Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm sure your response is helpful to some, and I appreciate you took the time - but I was pretty clear that I was a rookie. I read this, and I may as well try to decipher cave drawings.
You're using Lightroom and you're using Final Cut Pro, two applications that I wouldn't really classify as "rookie"-level. For all we know, you're shooting 100 megapixel images and then stitching them into gigapixel panoramas, and editing 8K footage - you didn't specify, and you didn't have to. You can be a media master and have no idea what the difference between RAM and a CPU is; you don't need to know the inner workings of a computer to do your work (or hobbies).

I'm remarking on the people who are saying that 8 GB is fine and 16 GB is more than enough. Nobody asked you specifically what you're doing, so how do they know if it's enough for you? I don't think we have enough pros doing the heavy lifting on these machines to really know if they're up to them, either. It's something I see often on this forum (people piping up that it'll be fine, without even fully grasping what the person asking questions is trying to accomplish) and I usually just pass by but I let myself speak my mind on this one. Sorry it was your thread :p

100% correct!

M1 Unified Memory is VERY different than your Intel DDR RAM.

I use a 2015 15" MBP with 16GB of DDR RAM and it is a slug compared to my M1 Mini and iMac w/ 8GB Unified Memory.

The M1 SOC runs all my apps and multiple tab browsers so quick without the Intel's hot chassis, awful battery life, thermal throttling, and fans spinning up...

My base (8GB) M1 Mini and iMac runs circles around the Intel Macs and stays cold and no fan spin ups!
You're talking a six year difference in technology. There's a whole lot more than the unified memory architecture that changed and contributes to your experience. I'm glad you're happy with your new system!
 
  • Love
Reactions: Yebubbleman
....I don't think we have enough pros doing the heavy lifting on these machines to really know...

I haven't chopped your other comments to dismiss them - I think largely you're exactly right - but this, the use of the word (or notion) of 'pro' user, bandied about here so often, really irks.

Leaving aside the fact that what we have at present in the M1 range are clearly 'consumer' oriented products anyway, the question of what exactly is a 'pro' user is about as unclear as how much RAM is really necessary to use a Mac in the first place.

For example, I use a Mac as a critical part of the work I do, and it's used extensively for design and web/photo/video editing and project development. It's also concurrently used for web research, and a great deal of systems and data monitoring. I'd guess that in many definitions, that's 'pro' use.

But really, it isn't. Even when I was editing broadcast video (on systems with far less power than the M1 iMac) I wouldn't have classed myself as a 'pro' user, because it was just what I did to make a living, and the Macs I used over the years doing it were just tools.

'Pro' doesn't really mean anything. At least nothing tangible enough to hang a whole bunch of arguments on that relate to the suitability of a computing platform. And that's without getting into the ass-backwards habits some users have of buying (or having their employers buy for them) workstation class systems so they can run 10 instances of Firefox, 6 of Chrome, and check their email, while feeling very important because they have 'pro' systems to use for their jobs.

If anything, 'pro' use is as much in the minds of software developers as anything, because if they can put that label on their product, they can sell it for a ton of cash more. Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but the labels we give things are often more about us than anything real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat
I haven't chopped your other comments to dismiss them - I think largely you're exactly right - but this, the use of the word (or notion) of 'pro' user, bandied about here so often, really irks.
That's fair, I admit that mainstream marketing has imprinted heavily on me and I use the term as marketing does. We think of it as heavy usage demanding high reliability, but you're right that you can be a professional in a field and not fit that description.
 
Hi All,
Apologies in advance if this has been discussed. I would assume it's an often asked question, but search wasn't helpful here, so I figured I'd ask for advice from the experts here. Thanks in advance for any help!

I am currently using MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Early 2015) 2.9 GHz Core i5 w/ 8 GB DDR3 connected to a 27" (2560x1440) Apple Thunderbolt Display. The machine still works fine but is getting rather slow now that I am using Lightroom Classic nearly daily. I am also planning to start doing some light video stuff on Final Cut. So, I set out to buy a new machine and after some research I see that the M1 is all the rage. I don't need a laptop so I was considering the Mac Mini, but I'm told by those at Apple that my current monitor isn't compatible. Seems odd, but ok. Next up would be the 24" iMac (not thrilled about going down in screen size) but what I really don't understand is why it only comes in a max of 16MB RAM. Is this RAM in the new machines just that much more efficient that the old intel machines? Is Apple saying that 16MB of "unified memory" is just as good / fast as 128 GB of DDR4 Memory?

I'm thinking of just biting the bullet and getting the "top of the line" 24" iMac which has to be an improvement over what I have right? I'm just dumbfounded about the RAM being limited to 16mb. Maybe this isn't a big deal? I'm also not sure I believe the sales consultant that told me my current monitor won't work with the mac mini - shouldn't there be a way to connect the two, or is it time to put the old monitor out to pasture?

