. But splitting the mini down the middle, and upgrading the lower-end model with something that doesn't compare favorably in some key respects (connectivity and RAM capacity matters) is odd and honestly, not great, considering how capable its predecessor is.
Efficient RAM use doesn't change how RAM capacity works. If I have to load more than 16GB of data into RAM, it doesn't matter that the GPU and CPU and other M1 niceties all have unified access to the RAM, I'm still going to need to page to disk. Saying that "RAM might work differently" kind of implies that these Macs fundamentally change how a computer works, which is not true.
I think you are right. I hoped the new macs would be worth upgrading but oh well, just have to wait some more for the more pro macs later next year.
Someone posted screenshot of ram usage of a Mac mini 16GB vs the DTK somewhere in the forums. Unfortunately I didn’t bookmark it and I can‘t find it. Both systems where freshly booted and run the same programs. The DTK used more memory than the Intel mini. However, I can’t recall, if they both used the same OS.
Wow people here love to overreact. They literally said this is a chip for their most popular low power machines, ie cheap. They have two more years to finish out the lineup, you knew this heading in so stop getting mad they didn’t upgrade every model day one.
16GB isn’t a “downgrade” in the Air and lower end 13” because both of them had 16GB before. We’ll have to wait for the higher end chip which will support more memory and 2 more thunderbolt ports. The M1 is obviously limited to 2 ports and 16GB of RAM. Again, this is the lowest end chip.
They didn’t upgrade the higher end MacBook Pro and Mac mini for a REASON. That reason is that the entry models are not meant to replace them. Sure, you can be a little peeved that the entry Mini lost two ports and maxes out at 16GB and lost the 10gbit Ethernet option, but on the other hand the performance blows the old quad core away and it costs $100 less. Once a higher end chip is ready they will replace the higher end one with 4 ports, more RAM option, and I would assume 10gbit Ethernet will still be an option. It will basically be a Mac Mini “Pro”.
16GB isn’t a “downgrade” in the Air and lower end 13” because both of them had 16GB before. We’ll have to wait for the higher end chip which will support more memory and 2 more thunderbolt ports. The M1 is obviously limited to 2 ports and 16GB of RAM. Again, this is the lowest end chip.
They didn’t upgrade the higher end MacBook Pro and Mac mini for a REASON. That reason is that the entry models are not meant to replace them. Sure, you can be a little peeved that the entry Mini lost two ports and maxes out at 16GB and lost the 10gbit Ethernet option, but on the other hand the performance blows the old quad core away and it costs $100 less. Once a higher end chip is ready they will replace the higher end one with 4 ports, more RAM option, and I would assume 10gbit Ethernet will still be an option. It will basically be a Mac Mini “Pro”.
I think you all need to chill out. RAM on a SOC is very different to that used currently on MBP's. Take the iPad Pro, it only has 6GB, and no one would complain it can't multitask or edit video at 4K and above, it's super good. This technology will need many of you to take some time to understand, it's different. The old norms, and spec's are not relevant anymore.
While I like my 2020 iPad Pro very much, “multitasking” is a stretch. At best it can run two apps side-by-side and another in a third of the screen. It’s clunky as hell and Safari still needs to reload tabs more often than I’d like. 6Gb of RAM is stingy, and that’s only in the Pro models - the others all get less.
The iPad is a mobile device running lightweight apps, usually one thing at a time. I dread to think how 8Gb (or even 16Gb) of shared RAM is going to work for a machine running a full desktop OS and memory hog programs like Chrome and Photoshop.
Part of the memory consumption is due to the management by the OS and the way the hardware works, but another part of the memory consumption is due to sheer needs of the applications that are running. So, yes, some things will change. I do hope the "unified memory" thing to save a bit compared to the integrated GPU. Also, the ARM architecture and future versions of Mac OS may handle memory recycling better. But when the applications that you are running need more RAM, you need more RAM.
For dev purposes, I often need to run a couple of Linux VMs and give 4 Gb each.
I also use photo RAW files processing softwares that seem to make use of quite a bit of RAM. I stopped doing panoramas, but the stitching software I used needed a lot of memory too.
I would even argue that, if you need a lot of tabs open, web browsers like to eat a lot of memory.
These are just examples, but I am currently using a Mac Mini self upgraded to 32 Gb and that configuration is much more comfortable than my MBP with 16 Gb. I do expect ARM to possibly shrink the gap, but not to make 16 Gb all of a sudden ok.
In the current line up, I think the Air is ok; the current configurations are consistent with the old ones. But the situation of the MBP 13" and Mac Mini are somewhat strange; we should probably wait and see how the next batch of higher end M1 copes.
