7core/8core, 16gb/8gb Ram

[DanTat]

I was initially set on purchasing the MBA 16GB/8core/512gb, but after seeing many reviews that the 8gb ram is enough for them. I'm not so sure anymore

I had 8gb ram on my old mac and the memory pressure was always red and heats up like crazy, i regret not getting more ram

I usually have many apps open at once and a bunch of chrome tabs open at once (maybe like 20-50 tabs) and chrome eats up a lot of ram. Do you think 8gb is enough ram?
I also used to run bootcamp and do some light gaming but now that we can't, hopefully will be able to use parallels when it's optimized for arm, does that use up more ram?

Will I really see much of a difference between 7core and 8 core?

I'm debating if i should just get the base model and perhaps upgrade to a new one sooner when they change the design vs getting the 16gb/7core/512gb and keep the device for longer

Do you guys think the base model is enough ?

 

[acidfast7_redux]

Yes. I probably do more of what everyone does than just about anyone else (huge word docs, PPT files, some graphics, web browsing, etc...)

8GiB RAM here is really as good as more on every other machine that I use.

It's essentially a very fast phone and everything instantly open and runs.

I should be able to get 8 to 10h of video conferencing out of a single charge and probably 12-16h of regular usage (word, web, emails, etc...)

edit: I would've paid £50-99 for more RAM to future-proof. But, even with dropbox and fast internet, I don't see the need for more than 256GiB as everything in the cloud is instant.

an SDD and RAM upgrades would have been nearly 50% of the cost of the machine (£360 of £898) to get to 16/512.

not worth it in my opinion.

 

[Buck987]

yes...its enough

 

[Chompineer]

The 7 core is only like 6% off of the 8 core performance, you won't see any real life difference.

My theory is the dead core is allowing higher clock speeds on the 7 live cores by acting as a thermal sink and allowing more wattage/core.

I picked up a 8gb locally while waiting for my 16gb to be shipped... I might just keep it. Loading it way beyond what it will ever see in my ownership, it still chugged on without any indication of a slowdown. Memory pressure still green, albeit getting pretty high.

Only thing I notice lag on is reddit infinite scroll... But that also lags my 2020 iMac with 64gb of ram.

 

[jdb8167]

I think Chrome for Apple Silicon is out. I haven't downloaded it yet and I haven't seen any reports if it is still a RAM hog on the M1. But if it is and you use it as your browser, you might need 16 GB to be comfortable. I'm downloading it now to check and see how it works.

 

[jdb8167]

I think Chrome for Apple Silicon is out. I haven't downloaded it yet and I haven't seen any reports if it is still a RAM hog on the M1. But if it is and you use it as your browser, you might need 16 GB to be comfortable. I'm downloading it now to check and see how it works.

So I've been playing around with Chrome and I'm not seeing a lot of memory pressure. This is with 8 tabs open to various sites and one for Youtube. If someone has a suggestion on how to stress Chrome, I'm willing to experiment. I don't normally use Chrome so I don't know much about it.

I do have 16 GB though. Someone with 8 GB should take a look. Google Chrome sure creates a lot of processes. There are pages of Renders for 8 tabs.

 

[DanTat]

So I've been playing around with Chrome and I'm not seeing a lot of memory pressure. This is with 8 tabs open to various sites and one for Youtube. If someone has a suggestion on how to stress Chrome, I'm willing to experiment. I don't normally use Chrome so I don't know much about it.

I do have 16 GB though. Someone with 8 GB should take a look. Google Chrome sure creates a lot of processes. There are pages of Renders for 8 tabs.

View attachment 1673864

Thank you for testing this out! I usually browse with maybe 20-50 tabs open if i'm doing a lot of things hahaha sometimes in different windows and some videos playing etc. Do you mind trying that perhaps

I do realize chrome creates a lot of random processes and takes up a lot of memory pressure and sometimes even uses up 100% of the cpu with some weird kearnal process, that's why i was afraid if i went with 8gb I may end up wishing I got 16 instead?

 

[DanTat]

The 7 core is only like 6% off of the 8 core performance, you won't see any real life difference.

My theory is the dead core is allowing higher clock speeds on the 7 live cores by acting as a thermal sink and allowing more wattage/core.