Thanks in advance for any help that could be offered to this rookie who is truly lost!

The RAM being limited to 16GB is obviously a limitation of the M1. Given that M1 is the most powerful iteration of Apple Silicon and that A12Z and A12X (which would be the previous wearers of that crown) topped at 6GB of RAM, M1 technically brings the most amount of RAM to an Apple Silicon SoC to date. Apple clearly has catch up work to do here, but they're clearly working on it (which is why the Intel Macs still being sold are all Macs that had 32+GB RAM options).

As for anyone telling you that "you need to think of RAM differently with Apple Silicon", that's only true to a point. Where Intel Macs (whether equipped with discrete or integrated graphics) would have to copy data from system RAM to video RAM (whether or not that video RAM was sliced off for an integrated graphics processor), you don't have that requirement with Apple Silicon. The RAM can just be accessed by all parts without needing to be shuffled around. This results in FASTER RAM.

The mistake that everyone brandishing the "you need to think of RAM differently with Apple Silicon" argument like it's the word of ::insert your diety of choice here:: makes is that this doesn't completely negate a need for more RAM. It DOES mean that data in RAM won't have to be copied or duplicated as frequently as on Intel Macs and PCs. But if you're working with more than 8GB of data or applications, you will STILL need MORE RAM. Apple's storage controllers make it so that swapping to disk doesn't incur as nasty of a speed penalty, so you will likely notice the effects of only having 8GB of RAM way less of the time when compared to a similarly configured Intel Mac, but that doesn't mean that the effects aren't still there. RAM is still RAM.

All that to say that you should max out any M1 Mac at 16GB or wait until future Apple Silicon Macs accommodate more RAM. (a) You can't upgrade it after the fact and (b) even if you are running fine on 8GB of RAM today, you'll very likely wish you had 16GB of RAM down the road. Again, RAM is still RAM.


The use of memory of an iMac with the M1 chip is completely different then an Intel iMac.

Memory access and usage is completely different than on an Intel Mac. But RAM is still RAM. 9GB of memory use will still entail paging to disk on a Mac that only has 8GB of RAM.

Most people with average use cases, will not need more than 8GB of RAM.

That's today. And I'll grant you that IS true for today's use cases. However, it was also true of 2013 MacBook Airs that came with 4GB of RAM back in 2013. Nowadays, having 4GB of RAM on a Mac running Big Sur is horrible. Apple Silicon does not change the fact that the same will inevitably be true of having 8GB of RAM in an Apple Silicon Mac versus 16GB. The notion that RAM fundamentally changes that showcases a lack of knowledge of what RAM is and how it functions. Because it does not change the fact that, again, RAM is still RAM.

Assuming your use case does not change, the argument of future proofing for standard use, in my opinion is illusionary.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

There's plenty of historical data to suggest that, unless someone buying an M1 Mac with 8GB of RAM only intends to keep it for three years before selling/trading/upgrading to something newer, 8GB will eventually be not enough and that extra RAM will be useful even if it isn't that way today.

You will be fine with 8GB and 16GB will just be an extra plus.

BTW, if you searched the desktop section of Macrumors, the issue of M1 and memory has been beaten to death.

It's beaten to death because most people are over-hyping the M1's use of RAM like it fundamentally changes how RAM works. It doesn't. It changes how RAM is accessed by multiple system components. Nothing more than that.
You have people like the OP asking honestly how much RAM they should get in an M1 Mac and people, citing only today's performance metrics and Apple's marketing, suggesting that 8GB of RAM will always be enough for basic tasks like Apple doesn't up the RAM requirements on its other Apple Silicon based platforms with regularity. Then people like me come in and debate that. Because advising people to not spend $200 to help prolong the life of their $600-2300 M1 Mac based on how macOS is TODAY (and not down the road when it inevitably bloats) is foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst!

16GB of RAM will eventually be a requirement. It will also eventually be the dividing line between whether your 5-7 year old M1 Mac runs comfortably or whether or not you're seeing the spinning beach ball more often due to increased disk paging needs of the OS.

People need to look at the M1 SOC differently then they do Intel based Macs.

People need to understand how RAM works in both cases and remember that, while memory is accessed differently and more efficiently on an Apple Silicon SoC than it is on an Intel processor, at the end of the day, RAM IS STILL RAM!

