Will 16GB of Memory Finally Come Standard Alongside the M3 Chip?

[EugW]

8 GB RAM is fine for entry level. I'm 99% convinced M3 non-Pro will ship with 8 GB RAM.

We have three Monterey Macs in the house with 8 GB RAM, and they all work just fine. (2015 13" MacBook Pro, 2017 13" MacBook Air, and 2014 Mac mini). In fact I was using one of them (Mac mini) as my full time work machine for business apps and surfing until last year with no major complaints.

 

[livmatus]

I’ve read somewhere that it isn’t possible. A security chip refuses the mac to boot from anything that isn’t built in from the factory. But maybe it can be circumvented, IDK.

should be doable

 

[AlixSPQR]

should be doable

It says it works with the mini, but not the MBP:

”Apple Mac Mini M1 (A2348) SSD Upgrade 500 to 2TB using iPhone NAND.

I tested this on A2338 as well and it‘s NOT working the same way!

So MacBooks need NAND from donor…”

 

[rocketpig]

I would appreciate a bump in RAM if only because it makes my inevitable upgrade a little cheaper. My next desktop (mini or studio) will probably be 32GB of RAM, though 24GB would probably suffice should Apple go that route.

 

[headlessmike]

I’ve done loads of professional work on an M1 with 8GB of RAM without running out of memory, so I’m sure most personal users wouldn’t notice much of a difference going from 8GB to 16GB. That said, what counts as professional work can vary from writing plain text documents to rendering graphics in 8K, and most “pros” probably do need more than 8GB. But this isn’t the target demographic for entry level Macs, so I wouldn’t be surprised if 8GB sticks around as the base configuration for a while longer. In a way I hope it does since that means that developers will have more reason to optimize the memory footprint of their software which in turn will benefit us with more RAM in our machines as well.

From a marketing standpoint it would probably be better for Apple to lower the base prices by say $100 and keep the 8GB configurations than to increase the base memory to 16GB. But I doubt they’ll do that either.

 

[EugW]

I would appreciate a bump in RAM if only because it makes my inevitable upgrade a little cheaper. My next desktop (mini or studio) will probably be 32GB of RAM, though 24GB would probably suffice should Apple go that route.

Well, (to my surprise) they already made the Mac mini cheaper. It still starts at 8 GB, but it's US$100 less now.

BTW, with my 16 GB M1 Mac mini, with my light to moderate business type workload, my swap size is usually zero or just above zero. It's currently sitting at 1.9 MB. (Not 1.9 GB, but 1.9 MB.)

With the same workload on my 2014 8 GB Core i5 Mac mini, initially I would also have zero swap usage, but over longer periods I would get to about 0.5-2 GB swap usage. At the lower end of that swap size range I usually wouldn't notice any delays. At the higher end of that swap size range, I'd occasionally notice it, but it usually wasn't bad.

I get the impression that macOS might be a little bit more efficient and faster at dealing with memory and swap on Apple Silicon Macs than on Intel Macs. I'm not sure how much of it is due to differences in memory management vs. SSD speed, but either way, I'm thinking a lot of entry-level users wouldn't even notice the swap if it's kept to a small amount.

 

[rocketpig]

Well, (to my surprise) they already made the Mac mini cheaper. It still starts at 8 GB, but it's US$100 less now.

BTW, with my 16 GB M1 Mac mini, with my light to moderate business type workload, my swap size is usually zero or just above zero. It's currently sitting at 1.9 MB. (Not 1.9 GB, but 1.9 MB.)

With the same workload on my 2014 8 GB Core i5 Mac mini, initially I would also have zero swap usage, but over longer periods I would get to about 0.5-2 GB swap usage. At the lower end of that swap size range I usually wouldn't notice any delays. At the higher end of that swap size range, I'd occasionally notice it, but it usually wasn't bad.

I get the impression that macOS might be a little bit more efficient and faster at dealing with memory and swap on Apple Silicon Macs than on Intel Macs. I'm not sure how much of it is due to differences in memory management vs. SSD speed, but either way, I'm thinking a lot of entry-level users wouldn't even notice the swap if it's kept to a small amount.

I also have a 16GB M1 mini as my current desktop. I’m fine with 16GB on a laptop but run a *massive* backup program that often consumes 6-8GB of memory on its own so I’d prefer to run 24/32GB memory on my next desktop.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The cost of NAND flash memory and RAM chips have dropped over a decade so they should increase it for the purpose as shallow as marketing.