I picked up a 8gb locally while waiting for my 16gb to be shipped... I might just keep it. Loading it way beyond what it will ever see in my ownership, it still chugged on without any indication of a slowdown. Memory pressure still green, albeit getting pretty high.

Only thing I notice lag on is reddit infinite scroll... But that also lags my 2020 iMac with 64gb of ram.

Just wondering what your usual workload/usage is like?

Did you go with the 7 core base model?

 

[wyatterp]

I'll just drop this here regarding my experience with 7 vs 8 GPU cores - bottom line, 8 core is less impacted by throttling over time for GPU centric use cases.

See below post as this one was a mess to read.

 

[wyatterp]

My post was a mess, so here is a more consolidated version comparing the 7 and 8 Core Macbook Air:

Benchmark Uningine Valley @ 1440x900P, High, 4x MSAA
7-core: First run is 41.1 FPS / 1721 Points
8-core: First run is 42.8 FPS / 1789 points

After 90+ mins of looping this benchmark
7-core: 27.9 FPS / 1167 points - 32.2% DROP from first run
8-core: 37.5 FPS / 1568 points - 12.4% DROP from first run

 

[DanTat]

My post was a mess, so here is a more consolidated version comparing the 7 and 8 Core Macbook Air:

Benchmark Uningine Valley @ 1440x900P, High, 4x MSAA
7-core: First run is 41.1 FPS / 1721 Points
8-core: First run is 42.8 FPS / 1789 points

After 90+ mins of looping this benchmark
7-core: 27.9 FPS / 1167 points - 32.2% DROP from first run
8-core: 37.5 FPS / 1568 points - 12.4% DROP from first run

Thanks for sharing this!

 

[jdb8167]

Thank you for testing this out! I usually browse with maybe 20-50 tabs open if i'm doing a lot of things hahaha sometimes in different windows and some videos playing etc. Do you mind trying that perhaps

I do realize chrome creates a lot of random processes and takes up a lot of memory pressure and sometimes even uses up 100% of the cpu with some weird kearnal process, that's why i was afraid if i went with 8gb I may end up wishing I got 16 instead?

OK, this is with over 20 tabs in Chrome and quite a few more in Safari. Still no memory pressure. And I'm converting a DVD .ts file in the background with the Arm Beta of Handbrake. Not showing any pressure at all. Not sure what I would have to do to get the memory up. I don't know what kind of magic Apple is doing here but these ARM Macs memory seem to act completely differently than the Intel versions. I didn't believe it before but I'm starting to.

 

[DanTat]

OK, this is with over 20 tabs in Chrome and quite a few more in Safari. Still no memory pressure. And I'm converting a DVD .ts file in the background with the Arm Beta of Handbrake. Not showing any pressure at all. Not sure what I would have to do to get the memory up. I don't know what kind of magic Apple is doing here but these ARM Macs memory seem to act completely differently than the Intel versions. I didn't believe it before but I'm starting to.

View attachment 1673890

Wow that looks good! thanks for doing this!
Now i’m just wondering if 8gb ram would be able to handle this as well ahahah but i’m maybe leaning towards the 16gb so I don’t have to worry

 

[Joelist]

Reviewers are noting that in real world usage they are seeing lower RAM usage across the board. The current thinking is the Unified Memory Model means RAM is not being used in exactly the same way we are used to.

 

[IowaLynn]

Apple must be doing something right!

Hey, our COBOL programs just plain runs too slow, can we get new compiler AND a new mainframe? This z90 isn't cutting it.
But your Assembly code is fine, just use that.

And Safari and native apps are all good?

 

[ascender]

Going on the reviews, I’d say that 8GB RAM will be more than enough for most use cases as the machines seem to be blisteringly fast. With VMs though, I’d always say get more memory If you can afford it.

 

[mlykke]

OK, this is with over 20 tabs in Chrome and quite a few more in Safari. Still no memory pressure. And I'm converting a DVD .ts file in the background with the Arm Beta of Handbrake. Not showing any pressure at all. Not sure what I would have to do to get the memory up. I don't know what kind of magic Apple is doing here but these ARM Macs memory seem to act completely differently than the Intel versions. I didn't believe it before but I'm starting to.