I take issue with the commentary that M1 is some radical departure from standard computing. It's still using RAM, and it still has a swap file. Everything is faster and the unified architecture is arguably more efficient, but at the end of the day if you're doing something that requires more than 16 GB of RAM then you need more than 16 GB of RAM. Some singular tasks might get you there, and you can easily get there with heavy multitasking. That the swap file is running from a SSD and is thus much faster than it used to be in the olden days means nothing if you're already running your SSD hard and/or have limited free space on your SSD (which is a bad idea in general, but still happens). There's going to be a performance hit, and it's more wear and tear on your SSD. The significance of that really depends on what you do day in and day out. For most people, sure, it probably won't matter much. For the enthusiasts here? I won't write anyone off without hearing more.

I have 32 GB of RAM in my current Intel-based Mac, which has its own discrete graphics chip that has its own VRAM (which the M1 Macs do not - the RAM is shared with the GPU; my 4 GB of VRAM is often near- or fully maxed out, and while the M1's GPU is probably more efficient, that's still likely a few gigabytes taken away from your total). Thanks to macOS enhancements made a few generations ago, the majority of the RAM is always in use. I still occasionally hit the swap file, but it's rare. It has been a long, long time since I had to think about whether I needed to quit one program before running another, and I don't spend a fair amount of money on my computers to be forced into micromanaging them. For the average person checking email, reading web articles, and watching videos on YouTube, 8 GB is plenty. For me and those like me, running media projects, virtualizing, and arguably having more browser tabs open than we should, even the 16 GB option makes me nervous. The M1 is still a computer, and the unified memory architecture is not some never-before tried concept.
A billion times this!
 
Last edited:
The RAM being limited to 16GB is obviously a limitation of the M1. Given that M1 is the most powerful iteration of Apple Silicon and that A12Z and A12X (which would be the previous wearers of that crown) topped at 6GB of RAM, M1 technically brings the most amount of RAM to an Apple Silicon SoC to date. Apple clearly has catch up work to do here, but they're clearly working on it (which is why the Intel Macs still being sold are all Macs that had 32+GB RAM options).

As for anyone telling you that "you need to think of RAM differently with Apple Silicon", that's only true to a point. Where Intel Macs (whether equipped with discrete or integrated graphics) would have to copy data from system RAM to video RAM (whether or not that video RAM was sliced off for an integrated graphics processor), you don't have that requirement with Apple Silicon. The RAM can just be accessed by all parts without needing to be shuffled around. This results in FASTER RAM.

The mistake that everyone brandishing the "you need to think of RAM differently with Apple Silicon" argument like it's the word of ::insert your diety of choice here:: makes is that this doesn't completely negate a need for more RAM. It DOES mean that data in RAM won't have to be copied or duplicated as frequently as on Intel Macs and PCs. But if you're working with more than 8GB of data or applications, you will STILL need MORE RAM. Apple's storage controllers make it so that swapping to disk doesn't incur as nasty of a speed penalty, so you will likely notice the effects of only having 8GB of RAM way less of the time when compared to a similarly configured Intel Mac, but that doesn't mean that the effects aren't still there. RAM is still RAM.

All that to say that you should max out any M1 Mac at 16GB or wait until future Apple Silicon Macs accommodate more RAM. (a) You can't upgrade it after the fact and (b) even if you are running fine on 8GB of RAM today, you'll very likely wish you had 16GB of RAM down the road. Again, RAM is still RAM.




Memory access and usage is completely different than on an Intel Mac. But RAM is still RAM. 9GB of memory use will still entail paging to disk on a Mac that only has 8GB of RAM.



That's today. And I'll grant you that IS true for today's use cases. However, it was also true of 2013 MacBook Airs that came with 4GB of RAM back in 2013. Nowadays, having 4GB of RAM on a Mac running Big Sur is horrible. Apple Silicon does not change the fact that the same will inevitably be true of having 8GB of RAM in an Apple Silicon Mac versus 16GB. The notion that RAM fundamentally changes that showcases a lack of knowledge of what RAM is and how it functions. Because it does not change the fact that, again, RAM is still RAM.



That's just, like, your opinion, man.

There's plenty of historical data to suggest that, unless someone buying an M1 Mac with 8GB of RAM only intends to keep it for three years before selling/trading/upgrading to something newer, 8GB will eventually be not enough and that extra RAM will be useful even if it isn't that way today.



It's beaten to death because most people are over-hyping the M1's use of RAM like it fundamentally changes how RAM works. It doesn't. It changes how RAM is accessed by multiple system components. Nothing more than that.
You have people like the OP asking honestly how much RAM they should get in an M1 Mac and people, citing only today's performance metrics and Apple's marketing, suggesting that 8GB of RAM will always be enough for basic tasks like Apple doesn't up the RAM requirements on its other Apple Silicon based platforms with regularity. Then people like me come in and debate that. Because advising people to not spend $200 to help prolong the life of their $600-2300 M1 Mac based on how macOS is TODAY (and not down the road when it inevitably bloats) is foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst!