They have.
Everyone here is just simply looking at base models and not actually looking at actual pricing of models in relation to inflation.
Yes, there was a base model in 2012 that was at 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage just like the current base models.
But the computer was not the MacBook Air, which was still at 4 GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage for $999, $1,273.39 today.
that computer was also not the standard 13 inch MacBook Pro, that still started with 4 GB of RAM and a spinning hard drive for $1,199, $1,528.32 today.
It also was not the standard 15 inch MacBook Pro, that also still started with 4 GB of RAM and a spinning hard drive for $1,799, $2,293.12 today.
It also wasn’t the 13 inch retina model which only came with 128 GB of storage by default for $1,699, $2,165.65 today.
It was the at the time brand new, top of the line, 15 inch retina MacBook Pro that started at $2,199, which today would be $2,802.98.
so for $3000, you got 8 GB of RAM and a 256 GB SSD.
Now, those are standard specs on a computer you can get for $599 straight from Apple, or if you want to go on a discount, you can get a MacBook Air for anywhere from as low as $799.
For $2800 today you can easily get a 14 inch MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, quadruple the ram, and 8X the storage.
My M2 Air has a TB SSD and 16GB of Ram and it was around $1000 less than 2800.
So this notion that Apple made the base model 8 GB of RAM in 256 GB of storage 10 years ago and hasn’t changed it since is pure nonsense.
The prices for those specifications have came way down.

 

[AlixSPQR]

So this notion that Apple made the base model 8 GB of RAM in 256 GB of storage 10 years ago and hasn’t changed it since is pure nonsense.

That is true. 8 GB/256 GB arrived with the base model MacBook eight years ago.

 

[theorist9]

I really don't understand where I ever said or implied that... I was talking about something else in my post...

Sorry, that was a typo. I wrote "BTO" when I mean to write "base model". I deleted that post.

 

[Digitalguy]

They have.
Everyone here is just simply looking at base models and not actually looking at actual pricing of models in relation to inflation.
Yes, there was a base model in 2012 that was at 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage just like the current base models.
But the computer was not the MacBook Air, which was still at 4 GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage for $999, $1,273.39 today.
that computer was also not the standard 13 inch MacBook Pro, that still started with 4 GB of RAM and a spinning hard drive for $1,199, $1,528.32 today.
It also was not the standard 15 inch MacBook Pro, that also still started with 4 GB of RAM and a spinning hard drive for $1,799, $2,293.12 today.
It also wasn’t the 13 inch retina model which only came with 128 GB of storage by default for $1,699, $2,165.65 today.
It was the at the time brand new, top of the line, 15 inch retina MacBook Pro that started at $2,199, which today would be $2,802.98.
so for $3000, you got 8 GB of RAM and a 256 GB SSD.
Now, those are standard specs on a computer you can get for $599 straight from Apple, or if you want to go on a discount, you can get a MacBook Air for anywhere from as low as $799.
For $2800 today you can easily get a 14 inch MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, quadruple the ram, and 8X the storage.
My M2 Air has a TB SSD and 16GB of Ram and it was around $1000 less than 2800.
So this notion that Apple made the base model 8 GB of RAM in 256 GB of storage 10 years ago and hasn’t changed it since is pure nonsense.
The prices for those specifications have came way down.

True, as it is true that Apple has always been stingy with RAM (and to a lessere extent storage) compared to Windows devices. This was ok until RAM was upgradable (on some MacBooks only) but became a problem later...

 

[mpetrides]

The biggest bone of contention for me (aside from the obvious one of how ridiculously expensive it is to go from 8 to 16 GB in Apple laptops) is that AAPL is essentially making 16 GB a CTO configuration, meaning that it's not likely to show up at Best Buy or Amazon. This means that even after a prolonged period of time (6 months or even a year), the units that other retailers like BB and Amazon offer *on sale* will exclusively be the 8 GB models.

I might well have gone with a 16 GB M2 MacBook Air as an impulse buy if all I had to do was upgrade the SSD to 512 or maybe even to my preferred storage of 1 TB. But having to eat the cost of going from 8 to 16 GB cured me of that impulse. And, the impulse to buy on sale at BB or Amazon won't happen either (vide supra). Thanks for thinking of my wallet AAPL! You saved me a boatload of impulsively spent $$$. ;-)

 

[Digitalguy]

The idea is that, if you thought the specs on the BTO model were sufficient for most users, you would not see a need for its specs to be increased. Hence I inferred, from the fact that you did think its specs needed to be upgraded, that the BTO model's specs are not sufficient for most users, and are hence "too under-spec'd to be usable for any but the lightest users."

