8GB RAM is a disappointment?

[deeddawg]

My 2013 15" MBP already had 16 GB of RAM. There is no excuse to sell laptops in 2020 with only 8gb RAM. And the prices that Apple charges to upgrade is insane.

Of course there is.

#1 - it is an extremely common market positioning tactic to offer good/better or good/better/best choices within product configuration options so as to effect a quiet upsell.

#2 - lots and lots of folks simply don't need any more than that for the things they do. Not everyone spins up multiple apps and three dozen Chrome tabs.

#2a - why give away something that lots of folks don't need and those who do need it (or think they do) will pay extra for?

 

[ADGrant]

Some strange assumptions in this thread. In-memory data structures don't magically get smaller because they are running on ARM. A double or int_64 is 64bits on x86 and 64bits on ARM. A UTF8 character occupies the same amount of RAM in both.

iOS apps have smaller memory footprints because iOS devices have small amounts of RAM not because ARM CPUs are magical. Developers of iOS apps spend a lot of time on memory optimizations.

One thing people seem to be forgetting is the 8GB of RAM for the base M1 is both system RAM and Video RAM. The 5700XT GPU in the 2020 27" iMac has 16GB of just video RAM. It is possible to install 128GB of RAM in that system giving a total of 144GB of RAM.

 

[MacModMachine]

Well, if we were being delivered ARM without SOC, then I wouldn't have an opinion.

But whenever any PC brand moves to SOC, they will instantly weaponize it to disempower their consumers via these price gimmicks, leveraging their vast advantage over us in knowledge of our usage patterns to put the entry level just below adequate and then gouge us for upgrades with a razor-like precision that iteratively, year-by-year, leads to most consumers possible not getting a good value for their money across the entire product category.

i always enjoy a good price gouge though....

 

[NT1440]

They said these are their most popular Macs, not necessarily entry level ones. They showcased some not-so-entry-level uses during the presentation. I think we have all been overstating what we need to get the job done and what we want or think we want. Maybe. Don’t know.

But they were specifically talking about their low power configurations. That’s why things like the 4 port 13” haven’t been updated.

All Apple did yesterday was replace their entry level low power devices. Yea they showed that they are far more capable than what they replaced, but that should not be confused with the idea that this new Mini is meant to be a replacement for their super charged minis.

 

[tuvok86]

You can scream at Apple for soldering standard DDR ram but if putting it in the SOC is what enables the next level of performance you have to suck it and accept the tradeoff.

As a non power user evaluate for how long you want to keep the machine and get the right amount of RAM accordingly.

If you're doing some professional work you will probably get more RAM and you can afford that, and Apple will cash that sweet margin, which is muuuch smaller on the base config to incentivize adoption so Apple can:

- Have more users > more incentive for developers to accelerate transition
- Sell SAAS subscriptions
- Lock you into their ecosystem for more/future devices

 

[NT1440]

Who said a performance series of ARM Macs are coming out in January? I was going to order one of these Macs as soon as reviews come out but if better chips are coming out in January I'll hold off; but I haven't seen any indication of that happening.

I’ve been watching Apple for 10+ years. Apple always has a January event. Maybe it gets pushed to February, but there is always an event to open the year. My money is on iMacs and updated higher tier MacBook Pros/minis.

 

[jz0309]

on x86, RAM is a hog, whether its Windows or MacOS (MacOS is better in managing it though) ...
With M!, we'll have to see some real world testing to understand what limitations 16GB really has, sure we'll know more next week.
And I'm also sure that the net iterations of ASi will overcome the 16GB ...

 

[theluggage]

Based on what you said, it sounds like the 16GB may be closer in performance to 64GB under Intel, right?

If your workflow runs out of RAM and starts swapping to SSD on an Intel Mac with less than 64GB of RAM then it is highly likely to run out of memory and start swapping to disc on an Apple Silicon Mac with less than 64GB of RAM.

Maybe in some cases the new features of M1(unified memory, new GPU features, hardware codec acceleration) will eliminate the need for a buffer or intermediate copy - or just be sufficiently faster in other ways to make up for memory-related slowdowns - but that's going to depend case-by-case on the workflow, file formats and how well optimised the software is for the M1. So maybe, say, FCPx will do certain jobs with certain file formats with less RAM - but that's not going to generalise. Apart from that, 1GB of data on Intel is the same size as 1GB of data on ARM. If you need to composite 50 1GB images, load up dozens of virtual sampled instruments, or create 8 Linux VMs with 8GB RAM each then your RAM requirements are not likely to change.

