Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

salvatore.p

macrumors member
May 18, 2020
70
51
Do you actually think you can predict the computer needs of someone you don't know 4 years into the future?


Predicting the future or futurproofing is always an hazard.

Software and hardware can make giant jumps in 4 years.
In the last 10 years (2009-2018) Intel settled to a ~10% year-to-year improvement in cpu performance. Nowadays the cpu maker is more vibrant: AMD beat Intel in x86 raw performance and Apple beat both Intel and Amd on efficiency. I can imagine that these competitors can try to eat market by improving more than ~10% at every new gen.

In 2013 I bought an i7-4770k for my hackintosh, in 2017 an i7-7700k was not faster enough to make the 4770k obsolete. If I remember right, there was a 40% to 50% improvement in raw performance. Not that much to justify an upgrade for me.

But, if Apple can gain more than 30% on every new generation we can expect to double in less than three years!


In the end I’m more on buying machine spec’s for actual need and eventually upgrade if needed.
This time I choose 32gb because I think I will actually benefit from it
 

darkinners

macrumors member
Mar 15, 2013
88
30
All in all, memory use something like doubles every 3 years approximately.
All the same stuff you use now, will eat twice more memory in 3 years :)

I remember when I was using MATLAB with something like 16MB of RAM.
Now, if I want to exactly the same, I afraid I need to have at least 4GB )))
You could write simple A4 text document in ms word with 4MB on the pc. Now to do exactly the same, how much you need?
And, the fun part, resulting document will be exactly the same )))
I personally think the trend is different now than 10 years ago, more and more companies will target AI cloud-based solutions in the future, local computer memory usage will actually decrease in coming years for general day-to-day use or even light professional use. More and more companies will switch to a subscription/cloud service type business model to maintain their steady revenue.

But of course, for the specific professional tasks that still require local computing such as music composers who use tons of huge orchestral sampled libraries, won't benefit from that trend and still need a lot of memory on their local computer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mobi-logic

brydav

macrumors newbie
Apr 11, 2011
3
1
Arkansas, USA
I run two external 4K displays and wanted the option to run a third in the future. Apple essentially forced me to get 32GB of RAM and the M1 Max to support this use case because the M1 Pro is limited to two external displays.

All of the reviews I have seen involve a standalone MacBook. I wonder how RAM performance is impacted on the 16GB M1 Pro when people start plugging in external monitors. Does anyone have this experience?
 

Jl006p

macrumors regular
Dec 15, 2019
122
148
Hi,

Not read the whole thread as it's 20 pages long right now but did read at least the first page and especially the first post.

My use cases on a potential new machine (which i was intending to get 32gb on) are:

- Adobe Lightroom Classic (mainly in the library tab) but also a couple of edits here and there.
- I use Docker for my web development.
- General day to day computing.
- Web browser with lots of tabs typically.
- Lots of small utility apps open at once.

What are some peoples opinions on here of getting 32gb over 16gb?

Thankyou.

Neil
If you are dropping $400 for 32gb of ram you might as well drop $200 more to get the M1 Max or else it’s money wasted.

This video really helped me out


He talks about RAM around 17:00
 
  • Like
Reactions: aevan

salvatore.p

macrumors member
May 18, 2020
70
51
If you are dropping $400 for 32gb of ram you might as well drop $200 more to get the M1 Max or else it’s money wasted.

This video really helped me out



He talks about RAM around 17:00


You will get only a faster gpu with the max. I think you should probably save that 200€ unless you really need gpu performance.


I preferred to pick 1tb of ssd instead of the max. Not only I will benefit from the extra storage, but it seems also a tad faster than the base 512gb.
 

smirking

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,972
4,023
Silicon Valley
If you are dropping $400 for 32gb of ram you might as well drop $200 more to get the M1 Max or else it’s money wasted.

In most tests, the battery life of the M1 Pro is better than that of the M1 Max. This person's workflow probably wouldn't have much use for all those extra GPU cores and would be better off with more battery life.
 

patrick.a

macrumors regular
May 22, 2020
153
125
If you are dropping $400 for 32gb of ram you might as well drop $200 more to get the M1 Max or else it’s money wasted.