I still think there was some misunderstanding here. Maybe it's my English, which is not my native language.
I was not arguing whether the BTO models are enough for most people or not.
The point I was making was a response to those saying "just buy more RAM or storage if you need more that the base model (and, I argue, a lot of people do, especially if they use Chrome, no need to be a pro), what's the issue?"
The issue is that Apple makes those upgrades extremely expensive by not only charging $200 for an additional 8GB and exhorbitant prices for SSD upgrades, but by keeping them out of retailers and out of virtually any sale/promotion (so the actually premium for those upgrade is often much higher when taking promotions into account).

Let me give you my own example.
I want to replace my Windows desktop (4th gen i7, 32GB RAM, 256 SSD + 5TB HDD) with a small desktop I can take with me when travelling.
I also own a 16GB M1 Mac mini with 1TB SSD, but RAM is not enough, especially as I need to run Parallels constantly for some Windows only apps, so it's a secondary device.
A M2 pro Mac Mini with 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and 10GB LAN costs around $2000
I can get a barebone Ryzen Mini PC for under $500 (I have managed to find silent ones thanks to a youtube channel that is specialized in those devices), add 32GB RAM for $130, add my 980 pro which I got for $90 on Black Friday and my 4TB PCIe 4.0 WD SN850X which I bought for $320 also on BF, add my 4TB Samsung 2.5 QVO I got for $250 last year on BF and I am at roughly $1000 and I have device with 5GB of PCIe Gen 4 storage, 32GB of DDR5 and 4TB of additional SATA SSD storage (9TB in total). On a device that is silent, maybe a little less powerful than the Mac Mini M2 pro but still pretty poweful and that can even be powered via the USB 4.0 port if needed (but comes with a standard power adapter like the Mac Mini).
The value difference makes it a no brainer, unless you are a MacOS fan.

 

[Digitalguy]

Sorry, that was a typo. I wrote "BTO" when I mean to write "base model". I deleted that post.

I knew there was some misunderstanding, anyway I replied already

 

[mpetrides]

I still think there was some misunderstanding here. Maybe it's my English, which is not my native language.
I was not arguing whether the BTO models are enough for most people or not.
The point I was making was a response to those saying "just buy more RAM or storage if you need more that the base model (and, I argue, a lot of people do, especially if they use Chrome, no need to be a pro), what's the issue?"
The issue is that Apple makes those upgrades extremely expensive by not only charging $200 for an additional 8GB and exhorbitant prices for SSD upgrades, but by keeping them out of retailers and out of virtually any sale/promotion (so the actually premium for those upgrade is often much higher when taking promotions into account).

Let me give you my own example.
I want to replace my Windows desktop (4th gen i7, 32GB RAM, 256 SSD + 5TB HDD) with a small desktop I can take with me when travelling.
I also own a 16GB M1 Mac mini with 1TB SSD, but RAM is not enough, especially as I need to run Parallels constantly for some Windows only apps, so it's a secondary device.
A M2 pro Mac Mini with 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and 10GB LAN costs around $2000
I can get a barebone Ryzen Mini PC for under $500 (I have manage to find silent ones thanks to a youtube channels that is specialized in those devices), add 32GB RAM for $130, add my 980 pro which I got for $90 on Black Friday and my 4TB PCIe 4.0 WD SN850X which I bought for $320 also on BF, add my 4TB Samsung 2.5 QVO I got for $250 last year on BF and I am at roughly $1000 and I have device with 5GB of PCIe Gen 4 storage, 32GB of DDR5 and 4TB of additional SATA SSD storage (9TB in total). On a device that is silent, maybe a little less powerful than the Mac Mini M2 pro but still pretty poweful and that can even be powered via the USB 4.0 port if needed (but comes with a standard power adapter like the Mac Mini).
The value difference makes it a no brainer, unless you are a MacOS fan.

GMTA! I just posted a message saying the same thing, namely that the big issue is that 16 GB is a CTO configuration and, thus, will not show up at retailers that routinely run periodic sales on Apple hardware, locking buyers out of the ability to buy a configuration they want at a discount.

 

[theorist9]

I still think there was some misunderstanding here. Maybe it's my English, which is not my native language.
I was not arguing whether the BTO models are enough for most people or not.
The point I was making was a response to those saying "just buy more RAM or storage if you need more that the base model (and, I argue, a lot of people do, especially if they use Chrome, no need to be a pro), what's the issue?"
The issue is that Apple makes those upgrades extremely expensive by not only charging $200 for an additional 8GB and exhorbitant prices for SSD upgrades, but by keeping them out of retailers and out of virtually any sale/promotion (so the actually premium for those upgrade is often much higher when taking promotions into account).