The M1 line-up is meant to be entry-level (AKA for the everyday consumer). That is why the RAM is capped at 16GB. Go to the bottom of the product pages and look at what they compare/test the M1 against in the Fine Print. On the Mac mini they compare/test it against the 4 core i3 model. NOT the desktop-class 6-core i5/i7. It's not meant to replace the 'Pro' level machines. That is why they are still selling the 2018/2020 Mac mini and the higher-end 13 inch MBP. We are still likely 1-2 years if not longer away from Apple Silicon that can replace the Pro Level machines. When they replace those you will see the 32,64,128 GB RAM options. We're not there yet.
If you have a Mac mini with an i5 or i7, 32GB or more RAM and an egpu, it's going to outperform the M1 in real-world tests because it's meant to. Yes the Geekbench scores will be higher on the M1 but again that is why Apple and these other companies do not use Benchmarks, they use real-world testing.
You are comparing two different OS's. iPadOS is very lightweight and not as resource heavy as a full desktop OS like macOS. Lightroom would freeze with 4GB RAM even with Apple Silicon on macOS.
I was editing 4Kvideo on 16GB with Radeon AMD 560RX 4GB and just few months ago upgraded to 24GB RAM and RX580 with 8GB. GIven than M1 has processing power of GPU equal or more than 560RX, 16GB RAM is enough for video editing. It is even more enough for photo and other wordprocessing work.
You sure about that? Because on the Mac mini page, the compare/tests fine print at the bottom they are using the speed out 2TB SSD, 16GB Ram version compared to the i3 version with the same 2TB/16GB setup. And graphics they are comparing to the Intel UHD 630. Likewise on the MacBook Pro, they compare the graphics to the Intel Iris and the low-end quad-core i7.
They are NOT comparing to a Mac mini i5/i7 desktop class 6-core or the higher-end 13 inch MBP which they still sell. Hook up a epgu and you likely have better performance from what I'm reading from the Apple conducted real-world tests. I say always read that fine print.
64GB of 'new' RAM would be the equivalent to 64GB of 'old' RAM.
If you need 64GB you are doing something pretty special and these machines are not for you.
There is a lot of misinformation and assumption of some kind of 'magic' on there that somehow less RAM is now needed just because its in the chip package.
In short - things in RAM take up space - lets say a 10MB file. That takes up 10MB regardless of it being on a ARM Mac or Intel or whatever. Its 10MB of data. You cant magically make that 10MB of data now take 5MB
However... You may have more free RAM on these machines if the OS is more efficient. i.e. Maybe the OS took up 6GB of RAM before, and now only takes 4GB (i'm making these numbers up for an example, not based on any actual facts). You gained 2GB. So your 16GB machine now has 12GB free for other apps instead of 10GB.
64 = 64. Apple hasn’t reinvented math.
Speed does not substitute quantity. If you have 20 GB of content to load to RAM it doesn't matter if those 16 GB are the fastest ever. It just won't fit.
Intel or Apple Silicon doesn't matter if you have more than 16 GB of content to load to RAM. A 20 GB sample library will be 20 GB no matter what the architecture is. There's only so much RAM compression that can be done.
...and if the "pro" Apple Silicon Macs released sometime in the next 18 months also max out at 16GB RAM (and have the same I/O bandwidth limitation) then you have a problem.
Ans: 64
If you actually need 64GB of RAM then this first batch of systems are not for you. There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the magic Apple Silicon fairy making your RAM go further at some fundamental, general level - but 64GB of data is still 64GB of data, and if your workflow runs out of RAM on a 16GB Intel machine, it will run out of RAM on a 16GB Apple Silicon machine too.
If anybody thinks they need 64GB RAM because a bloke in the pub said you need a bare minimum of 32GB RAM to run Adobe CS then it is worth doing a bit of investigation to see if that actually applies to your workflow. "Run Adobe CS" (or Lightroom, or Logic, or FCPx...) is a piece of string depending on exactly what you're doing. 16GB will easily edit your YouTube posts, mix the stylings of your 4-piece band and re-touch your photos - but some people need to composite hundreds of layers of high-res bitmaps, load 100 digitised instruments into their music software or run a dozen virtual Linux machines...
There may even be some cases where the new chip lets you change workflow and reduce RAM demands (e.g. something in the new GPU or neural engine may work in real time and need less buffering) but that is going to be case-by-case, depending on what software, file formats etc. you are using. Also, the faster SSD may reduce the impact of running out of RAM and swapping (but Macs have had pretty fast SSDs for a while now). Those questions will have to wait for real-world, like-with-like tests that we have yet to see, but it would be very, very surprising if they magically make 16GB equivalent to 64GB.