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

Abbas

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 9, 2008
176
48
Dubai
There seem to be so many posts asking for the difference between 8GB and 16GB on the M1 Macs. We've seen 8GB models perform really well and I was wondering what apps could *show* a performance difference between 8GB and 16GB models?
 

torncanvas

macrumors regular
Feb 14, 2006
121
73
Using development software. Here’s an example with the Unity game engine, showing how 8GB is definitely not enough:
 

ArPe

macrumors 65816
May 31, 2020
1,281
3,325
After Effects, 3D apps, any game with high res textures, game development kits.

The GPU needs RAM too, some people falling down the memory hole and forgetting that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wizec

Abbas

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 9, 2008
176
48
Dubai
I'm trying to source both a 16GB and an 8GB model to test out against my MBP16 with 16GB. I can run FCPX and render a 15-minute, 30-minute and 1 hour video from 4K source to Full HD. Is there any other native app where I can test and see the difference?
 

torncanvas

macrumors regular
Feb 14, 2006
121
73
I'm trying to source both a 16GB and an 8GB model to test out against my MBP16 with 16GB. I can run FCPX and render a 15-minute, 30-minute and 1 hour video from 4K source to Full HD. Is there any other native app where I can test and see the difference?
Definitely the Unity game engine. Download a default project and go to File > Build and Run.
 

dingclancy23

macrumors 6502
Nov 15, 2015
250
339
Yeah I think a game development engine is too much of an ask from 8gb ram but wow if that is the only one class of app it cannot run well.

Also it probably stills run as well/better on 8gb than on Intel at 16gb/32gb
 

Janichsan

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2006
3,126
11,920
The German tech site Heise.de had some benchmarks of M1 Macs that showed that the 8 GB models' performance suffers notably when rendering 8K videos and having Logic Pro X running a lot of tracks: the 8 GB M1 MacBook Pro took 1718 seconds to render an 8K video, while the top Intel 13" MBP only required 680 s. In Logic, the M1 MBP could play 132 tracks simultaneously, the 16 GB Intel MBP could play 156 tracks. So, you really have to push the machine to the limit to see an effect.

In every other benchmark they ran, the M1 MBP was usually significantly faster than the Intel MBP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyGo

JohnnyGo

macrumors 6502a
Sep 9, 2009
957
620
For heavy workloads (video editing, large app/game compiling, various VMs simultaneously) the answer seems obvious: 8Gb hurts performance significantly.

For lighter loads, average user, the answer is less obvious but pretty clear: 8Gb is good enough. Performance might be affected in less than 5% of minutes of work.

If an user likes to keep 10+ apps open AND work on large files (excel, photos, etc) AND have many safari tabs open, the answer is to go for 16Gb.
 

dingclancy23

macrumors 6502
Nov 15, 2015
250
339
For heavy workloads (video editing, large app/game compiling, various VMs simultaneously) the answer seems obvious: 8Gb hurts performance significantly.

For lighter loads, average user, the answer is less obvious but pretty clear: 8Gb is good enough. Performance might be affected in less than 5% of minutes of work.

If an user likes to keep 10+ apps open AND work on large files (excel, photos, etc) AND have many safari tabs open, the answer is to go for 16Gb.

For future proofing yes, but we have seen many videos who have loaded more tabs + apps than what you described and the 8gb did not bat an eye.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.