This video really helped me out


He talks about RAM around 17:00
That is simply not true. If your workflow can't utilize the extra GPU-power that is wasted money and battery.
He even starts the sentence with "I believe" and references the Max Tech video which itself is problematic. Those Youtubers are usually filmmakers who tend to focus their tests on specific workflows and programs they use daily. If you are a filmmaker yourself, fine - go follow their advice. But if you work in a different business, you should really take it with a grain of salt.
 

salvatore.p

macrumors member
May 18, 2020
70
51
That is simply not true. If your workflow can't utilize the extra GPU-power that is wasted money and battery.
He even starts the sentence with "I believe" and references the Max Tech video which itself is problematic. Those Youtubers are usually filmmakers who tend to focus their tests on specific workflows and programs they use daily. If you are a filmmaker yourself, fine - go follow their advice. But if you work in a different business, you should really take it with a grain of salt.


I can't understand why people don't want to read true review.
Here is the Anandtech review in with Andrei Frumusanu's proves (with objective data, not based on subjective feelings) that raw cpu performance is about the same on Pro and Max.
Moreover, he proved that the M1's cpu architecture cannot utilize more than 240GB/s of bandwidth (and can reach that under very specific workloads) making the Max only slightly advantaged in very few tasks.

Of course, GPU performance is about doubling in the 32 GPU core config and the extra hardware encoder/decoder will speed up Video Processing. And I bet that those YouTubers feel better performance because the extra encoder/decoder rather than the more powerful gpu.
 

patrick.a

macrumors regular
May 22, 2020
153
125
I can't understand why people don't want to read true review.
Here is the Anandtech review in with Andrei Frumusanu's proves (with objective data, not based on subjective feelings) that raw cpu performance is about the same on Pro and Max.
Moreover, he proved that the M1's cpu architecture cannot utilize more than 240GB/s of bandwidth (and can reach that under very specific workloads) making the Max only slightly advantaged in very few tasks.

Of course, GPU performance is about doubling in the 32 GPU core config and the extra hardware encoder/decoder will speed up Video Processing. And I bet that those YouTubers feel better performance because the extra encoder/decoder rather than the more powerful gpu.
Because it's harder to understand than a nicely produced clickbait-video on YouTube that gives you the answers to your questions you were hoping to hear.

Thanks for the link, good read!
 
  • Like
Reactions: salvatore.p

slowloris615

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2012
60
46
So at the 3 week mark here. Premiere pro runs beautifully, with Microsoft word open, photoshop, after effects, slack, web browsers etc. Also not that it would tax the system but jump desktop with everything open also running fine. I don't game much but league is my only addiction and it runs at a smooth 120fps vsync on high settings. Using a 32gb max. In terms of ram I can't compare to what a 16gb system wold be like. My last computer was a 2017 iMac with 16 and my editing programs ran fine, but things began to be sticky after. Stuff like screenshots would take like 10 seconds to show up, and sometimes web browsing would slow down. I know that memory works differently though.

Editing to add I think the real money saver honestly may lie in getting the pro over the max unless you really need it. I just went for it because I figured with video editing have those extra encoders will help. Im not sure how much of a difference it makes. Im starting to think that the 32GB pro would of been just fine, but honestly I'm not losing sleep over it. Some programs I use utilize graphics so its not a total waste, and the extra encoders theory will help. I think the best bang for the buck though is the Pro.
 
Last edited:

applesed

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2012
533
340
can someone knowledgable comment on this "24 cores is the binned 32 so it's not going to reduce energy or temp" comment made yesterday?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

macrumors 68000
Oct 6, 2020
1,993
1,724
can someone knowledgable comment on this "24 cores is the binned 32 so it's not going to reduce energy or temp" comment made yesterday?
I would find that to be very surprising if true. I would assume that any defective GPU core would be disabled completely by physically breaking the connections, including the power to the core. I think @cmaier may be able to provide some information on how defective components are disabled.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,474
California
I would find that to be very surprising if true. I would assume that any defective GPU core would be disabled completely by physically breaking the connections, including the power to the core. I think @cmaier may be able to provide some information on how defective components are disabled.

Is the question ”do GPU cores which are disabled due to binning burn power?”

The answer would be no. Fuses are blown to disconnect those cores from the power supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aevan and Fomalhaut

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,542
7,240
Serbia
Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread, I hope it was helpful. Remember, at the end of the day, it's your decision, your needs & wants and your money.

It was a good discussion.
 

applesed

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2012
533
340
Is the question ”do GPU cores which are disabled due to binning burn power?”

The answer would be no. Fuses are blown to disconnect those cores from the power supply.
[
/QUOTE]

Sorry the question was more of the lines of power draw from idle gpu having an impact on battery or not, noticeable.
 

macintoshmac

Suspended
May 13, 2010
6,089
6,994
I like what I see here.

Light use - Affinity Publisher, 11 tabs Safari, Ulysses, Telegram.