16GB of RAM will eventually be a requirement. It will also eventually be the dividing line between whether your 5-7 year old M1 Mac runs comfortably or whether or not you're seeing the spinning beach ball more often due to increased disk paging needs of the OS.



People need to understand how RAM works in both cases and remember that, while memory is accessed differently and more efficiently on an Apple Silicon SoC than it is on an Intel processor, at the end of the day, RAM IS STILL RAM!


A billion times this!
Good explanation this, and all things I considered when choosing a 16gb Mini over an 8gb, which coupled with an Amazon discount, cost me an extra £300 for the extra 8gb via Apple.

I now have the confidence (hardware reliability permitting) that I have a fast, usable Apple desktop (for my uses) for at least five years. Which for £1100 is pretty good going.

I check the activity monitor occasionally, and even though I’m not doing heavy intensive video work, having design and browser apps running still pushes me over 8gb, so the machine would be constantly disk swapping if I’d plumped for the lower specced model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yebubbleman
Thanks! I saw that yesterday and watched a couple of videos and it seems even the native version isn't operating much (if any) faster than the previous version. That said, there is little information available right now so maybe that changes in a few weeks as more reviews come in. Fingers crossed for sure.

Well, the issue with Lightroom is that performance between the M1 Native version, the M1 Emulated version, and the version running on the latest Intel laptops is about the same, which is a bit disappointing since we like to see benchmarks where the M1 is wiping the floor with the best that Intel has to offer, and that's not happening here...

BUT you're running a 6-year-old dual-core processor with 8GB of RAM. Either a 16GB M1 machine or a new 16GB quad-core 10th gen Intel laptop will still wipe the floor with your old laptop.

But if you want the absolute best performance *for Lightroom*, it will probably be from one of the higher-end 10-core Intel iMacs or Mac minis with 32GB or more vs an M1 with 16GB. There's actually a lot of software where that's the case, which is why Apple is still selling them even though they're on the way out.

Ultimately, for you, it's a question of timeline and budget. If the M1 is the price you want to pay, then buying now is a fine option, because the price isn't going to go down when the new models show up, and the M1 will still offer way better performance than your current machine. But you're willing to wait and pay more, then eventually Apple will come out with the "Pro" version of the M1 with probably spectacular performance and prices to match their current high-end Intel offerings like the 27" iMac or 4-port Macbook Pro.

(As for how long you'll need to wait... the rumors say the new higher-end Macbook Pros are coming by late fall, and that the new 27" iMac is delayed till next year. I don't think the rumors know when the higher-end Mac minis would be coming out, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)
 
I don't think the rumors know when the higher-end Mac minis would be coming out, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)
The rumor mill seems to have the hardest time nailing down Mac mini rumors moreso than pretty much every other Apple product. Though, I guess the iPod touch has been a bit similar in times leading up to the sixth and seventh generation model launches (though that might be a matter of them reusing the same design as the fifth generation models).
 
I haven't chopped your other comments to dismiss them - I think largely you're exactly right - but this, the use of the word (or notion) of 'pro' user, bandied about here so often, really irks.

Leaving aside the fact that what we have at present in the M1 range are clearly 'consumer' oriented products anyway, the question of what exactly is a 'pro' user is about as unclear as how much RAM is really necessary to use a Mac in the first place.

For example, I use a Mac as a critical part of the work I do, and it's used extensively for design and web/photo/video editing and project development. It's also concurrently used for web research, and a great deal of systems and data monitoring. I'd guess that in many definitions, that's 'pro' use.

But really, it isn't. Even when I was editing broadcast video (on systems with far less power than the M1 iMac) I wouldn't have classed myself as a 'pro' user, because it was just what I did to make a living, and the Macs I used over the years doing it were just tools.

'Pro' doesn't really mean anything. At least nothing tangible enough to hang a whole bunch of arguments on that relate to the suitability of a computing platform. And that's without getting into the ass-backwards habits some users have of buying (or having their employers buy for them) workstation class systems so they can run 10 instances of Firefox, 6 of Chrome, and check their email, while feeling very important because they have 'pro' systems to use for their jobs.

If anything, 'pro' use is as much in the minds of software developers as anything, because if they can put that label on their product, they can sell it for a ton of cash more. Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but the labels we give things are often more about us than anything real.
Well stated!

About time you addressed the "Pro" name being used to differentiate the use of Apple devices!

People think the "Pro" version of Apple devices will make them into techie geeks, run multi billion dollar software or working for a profit...

In reality, with my professional and personal work I do on computers, does that make me have to get a "Pro" version ?