Yeah, sorry for causing that misunderstanding with my typo. So I understand what you're saying--you want the base model to be something sufficient for most people (which 8 GB may not) because the base (unlike the BTO's) is often made available at significant discounts.

Of course, as you seem to understand, if you just upgrade the RAM, that's not going to be good enough, since that leaves you with a 256 GB SSD. So anyone making that kind of argument needs to argue that the base needs to have not only 16 GB RAM, but also (say) a 1 TB SSD. And that's kind of high for a base model.

Plus I think they're not going to do that anyways, for the reasons I explain here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/will-16gb-of-memory-finally-come-standard-alongside-the-m3-chip.2379498/page-5?post=31939882#post-31939882

Let me give you my own example.
I want to replace my Windows desktop (4th gen i7, 32GB RAM, 256 SSD + 5TB HDD) with a small desktop I can take with me when travelling.
I also own a 16GB M1 Mac mini with 1TB SSD, but RAM is not enough, especially as I need to run Parallels constantly for some Windows only apps, so it's a secondary device.
A M2 pro Mac Mini with 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and 10GB LAN costs around $2000
I can get a barebone Ryzen Mini PC for under $500 (I have manage to find silent ones thanks to a youtube channels that is specialized in those devices), add 32GB RAM for $130, add my 980 pro which I got for $90 on Black Friday and my 4TB PCIe 4.0 WD SN850X which I bought for $320 also on BF, add my 4TB Samsung 2.5 QVO I got for $250 last year on BF and I am at roughly $1000 and I have device with 5GB of PCIe Gen 4 storage, 32GB of DDR5 and 4TB of additional SATA SSD storage (9TB in total). On a device that is silent, maybe a little less powerful than the Mac Mini M2 pro but still pretty poweful and that can even be powered via the USB 4.0 port if needed (but comes with a standard power adapter like the Mac Mini).
The value difference makes it a no brainer, unless you are a MacOS fan.

Sure, but that's historically been the case with Macs—you're paying not just for the hardware, you're paying for the hardware plus the superior (to Windows) OS. It's long been a truism that if you don't care about the OS, PC's are a better value. But, for many, the OS (and its effect on user experience and productivity) is worth a lot.

Interestingly, with the efficiency of AS, that's changed for laptops. But for desktops, it's still the case that you can get more hardware performance/$ with PC's (if you don't mind the heat and noise).

 

[Analog Kid]

The thing is apps are already reaching that point even without intentionally making apps any more bloated.

With chrome and only those tabs and activity monitor open, I'm already at View attachment 2153802

8GB RAM today is bare minimum when you use it together with swap. This is Apple's planned usage intention.

But that sucks.

Sucks how, exactly? I wish I understood why Chrome became a performance benchmark... What horrible thing happens when a Chrome tab gets compressed or, god help us, cached to disk? It takes a few extra hundredths of a second to change tabs? Anything that is happening faster than your ability to react and click really isn't a performance issue.

So double your RAM and once you get used to keeping twice as many tabs open you'll complain about the same thing.

I find it a bit humorous when people think Chrome is crippled by memory limitations but we can run leading edge AI inferences in that same memory just fine:

It just shows how twisted this whole conversation has become. A lot of people don't understand the behavior of the applications they use, and they don't understand how to read the instruments, and have no concept of time on these small scales but they're sure they're being taken for a ride.

 

[StellarVixen]

They seem reluctant to double the RAM this time. I am afraid we still have 2-3 years of 8GB base products to go.

 

[Digitalguy]

Yeah, sorry for causing that misunderstanding with my typo. So I understand what you're saying--you want the base model to be something sufficient for most people (which 8 GB may not) because the base (unlike the BTO's) is often made available at significant discounts.

Of course, as you seem to understand, if you just upgrade the RAM, that's not going to be good enough, since that leaves you with a 256 GB SSD. So anyone making that kind of argument needs to argue that the base needs to have not only 16 GB RAM, but also (say) a 1 TB SSD. And that's kind of high for a base model.

Plus I think they're not going to do that anyways, for the reasons I explain here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/will-16gb-of-memory-finally-come-standard-alongside-the-m3-chip.2379498/page-5?post=31939882#post-31939882

Sure, but that's historically been the case with Macs—you're paying not just for the hardware, you're paying for the hardware plus the superior (to Windows) OS. It's long been a truism that if you don't care about the OS, PC's are a better value. But, for many, the OS (and its effect on user experience and productivity) is worth a lot.