Nobody has the right to tell me if 16 GB is enough or that I do not need 32 GB or 64 GB. If I want 32 GB or 64 GB and I can afford it, I may buy it. Nobody has the right to tell me to make do or work with 16 GB because it is 'optimal' or 'just right' for me. Headroom never hurts.

Personally, I think the way I use my computer, 32 GB is the right amount for me to last me for 5 years of anything I throw at it - not conjecture - I will throw at it, just not today.

Screenshot 2021-11-19 at 8.23.10 PM.png



On my 15.4 inch MacBook Pro 2011 with 16 GB, I rarely went swapping and I do not remember anything about compressed now. On my MacBook Pro 2016 with 8 GB and MacBook Air with 8 GB, I was constantly swapping and there was always some gigabytes compressed. I paid a good price for this 2021 MacBook Pro 16" M1 Max with 32 GB, and this computer delivers. Completely satisfied with it, just like I was with the 2011 machine (after upgrading it to 256 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM).
 

jabbr

macrumors 6502
Apr 15, 2012
391
299
nobody is telling you to do anything, it's your decision^

people are just pointing out the fact that it's not a very worthwhile upgrade for the majority. I understand the peace of mind thing, especially if you are trying to keep the computer for 5+ years.

I have the 10-core 16GB 14" model and I'd like to keep it until TSMC hits 3nm. I'll go for 32GB then with a computer I'd likely hold on to for quite a while. There is always less resale value on the additional upgrades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dead flag blues

Fomalhaut

macrumors 68000
Oct 6, 2020
1,993
1,724
I like what I see here.

Light use - Affinity Publisher, 11 tabs Safari, Ulysses, Telegram.

Nobody has the right to tell me if 16 GB is enough or that I do not need 32 GB or 64 GB. If I want 32 GB or 64 GB and I can afford it, I may buy it. Nobody has the right to tell me to make do or work with 16 GB because it is 'optimal' or 'just right' for me. Headroom never hurts.

Personally, I think the way I use my computer, 32 GB is the right amount for me to last me for 5 years of anything I throw at it - not conjecture - I will throw at it, just not today.

View attachment 1914034


On my 15.4 inch MacBook Pro 2011 with 16 GB, I rarely went swapping and I do not remember anything about compressed now. On my MacBook Pro 2016 with 8 GB and MacBook Air with 8 GB, I was constantly swapping and there was always some gigabytes compressed. I paid a good price for this 2021 MacBook Pro 16" M1 Max with 32 GB, and this computer delivers. Completely satisfied with it, just like I was with the 2011 machine (after upgrading it to 256 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM).
Whilst I agree that other people don't know your usage unless you share it with them, the memory usage you posted above would indicate that for those particular applications you don't need 32GB. Of course, you may well run a lot more apps and have heavier memory requirements that you don't show.

For most people, "memory pressure" is a good measure because it can be tricky to interpret the other numbers (and even harder with OS-level tools like "top".

I've seen plenty of posts along the lines of "OMG, Photoshop is taking 20GB to open 10 photos - just as well I bought the 32GB model!", or "I've got 15GB of my 16GB memory used - I'm about to run out!".

You probably know this, but for the wider audience, well-designed apps are "memory aware". If there is free memory they will try to use it to make the app more efficient with local caches. Still have more free? The OS will use it for file-system caches. Remember the mantra "unused memory is wasted memory" - chant it 10 times every day. That same Photoshop app might take 10GB on a 16GB machine or 5GB on an 8GB machine, and still run perfectly well. It's only when significant swapping occurs (approaching or exceeding the size of the physical RAM) that slowdowns will be seen (with modern SSDs). Same with compressed memory - it's pretty fast.

Usage patterns also matter - there is a big difference between switching applications once every half an hour to doing it every 30 seconds. If you do have lots of app data in swap and are constantly reading and writing to swap space, then you will see the impact on system performance much sooner than using a single app for long stretches (when most of it will be swapped back into RAM and lesser-used apps will be pushed to swap).

As a parting thought, we're also seeing the downside of over-speccing your memory. Apart from the huge cost of Apple RAM, it actually uses quite a lot more power. There is another thread showing the difference of DRAM power usage on the M1 Max going up always twice between 32GB and 64GB - that is going to hit your battery life, so you'd better be really sure that you need more memory.
 

jabbr

macrumors 6502
Apr 15, 2012
391
299
is there power difference between the M1 Pro 16GB and 32GB models? I though I read that those RAM chips draw the same amount, but I can't remember where.
 

macintoshmac

Suspended
May 13, 2010
6,089
6,994
Whilst I agree that other people don't know your usage unless you share it with them, the memory usage you posted above would indicate that for those particular applications you don't need 32GB. Of course, you may well run a lot more apps and have heavier memory requirements that you don't show.