My M1 "Consumer" Mini & iMac has proven me that I can do "Pro" stuff on it (Final Cut Pro, Adobe CC, VPN Remote server management, MDM provisioned remote device control, man in the middle cloud filtering, Cisco VOIP & data configuration changes, firewall port configs, Apple caching servers, etc).

All done effortlessly on a base (8GB) M1 Mini and iMac!
 
Well stated!

About time you addressed the "Pro" name being used to differentiate the use of Apple devices!

People think the "Pro" version of Apple devices will make them into techie geeks, run multi billion dollar software or working for a profit...

In reality, with my professional and personal work I do on computers, does that make me have to get a "Pro" version ?

My M1 "Consumer" Mini & iMac has proven me that I can do "Pro" stuff on it (Final Cut Pro, Adobe CC, VPN Remote server management, MDM provisioned remote device control, man in the middle cloud filtering, Cisco VOIP & data configuration changes, firewall port configs, Apple caching servers, etc).

All done effortlessly on a base (8GB) M1 Mini and iMac!

Back at the point where Steve Jobs returned to Apple and took control, the company was in dire trouble, and had products of almost every kind sprouting from its corporate ears. It was chaotic. One thing he did fairly rapidly was develop a grid of products. Two columns: consumer and professional, and two rows: laptop and desktop. iBook and PowerBook, iMac and PowerMac.

The resulting products were excellent (mostly - if you turn a blind eye to perhaps 75% failure rate of the G3 'snowbooks'), but ended up encouraging some software houses to develop 'pro' lines of software to sell at business-level rather than consumer-level prices. And that's largely where this almost entirely fabricated notion of the 'pro' user comes from.

It certainly isn't from the hardware, because the only real differences were generally cheaper materials in the consumer systems, and somewhat better upgradability in the pro designs. Before that, Apple's core of creative users were all capable of running software such as the latest Photoshop or Quark, or whatever on almost any of Apple's systems, and there was no such thing as a 'pro system' for a 'pro user'. It wasn't even until the big mess of Performas, LCs and PowerMacs all competing against each other - which caused most of Apple's 90's woes - that any differentiation in presumed use of Macs was made, and even then there was precious little to demark the competing models from each other.

Even Apple themselves have demonstrated this point pretty admirably, because there really were very few people who needed a Mac Pro or an iMac Pro to get their work done - reasons why the first languished a long, long time with barely any updates, and the second was a short-lived product, while mini's, iMacs and entry-tier laptops have remained their bread and butter lines.

BUT, a couple of posters have made the perfectly legitimate point that the M1 isn't a miracle of better-than-science, because systems do need enough RAM to run effectively, and however blazing-fast the M1 might be, it does need resources to be able to run MacOS, plus the software the user needs on top of it. AND, there are software houses who have got the hang of charging corporate-level costs for pro-level software, which is far more about feature creep, bloat and tenth-rate programming talent than it is about anything else. And when users want to run this software, they're going to need something bigger in power, RAM and storage terms to run it on.

Likewise, some developers need beefy systems to work on, and while for both sets of cases an M1 ought to be plenty (except for running Windows at present, perhaps), 8Gb RAM really is a push, and if it works at all, would only be because it's using page-outs and ins to compensate. This would be fine, given the speed of the SSD, except for concerns, rightly or wrongly, about SSD longevity.

That's why it makes sense that if someone is looking to future-proof as best they can, 16Gb is the way to go. And also why 8Gb is a risk, because unless Apple keep a tighter grip on the feature creep in MacOS than they often have in the past, 8Gb M1 systems could be in trouble in a handful of years.

We have to be careful of falling for myths on both sides of this. Firstly that 8Gb is plenty enough, because it isn't - it is sufficient for most, but not plenty, and secondly, that seeing high memory use denotes a shortage of RAM, because it doesn't. Or at least necessarily. MacOS is intended to work this way, so high RAM utilization is a planned feature, not necessarily a sign of problems. We also have to be careful with the suggestion that there is nothing all that special about the M1, because there is. Not only is it a remarkably fast chip with high performance to power ratio, but it is also the peg that Apple have decided to hang their hat on for a few years, and that's important because it creates a vested interest in one of the world's most powerful computer businesses to make it work.

