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

2018 Mini: 8GB vs 20GB benchmark

P

padams35

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 10, 2016
524
366
I just added a single 16GB module to my i5 2018 mini and thought I'd share the before/after Geekbench results for anyone interested in the single channel vs dual channel performance penalties.

Before: 4+4: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10925733
After: 4+16: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10949017

Overall the size mismatch created a 4% lower Geekbench 4 score.

However when viewed by category this becomes a 2% integer/floating-point penalty, 9% lower crypto score, and an 18% lower memory score.

An even closer look shows the larger single-channel memory has 5% longer latency and a staggering 33% lower memory bandwidth.

Maybe those numbers mean something to somebody with a more professional workload, but since the new Mini's memory in single-channel mode is still objectively better than the 2011 iMac's memory it is replacing I'm personally only seeing improvement.

Edit: About the iGPU... 3D rendering tests with Unigine Valley show the Intel UHD 630 is about 5% slower with 4+16 vs matched 4+4. eGPU tests showed no difference with the RAM change.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ncrypt, DesertSurfer, rmdeluca and 1 other person
Interesting results. I had intended on doing this (pairing a 16GB stick with one of the factory 4GB sticks) for now, and purchasing a second 16GB stick at a later date. Doesnt seem as though this is a good option, however, and I suppose I will just stick with the stock 8GB until I can afford both 16GB sticks.
 
padams35 said:
I just added a single 16GB module to my i5 2018 mini and thought I'd share the before/after Geekbench results for anyone interested in the single channel vs dual channel performance penalties.

Before: 4+4: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10925733
After: 4+16: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10949017

Overall the size mismatch created a 4% lower Geekbench 4 score.

However when viewed by category this becomes a 2% integer/floating-point penalty, 9% lower crypto score, and an 18% lower memory score.

An even closer look shows the larger single-channel memory has 5% longer latency and a staggering 33% lower memory bandwidth.

Maybe those numbers mean something to somebody with a more professional workload, but since the new Mini's memory in single-channel mode is still objectively better than the 2011 iMac's memory it is replacing I'm personally only seeing improvement.
Click to expand...
Great test! DO you have any objective way to tell if it affects GPU performance? People have reported somewhat sluggish UI with large 4K resolution screens, that goes away with 2x16GB GB. I'm just wondering if that is also true with a mismatched 4+16Gb configuration.
 
Spectrum said:
Great test! DO you have any objective way to tell if it affects GPU performance? People have reported somewhat sluggish UI with large 4K resolution screens, that goes away with 2x16GB GB. I'm just wondering if that is also true with a mismatched 4+16Gb configuration.
Click to expand...

It would not have anything to do with that. If RAM is low, VRAM is also low.
 
macdos said:
It would not have anything to do with that. If RAM is low, VRAM is also low.
Click to expand...

It kind of would though. That “VRAM” is just shared system RAM. If you cripple its bandwidth by running single channel, it’s going to hurt the iGPU’s performance.

What some of us are curious about is how much the cache can hide that reduced bandwidth from real-world performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Retrofire, firewire9000, ElectronGuru and 1 other person
tpivette89 said:
Interesting results. I had intended on doing this (pairing a 16GB stick with one of the factory 4GB sticks) for now, and purchasing a second 16GB stick at a later date. Doesnt seem as though this is a good option, however, and I suppose I will just stick with the stock 8GB until I can afford both 16GB sticks.
Click to expand...

I chose the 4+16 because
a) It seemed likely I'd eventually outgrow 16
b) I'd rather start with single-channel now and upgrade to dual 2x16 if necessary than start with 2x8 now and be forced to choose between completely replacing the upgrade I'd paid for or downgrade to single after adjusting to dual.

Spectrum said:
Great test! DO you have any objective way to tell if it affects GPU performance? People have reported somewhat sluggish UI with large 4K resolution screens, that goes away with 2x16GB GB. I'm just wondering if that is also true with a mismatched 4+16Gb configuration.
Click to expand...

Why... yes. I did run Unigine Valley benchmarks before the upgrade and can rerun those tests again after. Unfortunately I just jotted the 8GB average FPS results on note paper when testing iGPU vs eGPU and I won't have access to said paper again until next Monday.
 
padams35 said:
I did run Unigine Valley benchmarks before the upgrade and can rerun those tests again after. Unfortunately I just jotted the 8GB average FPS results on note paper when testing iGPU vs eGPU and I won't have access to said paper again until next Monday.
Click to expand...
A 3D test is fine, but I was mostly just wondering whether 20GB seems smoother than 8 GB for 2D macOS user interface animations. Window resizing, expose, fullscreen etc.

I was also contemplating adding a 16GB stick now. And then in the future either another 16GB, or maybe even a 32GB. But you've got me wondering whether to just go for 32GB straight away. I can't see I would ever need 64GB...but I guess...one never knows...if the CPU lasts 6+ years again...
 