For most people, "memory pressure" is a good measure because it can be tricky to interpret the other numbers (and even harder with OS-level tools like "top".

I've seen plenty of posts along the lines of "OMG, Photoshop is taking 20GB to open 10 photos - just as well I bought the 32GB model!", or "I've got 15GB of my 16GB memory used - I'm about to run out!".

You probably know this, but for the wider audience, well-designed apps are "memory aware". If there is free memory they will try to use it to make the app more efficient with local caches. Still have more free? The OS will use it for file-system caches. Remember the mantra "unused memory is wasted memory" - chant it 10 times every day. That same Photoshop app might take 10GB on a 16GB machine or 5GB on an 8GB machine, and still run perfectly well. It's only when significant swapping occurs (approaching or exceeding the size of the physical RAM) that slowdowns will be seen (with modern SSDs). Same with compressed memory - it's pretty fast.

Usage patterns also matter - there is a big difference between switching applications once every half an hour to doing it every 30 seconds. If you do have lots of app data in swap and are constantly reading and writing to swap space, then you will see the impact on system performance much sooner than using a single app for long stretches (when most of it will be swapped back into RAM and lesser-used apps will be pushed to swap).

As a parting thought, we're also seeing the downside of over-speccing your memory. Apart from the huge cost of Apple RAM, it actually uses quite a lot more power. There is another thread showing the difference of DRAM power usage on the M1 Max going up always twice between 32GB and 64GB - that is going to hit your battery life, so you'd better be really sure that you need more memory.

You are right - but nobody even needs 8 GB, as an argument, considering the iPhone 8 with 2 GB can open websites and have some tabs as well and certainly run a lot of apps that do a lot of things (productive things), and the iPhone 6s (with 1 GB?) can do that as well.

The idea is headroom to breathe and grow.

Yes, unused memory is wasted memory. What people do not think about is:

A jet engine is designed such that it can take the weight of the aircraft it is serving alone. The second engine is a contingency of sorts. Secondly, the engines do not even run at full power all the time. Unused power would be wasted power, right? So, do you need the second engine in an aircraft or not? Think about the weight savings and how much more energy-efficient that would make the aircraft. Airlines certainly think about it, they fill only that much fuel as needed. It is the government that does not allow them to run on only one engine. They would, if they were allowed to. Further, do you want a lower-spec engine that runs at its maximum power all the time, gasping for breath, considering unused power is wasted power?

People stock their refrigerators all the time, right? Are you drinking 6 beers at once? No. You can only drink them one after another. So, why buy the 6 at once? Go buy again if you need, no? This can sound like an absurd logic/ argument/ comparison to people with a certain mindset, but I am sure there will be some who will get the point of this.


There is a difference between absolutely not needing something and having a healthy amount of something that allows you room to grow and allows you the convenience and resources to do everything you might want to do for the duration you are intent on keeping it the way that will keep you satisfied and not make you feel handicapped with anything. I do not need more than 1 beer at once because I cannot drink from 6 cans at once. But I buy a 6-pack or maybe three 6-packs. Why? That's why I go with 32 GB today because I can. If finances are an issue, I can go with buying a 6-pack as and when required. If finances are really tight, I will only buy one and then buy another when I have money. It is that simple. Having three 6-packs with me gives me convenience. Do I need a 100 6-packs with me? Absolutely not. But I would need a 100 or more if I was having large parties every other day. That's what 64 GB is for people who need it and those who don't.

About hit on battery life: I do not live in a cave, nor do I consider myself so limp and frail to be unable to carry a charging brick and cable along with, if I think it would be beneficial. Unless I am holding the notebook in one hand, I can certainly plug it in and work. What's the huge deal about a couple hours hit?

Here is my battery expectations for my aforementioned apps at the time:

Screenshot 2021-11-19 at 8.19.05 PM.png


At minimum, accounting for all variables, I will get at least 9-10 hours out of it. Am I going to be working for more than that without access to power? I will not. If some people will, then they best pick the Air instead of any Pro, and likely buy two of them and mirror them so they can continue working on the other after the battery on one dies.
 
Last edited:

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,542
7,240
Serbia
Nobody has the right to tell me if 16 GB is enough or that I do not need 32 GB or 64 GB. If I want 32 GB or 64 GB and I can afford it, I may buy it.

Who is telling you if 16 is enough? Did anyone tell you that? You have every right to buy whatever you want.

But I have the right to say that for certain workflows, I think 16 is enough. And I do.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.