View attachment 1673890

It's not memory pressure you should look for, but the amount of swap. As soon as you start using more than 1 GB of swapping, then thats a clear indication of the system using more ram than whats available. Swapping will always be MUCH slower than loading straight from RAM. I've said it in multiple post and I'll say it again: The M1 does not magically cause you to need less ram. Ram is directly related to the amount of data you can keep in memory. Sure an ARM compiled app MIGHT(and thats a huge if) use less ram than the same app compiled for Intel, but opening Photoshop(or any other photo software) and loading twenty 50 megapixel images, will use the same amount of ram - It doesn't matter if it's Intel, AMD or the M1. This is basic computer science and it would be helpful if people stop just regurgitating the same false claims.
Yes, the M1 is extremely impressive and for the average joe that has a handful of tabs open and a couple of low ressource apps, 8 GB will be plenty. But if you are a more heavy user 16 GB is an absolute must.

 

[thebigf80]

Size of swap is only half the story as long as the stuff being in swap is not needed too often (and causing paging all the time)... actually I think that's what memory pressure tries to express. If you need to page back in often it is an issue, no matter how big your swap is.

8GB is fine for casual users,... normal web browsing (opening 100 tabs is not normal browsing), mails, Office, also fine for editing a few photos or cutting a short video.

I was also thinking long about 8 or 16GB of RAM but as all my devices (expect my gaming windows laptop) have 8GB max, even my Surface Pro at work, and I never felt shortage, I decided to go for the 8GB option

 

[Joelist]

I think it is going to take some time in real world usage scenarios to properly understand how the M1 architecture is affecting RAM usage. Things like the Unified Memory Model coupled with short and super wide pipes and huge caches add together to suggest (as some tech shows and reviewers are noting) that the M1 may not use RAM in the same manner as we are used to on laptops and desktops.

 

[mlykke]

I think it is going to take some time in real world usage scenarios to properly understand how the M1 architecture is affecting RAM usage. Things like the Unified Memory Model coupled with short and super wide pipes and huge caches add together to suggest (as some tech shows and reviewers are noting) that the M1 may not use RAM in the same manner as we are used to on laptops and desktops.

No, the unified architecture is going to result in faster memory performance. It's not gonna overcome basic computer science of how much memory and/or storage data requires. You might feel the system being snappier due to faster ram speed. You might also not feel swapping nearly as much, the faster the SSD's get. But for a workload with lots of apps open or opening large files, you have the exact same memory requirement. repeating that the M1 is a magic solution to ram usage is just plain incorrect, no matter how many times people repeat it.

 

[gxxr]

As soon as you start using more than 1 GB of swapping, then thats a clear indication of the system using more ram than whats available. Swapping will always be MUCH slower than loading straight from RAM.

Well, in theory they could’ve modified memory management, and offload data to swap before it’s strictly necessary, in an attempt to keep enough memory ready for allocation in case it’s needed for the next app you switch to? (Not saying that’s how it works, it’s just an idea of when that wouldn’t be an indication; And I think something must’ve changed to improve performance with limited amounts of memory).

I agree with you though that there are limits to what can be achieved with clever management (which is why I convinced my wife of ordering the 16Gb version even though she thought she’d be fine with 8Gb.)

 

[Krevnik]

I had 8gb ram on my old mac and the memory pressure was always red and heats up like crazy, i regret not getting more ram

If you're getting memory pressure on your previous machine, it's definitely time to get more RAM on the next one.

I think it is going to take some time in real world usage scenarios to properly understand how the M1 architecture is affecting RAM usage. Things like the Unified Memory Model coupled with short and super wide pipes and huge caches add together to suggest (as some tech shows and reviewers are noting) that the M1 may not use RAM in the same manner as we are used to on laptops and desktops.

RAM use isn't determined by the design of the cores, or the cache size. The unified memory model isn't going to save a whole lot, since with the Intel design, there was maybe 256MB of memory set aside for the iGPU. RAM usage is determined primarily by two things:

1) Memory alignment of the ISA, and natural word size (i.e. 32-bit vs 64-bit). x86_64 and AArch64 are very similar here.
2) Design of the software running. Does the software use buffers or stream data from disk? How much state does it keep in memory while running? Etc. etc.