Interestingly, with the efficiency of AS, that's changed for laptops. But for desktops, it's still the case that you can get more hardware performance/$ with PC's (if you don't mind the heat and noise).

I tend to agree with you on most of what you said, but not completely on 2 things. I think 512GB might be a good compromise for a base model, and that's what most PCs with prices in line with the base MacBook air offer but, above all, they still mostly offer upgradable storage, something Apple does not and I don't care how much Apple fans find justifications for soldered storage.
Second, and most important, I don't agree that MacOS is a superior OS. It may be for a majority of people on Macrumors, and that's understandable, but while Windows has its issues and MacOS has its advatanges, Windows offers a much larger library of software, and even just as an OS it has usability advantages over MacOS. Overall if I had to choose, I would still take Windows over MacOS even if I could run all my software on MacOS (for several reasons, including external display and window management, but not only), and the only reason I would consider a Mac over a Windows device is the silent operation, which is a big deal to me.
Mind you, I don't have an iPhone (but I use iPads) so I don't really benefit from the Apple ecosystem anyway... (although I like the interactions between my Macs and my iPads)
Having said that I use both Windows and MacOS daily, which allows me to keep an open mind and remain more objective.

 

[theorist9]

the only reason I would consider a Mac over a Windows device is the silent operation, which is a big deal to me.

Given this, why not buy a silent PC? You'd get your preferred OS, you'd get more performance/$, and sound would not be an issue. That's what I'd do if I preferred Windows.

There are a lot of builders that offer them, and I can't personally vouch for any, but here's one example—if you don't need a powerful GPU, you could get this guy, which is fanless, and configurable with an AMD Ryzen 9
7900 (faster than the M2 Max for both SC and MC*). Plus the upcharge to go from 16 GB to 64 GB (DDR5-5200) is only $254, as compared with Apple's $800 upcharge for the same capacity jump (LPDDR5-6400):

A90 Fanless Z4

AMD's low-power processors are a great way to get up to a 12-core system that generates absolutely no noise!

www.quietpc.com

*With good cooling; since this is fanless, performance will be reduced, but it should still be approximately comparable to an M2 Max, esp. when you're not taxing all cores.

I tend to agree with you on most of what you said, but not completely on 2 things. I think 512GB might be a good compromise for a base model, and that's what most PCs with prices in line with the base MacBook air offer but, above all, they still mostly offer upgradable storage, something Apple does not and I don't care how much Apple fans find justifications for soldered storage.
Second, and most important, I don't agree that MacOS is a superior OS. It may be for a majority of people on Macrumors, and that's understandable, but while Windows has its issues and MacOS has its advatanges, Windows offers a much larger library of software, and even just as an OS it has usability advantages over MacOS. Overall if I had to choose, I would still take Windows over MacOS even if I could run all my software on MacOS (for several reasons, including external display and window management, but not only), and the only reason I would consider a Mac over a Windows device is the silent operation, which is a big deal to me.
Mind you, I don't have an iPhone (but I use iPads) so I don't really benefit from the Apple ecosystem anyway... (although I like the interactions between my Macs and my iPads)
Having said that I use both Windows and MacOS daily, which allows me to keep an open mind and remain more objective.

Sure, I should have said "superior for many, including myself". I also have extensive experience with both Mac and Windows (and Linux as well)—I've had jobs that were Windows-only. For me, MacOS provides the far better value, since value includes how productive you can be on a computer, and how much you enjoy using it and, for that, I've found Mac superior in both categories (indeed, I'd say that's more important than the hardware).

I personally find MacOS more usable for my work, both because it provides a native Unix interface, and because I find its windows navigation features are better at handling numerous open windows (e.g., if you have 10 apps open, with 10 windows in each, and need to rapidly move among them). But I can certainly see that someone who has a different workflow, and/or different preferences, could prefer Windows. I do acknowledge that, for MacOS to work well for my use, it needs to be coupled with good aftermarket programs, but such programs are available, and they are often more slick and intutive than the equilvalents available for Windows (I know, since I've tested them--there is, for instance, no Windows clipboard manager that works as well as the ones available for Mac, like CopyLess2):

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ac.2356661/page-3?post=31392686#post-31392686

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

I would say doubtful. 8GB is still plenty for a large percentage of users. Maybe, and I mean MAYBE, 12 GB. But probdbly 8GB.