Spectrum said:
A 3D test is fine, but I was mostly just wondering whether 20GB seems smoother than 8 GB for 2D macOS user interface animations. Window resizing, expose, fullscreen etc.
Click to expand...

Oh, for the MacOS user interface both were perfectly smooth on the 1080p test display I've been using. No problems noticed either before or after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spectrum
Spectrum said:
See this post: Officially giving up on the Mac Mini 2018 + 4K monitor dream

It looks like dual channel and 2x8GB is sweet spot.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that was interesting. But, I still wonder how dual channel with 8 + 8 would compare to dual channel with 8 + 16, whether there would be any benefit to the latter arrangement, or if it would actually be worse. I have 8 + 8 now and I'm happy with it, but I'm just wondering if I ever wanted to go up to 32, would it make any sense to start by adding one 16 stick paired with one of the old 8's, and go all the way up later.
 
Someone posted here that memory bandwidth is reduced (to the level of single channel) whenever the RAM sticks are mismatched. 4+16 has lower bandwidth than 4+4 in a Geekbench test (first post in this thread), which I presume is largely the difference between single and dual channel.
 
Spectrum said:
Someone posted here that memory bandwidth is reduced (to the level of single channel) whenever the RAM sticks are mismatched. 4+16 has lower bandwidth than 4+4 in a Geekbench test (first post in this thread), which I presume is largely the difference between single and dual channel.
Click to expand...
I read that post. That's what got me wondering about other combinations, and whether anyone had any actual data to share.
 
Dual channel only works with matched pairs. For general system performance, dual channel doesn't have much real-world benefits. For a dGPU, there wouldn't be any noticeable difference in gaming performance (like maybe a few percentage points).

For gaming performance with an iGPU, the dual channel does make a real-world difference because of the shared memory... I've seen benchmarks in the 25% range. But that's for 3D gaming.

For 2D/GUI, dual channel should not make any difference... that kind of memory bandwidth isn't necessary for compositing the desktop. But I haven't seen any benchmarks to confirm that speculation, so don't take that as fact.
 
ixxx69 said:
Dual channel only works with matched pairs. For general system performance, dual channel doesn't have much real-world benefits. For a dGPU, there wouldn't be any noticeable difference in gaming performance (like maybe a few percentage points).

For gaming performance with an iGPU, the dual channel does make a real-world difference because of the shared memory... I've seen benchmarks in the 25% range. But that's for 3D gaming.

For 2D/GUI, dual channel should not make any difference... that kind of memory bandwidth isn't necessary for compositing the desktop. But I haven't seen any benchmarks to confirm that speculation, so don't take that as fact.
Click to expand...
Perhaps...but this post states that a single 16GB RAM stick still resulted in sluggish 2D GUI...
Officially giving up on the Mac Mini 2018 + 4K monitor dream
So either 16GB isn't enough RAM, or the single channel isn't enough. (Or it was user error.)
 
Spectrum said:
Perhaps...but this post states that a single 16GB RAM stick still resulted in sluggish 2D GUI...
Officially giving up on the Mac Mini 2018 + 4K monitor dream
So either 16GB isn't enough RAM, or the single channel isn't enough. (Or it was user error.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, you got to consider the "source" before using that as a "source". I put zero stock in it. Not saying it couldn't turn out be that way, but needs to be properly studied before being taken seriously. I've been trouble-shooting computers for decades, and 9/10 times it's user error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DesertSurfer
Update

I reran Unigine Valley for 3D graphic comparison.

The iGPU was ~5% slower with mismatched 4+16 vs matched 4+4.
(5.9 -> 5.6 fps on Extreme preset, 21.7->20.7 fps on Basic preset.)

eGPU graphical scores were essentially unchanged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spectrum, DesertSurfer and rmdeluca
Update #2

Unboxed my shiny new LG 24" 4K monitor and ran half-scale vs custom-scale tests. Sadly I don't have any 'before' numbers for 8GB on this one, but I noticed a couple of 4K questions. Maybe someone else with matched ram and a 4K display can supply those numbers.

Anyway, Unigine Valley Basic Preset with UHD 630 and 20GB Ram on...
1080p monitor w/ 8GB: 21.7 fps (
1080p monitor: 20.7 fps (100%)
4K monitor, half scale: 18.8 fps (~91%)
4K monitor, custom scale: 18.1 fps (~87.4%)

Clicking the green Fullscreen Window maximize button had some noticeable stutter with a custom scaled resolution on a 4K monitor (vs simply a little rough on default half scale) but I couldn't find any other UI animation issues.

My eGPU (RX 460-2GB) benchmarked ~5% slower with custom scaling vs default scaling, but otherwise didn't have any issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back