There wasn't a huge change in memory use going from PPC to Intel, and there isn't going to be one here. Software devs and their choices are still going to be primarily responsible for the decisions that lead to more/less RAM usage.

 

[Nozuka]

I'm gonna give 8GB a try, which i would have never dared before.
But honestly all i'm doing lately is surfing the web.

Plus i refuse to pay that much to add 8GB more RAM...


(And it is very likely that i'll switch again, as soon as they release a redesigned macbook)

 

[Joelist]

No, the unified architecture is going to result in faster memory performance. It's not gonna overcome basic computer science of how much memory and/or storage data requires. You might feel the system being snappier due to faster ram speed. You might also not feel swapping nearly as much, the faster the SSD's get. But for a workload with lots of apps open or opening large files, you have the exact same memory requirement. repeating that the M1 is a magic solution to ram usage is just plain incorrect, no matter how many times people repeat it.

Then go tell those who are observing exactly what I posited in action. Their M1 Mac is showing lower RAM usage for scenarios than their Intel Mac did. Everything I listed impacts this. Unified Memory means no need to copy anything from one RAM store to another and that the RAM access is EXTREMELY fast. Large cache means less data needs to be parked in RAM and it increases the amount of stuff that can be sent straight to the CPU/GPU/Neural. The very wide pipe plus out of order executuon means the CPU can process a lot more stuff at one time - again this means less stuff gets parked in RAM.

Like it or not the M1 IS fundamentally different from what we are accustomed to on laptops and desktops. So yes it will take some time to see things like how it uses RAM. We are already seeing it behaves differently in some other areas (like some GPU scenarios where the Neural block is enabling performance we did not previously have) so RAM also is a wait and see.

 

[mlykke]

Then go tell those who are observing exactly what I posited in action. Their M1 Mac is showing lower RAM usage for scenarios than their Intel Mac did. Everything I listed impacts this. Unified Memory means no need to copy anything from one RAM store to another and that the RAM access is EXTREMELY fast. Large cache means less data needs to be parked in RAM and it increases the amount of stuff that can be sent straight to the CPU/GPU/Neural. The very wide pipe plus out of order executuon means the CPU can process a lot more stuff at one time - again this means less stuff gets parked in RAM.

Like it or not the M1 IS fundamentally different from what we are accustomed to on laptops and desktops. So yes it will take some time to see things like how it uses RAM. We are already seeing it behaves differently in some other areas (like some GPU scenarios where the Neural block is enabling performance we did not previously have) so RAM also is a wait and see.

I've seen multiple people post screenshots of the ram usage - Several of these where showing quite an amount of swap even though the ram usage itself seemed decent. Swapping is the last resort to turn too. To be honest, most people just seem to either keep stating what somebody said without really knowing what they are talking about and failing to understand basic computer science principles. And the tests where people just open 20 apps and then check the ram usage 5 seconds later, has nothing to do with a real world scenario. If you open an app, the ram usage is going to be very different once that app has been running for a day with actual work performed.
If you are a an average user doing some regular browsing, having a few random apps open, then 8 GB is plenty and it's gonna feel very fast. But if you're a more heavy user, then 16 GB is a minimum to get. In the end it still doesn't matter if it's Intel, AMD, M1 or something else. The amount of ram you need to keep files loaded into memory will be close to identical. What the M1 unified architecture is gonna give you, is better performance. That performance can cause you to feel the swapping less than with the non-unified setup - But it's still swapping.

Loading a 50 megapixel image into memory takes up the same space, no matter the processor.

For another perspective here's a few quotes from the review The Verge did on the Mac Mini.

It’s not hard to get a Mac with 16GB of memory to start swapping between RAM and the startup disk, and this is something I’ve noticed in Activity Monitor but haven’t felt in terms of diminished performance. But if you’re wanting to use the Mac mini in a creative studio or some other environment where you’ll really be pushing it harder than average, it might be better to wait until there are Apple silicon Macs with 32GB and beyond of unified memory.

And they also said this:

The $699 starting price is tempting, but most people will be better off upgrading to 16GB of unified memory, which puts you at $899