But, with all due respect to some of the community perhaps... pro users? I don't think so. Somebody recently told me they were a pro user because they were doing 3-cam 4K video editing for their YouTube channel, posting up to 3 or 4 videos a week. Yawn. I was doing multi-cam HD editing for broadcast video on dual processor G5s getting on for 20 years ago now. It isn't the hardware, but the software that matters. Then, FCP made you work for it, today, many of these 'pros' want the software to do it all for them. Which is why it needs so much RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat
But, with all due respect to some of the community perhaps... pro users? I don't think so. Somebody recently told me they were a pro user because they were doing 3-cam 4K video editing for their YouTube channel, posting up to 3 or 4 videos a week. Yawn. I was doing multi-cam HD editing for broadcast video on dual processor G5s getting on for 20 years ago now. It isn't the hardware, but the software that matters. Then, FCP made you work for it, today, many of these 'pros' want the software to do it all for them. Which is why it needs so much RAM.
It's software and hardware, and isn't that one of the strengths for Apple? Let's face it, there's a big difference between broadcast video and 4K video, as well as the software codecs of today. I was using a dual G5 system for professional video conversion to digital ("professional" really just meaning that I was paid for it). Fun times as I used Qmaster to tie in a dual G4 system to help with distributed transcoding. I wonder how those systems would fare on H.264 or H.265 video encoding now, with 4K video? Even my 2018 MacBook would probably be faster than both systems... computing progress has been pretty amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nguyen Duc Hieu
Well, the issue with Lightroom is that performance between the M1 Native version, the M1 Emulated version, and the version running on the latest Intel laptops is about the same, which is a bit disappointing since we like to see benchmarks where the M1 is wiping the floor with the best that Intel has to offer, and that's not happening here...

BUT you're running a 6-year-old dual-core processor with 8GB of RAM. Either a 16GB M1 machine or a new 16GB quad-core 10th gen Intel laptop will still wipe the floor with your old laptop.

But if you want the absolute best performance *for Lightroom*, it will probably be from one of the higher-end 10-core Intel iMacs or Mac minis with 32GB or more vs an M1 with 16GB. There's actually a lot of software where that's the case, which is why Apple is still selling them even though they're on the way out.

Ultimately, for you, it's a question of timeline and budget. If the M1 is the price you want to pay, then buying now is a fine option, because the price isn't going to go down when the new models show up, and the M1 will still offer way better performance than your current machine. But you're willing to wait and pay more, then eventually Apple will come out with the "Pro" version of the M1 with probably spectacular performance and prices to match their current high-end Intel offerings like the 27" iMac or 4-port Macbook Pro.

(As for how long you'll need to wait... the rumors say the new higher-end Macbook Pros are coming by late fall, and that the new 27" iMac is delayed till next year. I don't think the rumors know when the higher-end Mac minis would be coming out, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)
Terrific advice, thank you!

Edit* I was on the verge of pulling the trigger on the highest end intel mac mini because my main use is lightroom classic, with the hope of getting into Final Cut in the coming months. In any case, it occurs to me that if the M1 is indeed the wave of the future Adobe and others are going to have to start making their software gears towards that platform. Maybe getting the highest end intel based machine doesn't make sense then?

My machine still works, but I am getting that beach ball more and more and it's so slow with importing and exporting to lightoom. I may just get the 16MB mini now with the understanding that it will be an 18 - 24 month bridge until the newest M series is released with more RAM options, assuming I need more than the current 16 offered.

Of course now the issue is ordering online only allows the use of 8 Apple gift cards and I have double that to use, so I will have to go into the store and see if they can help me there. Nothing is easy it seems.
 
Last edited:
My machine still works, but I am getting that beach ball more and more and it's so slow with importing and exporting to lightoom. I may just get the 16MB mini now with the understanding that it will be an 18 - 24 month bridge until the newest M series is released with more RAM options, assuming I need more than the current 16 offered.
You can see for yourself what you need, and where the slowdowns are. Open Activity Monitor and we can look at a few things. I usually recommend checking it here and there to get a better understanding of your various tasks and programs, and which computer components are specifically being tapped by them:

1) CPU (tab at the upper right, if you're on macOS Big Sur; I think it used to be at the upper center on earlier versions of OS X). This one is fairly straightforward - how much is your CPU being utilized? Ignore the number for "Idle" as that just represents CPU not being used. Is your CPU utilization hitting 100% or near it when you're running some of your tasks, particularly when you're experiencing slowdowns? If so, then you're CPU-constrained. Most people blame their CPU for the slowdown, but I'd gauge it to be a less frequent cause of slowdowns, particularly for beachballs.

Let's move on.

2) Memory. Look at the bottom and you'll see a bunch of things. The simplest graphical representation is the memory pressure graph, which should tell you if you're being memory-constrained or not. You can look at some other numbers for more. Swap Used indicates things that could not fit in RAM (or that your computer decided to remove from the RAM, for what ever reason) and that reside on your hard drive - ideally the swap should be very low, and rarely used. App Memory and Wired Memory are the two big numbers to look to. You can also do a search on the process list for Lightroom, if you don't see it (search magnifying glass is at the upper right) and get a sense of how much RAM Lightroom, itself, is using.