 

[Digitalguy]

Given this, why not buy a silent PC? You'd get your preferred OS, you'd get more performance/$, and sound would not be an issue. That's what I'd do if I preferred Windows.

There are a lot of builders that offer them, and I can't personally vouch for any, but here's one example—if you don't need a powerful GPU, you could get this guy, which is fanless, and configurable with an AMD Ryzen 9
7900 (faster than the M2 Max for both SC and MC*). Plus the upcharge to go from 16 GB to 64 GB (DDR5-5200) is only $254, as compared with Apple's $800 upcharge for the same capacity jump (LPDDR5-6400):

A90 Fanless Z4

AMD's low-power processors are a great way to get up to a 12-core system that generates absolutely no noise!

www.quietpc.com

*With good cooling; since this is fanless, performance will be reduced, but it should still be approximately comparable to an M2 Max, esp. when you're not taxing all cores.



Sure, I should have said "superior for many, including myself". I also have extensive experience with both Mac and Windows (and Linux as well)—I've had jobs that were Windows-only. For me, MacOS provides the far better value, since value includes how productive you can be on a computer, and how much you enjoy using it and, for that, I've found Mac superior in both categories (indeed, I'd say that's more important than the hardware).

I personally find MacOS more usable for my work, both because it provides a native Unix interface, and because I find its windows navigation features are better at handling numerous open windows (e.g., if you have 10 apps open, with 10 windows in each, and need to rapidly move among them). But I can certainly see that someone who has a different workflow, and/or different preferences, could prefer Windows. I do acknowledge that, for MacOS to work well for my use, it needs to be coupled with good aftermarket programs, but such programs are available, and they are often more slick and intutive than the equilvalents available for Windows (I know, since I've tested them--there is, for instance, no Windows clipboard manager that works as well as the ones available for Mac, like CopyLess2):

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ac.2356661/page-3?post=31392686#post-31392686

That's fair, personal preferences and workflow justify why someone prefers one OS to another. Some people even prefer iPadOS to a desktop OS, and that's fine... (by the way I use Clipdiary as a clipboard manager, I don't know if there are better solutions but it's good enough for me)

As for a Silent PC, as I said in my post, I am not buying another tower anymore, instead I want a Mini PC as my desktop, for several reasons. And the M1 Mac Mini made me understand that.
First, I want to easily take my desktop with me when I travel, even if it's just to my holiday house.
Second, I want it to be able to drive USB C monitors (portable ones or large ones). I guess it may be possible to get a tower with Thunderbolt ports, or even build it (but I am not interesting in building), but it's more the exception that the rule.
Third, I don't game. I have a RTX 2070 super in my desktop and I have realized I don't have time for gaming and never will. So it's only used for my multiple monitors setup... And I don't edit videos on my PC (I use lumafusion on the iPad and if I need more I can now learn to use full DaVinci resolve on the iPad too), so again, no need for dedicated graphics.
Last, if possible, I want to be able to power it from USB C in some situations, including from a laptop power bank (something not possible with the M1 Mini, but feasible with some Mini PCs)

As far as mini PCs go, I don't want a totally fanless one, as they are not powerful enough and get hot and throttle a lot. So I want one with a fan, like the Mac Mini, but extremely quiet, and I have found one from Morefine, the fan is hard to hear even under full load, just like in the Mac Mini, so it's basically silent all the time (the Mac mini fans runs quite often actually but it's so low that it's virtually impossible to hear). I am ok with giving up a bit of performance, especially on the GPU side, but not too much CPU.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

I gave up trying to get a notebook to do what a desktop can, and just went back down to a 2015 MBP15 and a maxed out 2019 iMac that drives a big curved LG ultrawide while video editing or running win10 & Solidworks, all without the fan winding up. The concern over the limited 16GB of mem & 2GB graphics of the notebook is solved. If I need more power than the notebook has, then jump on the iMac. The ability to replace the SSD's in both turns out to be worth about 10x as much to me as the specs in a new & faster but short-lived disposable Mx machine.

 

[craigrusse11]

I think it'll only move to 16Gb when it's not possible to provide 8Gb, or providing 16Gb is the same or less cost to providing 8Gb.

 

[kevcube]

Apple is cutting the speed of the SSDs, (my guess to protect their profit margins). I highly doubt they'll basically double the ram for the base unit for free.

they are not cutting the speed of the SSDs, they are only putting one chip on the based model boards. they probably just stopped ordering 128gb chips. yes, likely has to do with profits.