If your RAM is bursting to the limit and/or your system is showing memory pressure in the red, then 8 GB is definitely not enough for you. If memory pressure is in the yellow then you'd likely benefit from more but it may not be critical. If your "swap used" is in the multiple gigabytes then you very likely have a memory problem. (For reference, I've had my computer running for one week since its last reboot, I've done some photo editing and virtualization; on a 32 GB system, my "swap used" is around 900 MB.)


3) Skip over to Disk.

I use a different utility for monitoring this one, but if you're running most of your work from your main drive (and not an external) then you may still be able to use Disk Utility for this purpose. To make this one useful, from the upper menu (upper left of your screen - not the app), go to View > Update Frequency > Very Often (1 sec). The default is a bit too slow. Run your tasks and look at both the read ins/sec and writes out/sec (left of the graph); data read/sec and data written/sec (lower right of the graph). A standard 7200 RPM HDD can be expected to do something around 400 for read in/out, or read/write speeds of 80-160 MB/s (not combined, but singularly). If you're hitting those numbers then it means that your hard drive is working at its maximum speed, which may or may not be causing you problems. Admittedly, it's rare to hit maximum speed for a sustained period of time. If you're not hitting those numbers, then you need to see what's happening with your CPU and RAM to figure out what's going on, because it could mean one of two things:
a) something else is slowing down elsewhere, and your hard drive is idling while waiting for those things (rare);
b) your hard drive is having to do a lot of seeking to find data, which wastes time. This is extremely common, and much more likely if your swap file is large, or if you're trying to run a lot of tasks at the same time.


Even if you couldn't get comfortable with the Activity Monitor, know that for the vast majority of people, replacing their hard drive with a SSD results in a much faster, much more responsive computing experience. As you may have noted above, there is an intersection between RAM and the hard drive in the form of "swap memory," and a faster hard drive (in this case, a SSD) will make swap utilization much less noticeable.

Your system cannot use the latest and greatest SSDs of today. They're about 2-4x as fast as the SSDs you can use, but the SSDs you can use are still 5-10x as fast as your current HDD, depending on what metric you're comparing. The prices have become much more affordable, as well. For example, a Samsung 1 TB model for $120, or if you'd prefer to save a bit of money and don't mind sacrificing a small bit of performance and also don't care for this to last for decades, Samsung's QVO line 1 TB for $99 (note: I have the 8 TB QVO connected over USB, as well as a Samsung 1 TB NVME drive connected over Thunderbolt, and differences in speed for my photo work are largely academic).

If you already have a SSD in your MacBook Pro then I would guess that there's a RAM limitation, and I'd agree that it may not be worthwhile to make that upgrade at this time. But if you're still running the stock hard drive that came with your computer, I'd bet you that swapping it out with one of the SSDs I linked above (or even an alternate) would give you another 1-2 years of life on your current system, if not more. It's not a bad investment, since you can take the drive back out of your computer and use it as a fast external later on. If you like the current M1 offerings then make the upgrade, but if you're still wanting to hold out for more software transitions or more hardware iterations, then the SSD would be a nice way to buy you some time without having you pull your hair out over all the beachballs.

Utilize the Activity Monitor to prove to yourself what you'd benefit the most from.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
  • Like
Reactions: namria
You can see for yourself what you need, and where the slowdowns are. Open Activity Monitor and we can look at a few things. I usually recommend checking it here and there to get a better understanding of your various tasks and programs, and which computer components are specifically being tapped by them:

1) CPU (tab at the upper right, if you're on macOS Big Sur; I think it used to be at the upper center on earlier versions of OS X). This one is fairly straightforward - how much is your CPU being utilized? Ignore the number for "Idle" as that just represents CPU not being used. Is your CPU utilization hitting 100% or near it when you're running some of your tasks, particularly when you're experiencing slowdowns? If so, then you're CPU-constrained. Most people blame their CPU for the slowdown, but I'd gauge it to be a less frequent cause of slowdowns, particularly for beachballs.

Let's move on.

2) Memory. Look at the bottom and you'll see a bunch of things. The simplest graphical representation is the memory pressure graph, which should tell you if you're being memory-constrained or not. You can look at some other numbers for more. Swap Used indicates things that could not fit in RAM (or that your computer decided to remove from the RAM, for what ever reason) and that reside on your hard drive - ideally the swap should be very low, and rarely used. App Memory and Wired Memory are the two big numbers to look to. You can also do a search on the process list for Lightroom, if you don't see it (search magnifying glass is at the upper right) and get a sense of how much RAM Lightroom, itself, is using.

If your RAM is bursting to the limit and/or your system is showing memory pressure in the red, then 8 GB is definitely not enough for you. If memory pressure is in the yellow then you'd likely benefit from more but it may not be critical. If your "swap used" is in the multiple gigabytes then you very likely have a memory problem. (For reference, I've had my computer running for one week since its last reboot, I've done some photo editing and virtualization; on a 32 GB system, my "swap used" is around 900 MB.)


3) Skip over to Disk.

I use a different utility for monitoring this one, but if you're running most of your work from your main drive (and not an external) then you may still be able to use Disk Utility for this purpose. To make this one useful, from the upper menu (upper left of your screen - not the app), go to View > Update Frequency > Very Often (1 sec). The default is a bit too slow. Run your tasks and look at both the read ins/sec and writes out/sec (left of the graph); data read/sec and data written/sec (lower right of the graph). A standard 7200 RPM HDD can be expected to do something around 400 for read in/out, or read/write speeds of 80-160 MB/s (not combined, but singularly). If you're hitting those numbers then it means that your hard drive is working at its maximum speed, which may or may not be causing you problems. Admittedly, it's rare to hit maximum speed for a sustained period of time. If you're not hitting those numbers, then you need to see what's happening with your CPU and RAM to figure out what's going on, because it could mean one of two things:
a) something else is slowing down elsewhere, and your hard drive is idling while waiting for those things (rare);
b) your hard drive is having to do a lot of seeking to find data, which wastes time. This is extremely common, and much more likely if your swap file is large, or if you're trying to run a lot of tasks at the same time.


Even if you couldn't get comfortable with the Activity Monitor, know that for the vast majority of people, replacing their hard drive with a SSD results in a much faster, much more responsive computing experience. As you may have noted above, there is an intersection between RAM and the hard drive in the form of "swap memory," and a faster hard drive (in this case, a SSD) will make swap utilization much less noticeable.

Your system cannot use the latest and greatest SSDs of today. They're about 2-4x as fast as the SSDs you can use, but the SSDs you can use are still 5-10x as fast as your current HDD, depending on what metric you're comparing. The prices have become much more affordable, as well. For example, a Samsung 1 TB model for $120, or if you'd prefer to save a bit of money and don't mind sacrificing a small bit of performance and also don't care for this to last for decades, Samsung's QVO line 1 TB for $99 (note: I have the 8 TB QVO connected over USB, as well as a Samsung 1 TB NVME drive connected over Thunderbolt, and differences in speed for my photo work are largely academic).

If you already have a SSD in your MacBook Pro then I would guess that there's a RAM limitation, and I'd agree that it may not be worthwhile to make that upgrade at this time. But if you're still running the stock hard drive that came with your computer, I'd bet you that swapping it out with one of the SSDs I linked above (or even an alternate) would give you another 1-2 years of life on your current system, if not more. It's not a bad investment, since you can take the drive back out of your computer and use it as a fast external later on. If you like the current M1 offerings then make the upgrade, but if you're still wanting to hold out for more software transitions or more hardware iterations, then the SSD would be a nice way to buy you some time without having you pull your hair out over all the beachballs.

Utilize the Activity Monitor to prove to yourself what you'd benefit the most from.
Holy Smokes! This is so so so helpful. I will do all of this and report back. Thank you, sincerely.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I was really torn between 8 and 16 GB options. I watched a hundred youtube reviews and read almost every comment in the big threads here on forums. I have to say that most youtubers are probably great in talking and entertaining, but absolutely incopetent in tech and electronics. It's mostly copy-paste from what others are saying or suggestions to "do this" based on "trust me bro".

Anyway, combining the useful information from all sources I've came to the conclusion.

You need 16 GB if:

1. You do a lot of multitasking with lots of apps open and you switch between them often. Safari, Firefox, Photoshop, Illustrator, Chats, Spreadsheets open and used actively. In this case you can get your Memory Pressure pretty high and can experience some occasional stuttering with 8GB. If your usual workflow means only one "heavy" app open and used, some messenger and some tabs in Safari, you'll be absolutely fine with 8GB.

2. You are using virtual machines. They require you to assign them significant amount of RAM and there's no workaround to this.

Another legit argument is future proofing. But you have to keep in mind that this argument is also a good manipulation to make you go for higher configuration and pay more.

I also have to point out that if you're looking for better performance, one of the strong moves you can make is to go for better software. I switched to Pixelmator Pro which is not only significantly faster, but also more comfortable to work in. The learning curve is minimal and the pricing is very pleasant. Another option is Affinity Photo, which I didn't use, but many people highly recommend it.
 
My late 2015 27” 2TB fusion with 24gb ram was slower than the base model M1 MacBook air I had too, also slower than my M1 12.9” iPad. Sold it got back half what i paid after 5.5 years, pretty sure I will be fine with my new 8/8/512 iMac for 5 years, coming tomorrow.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.