Some people have drunk far too deeply of the Kool Aid and seem to think that ASi Macs will turn a 4GB bitmap into a 1GB bitmap "because Unified Memory". It won't - and if it did you could be sure that Apple would have been singing it from the rooftops on Tuesday (along with the new perpetual motion powered Apple Car).

Anyway, what 64GB under Intel? These M1 Macs replace the Air, the low-end pro and (frankly) the 2014 "Headless MacBook Air" Mac Mini. None of those supported 64GB.

More pertinently, on memory-heavy tasks, in 6 months time, your 16GB M1 Mac is likely to be left in the dust by a 64GB M2/M1X/Whatever 16" MacBook Pro/iMac/Mini Mac Pro replacement.

What is probably true is that 8GB is adequate for most general personal productivity/content consumption purposes (use bookmarks instead of leaving browser tabs open, folks) and that 16GB is plenty for light development and content creation - but if you have a genuine use case for 32GB+ RAM then these first M1 machines are probably not the Macs you are looking for.

 

[NewUsername]

I’ve been watching Apple for 10+ years. Apple always has a January event. Maybe it gets pushed to February, but there is always an event to open the year. My money is on iMacs and updated higher tier MacBook Pros/minis.

The yearly January event was abolished years ago. Though they do often do an event in March.

 

[wyatterp]

One thing people seem to be forgetting is the 8GB of RAM for the base M1 is both system RAM and Video RAM. The 5700XT GPU in the 2020 27" iMac has 16GB of just video RAM. It is possible to install 128GB of RAM in that system giving a total of 144GB of RAM.

As a way to reinforce this on the GPU front - I have two Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 systems, last years i5-1035G1 and this year's new i5-1135G7 with Iris Xe. This isn't exhaustive testing, but both systems are 8GB/256GB systems. Running rather old games, I've found the resolution limit to be around 800P before performance on either system plummets - this is likely the texture size limit due to the constrained amount of available memory. I'm sure the 16GB version, especially of the Iris Xe version performs better.

Does Apple's UMA architecture with "low latency" and faster interface to memory overcome some of these deficiencies?

I recently bought the base model MBA with M1 to compare all this. As a long time iPad user - I think I'm more than content with 8GB as long as I get an uplift in running all my ipad gaming apps (mainly Civ VI, Company of Heroes, etc) - but I realize these "mobile" games ports are severely degraded from PC graphics in almost every instance. Sure they run better, but they do not look better by a long shot. My Dell XPS 13 7390 2-in-1 can run Civ VI at 1200P, with low graphics, leader animations turned on - and it's clearly a huge uplift, even at a the lowest graphics settings, over how Civ VI looks on my iPad Pro. The main delta I can see between the ipad version and the PC version is that the iPad version of the game runs at a sub-low (PC equiv) setting for textures - likely because of the iPads 4GB of RAM limitation (2018 model).

Hopefully devs take advantage of the M1 moving forward to publish slightly improved versions of some of these increasingly well done iPad games or ports of old games. I will be really interested to see if the x86 version of Civ VI, or maybe a silicon optimized version of Civ VI is released to really compare here though.

Interesting times for sure.

 

[Ethosik]

People also mistake "filling up RAM" as "I need X amount of RAM". For example, I have a 30 second Adobe After Effects clip with a lot of effects. On one computer, it uses 11 GB out of 16 GB. On my other computer, it uses 110GB out of my 128 GB (because I limit Adobe software a certain amount per machine). Both systems get the same work done. So for my work, I do not NEED 128GB of RAM, even though After Effects is using 110 GB of it.

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly tasks that do require that much RAM. And if you have one of those cases, wait for the higher end 13" MBP or 16" MBP or iMac or Mac Pro with more RAM. But sometimes some people make that mistake I mention above.

 

[NT1440]

The yearly January event was abolished years ago. Though they do often do an event in March.

Ah **** you’re right, substitute “January” for “the next Apple event” and my point stands.

 

[LonestarOne]

The only way to justify the existence of the 8GB M1 is to confuse the $200 "savings" as an actual difference to the cost of manufacture. $200 is just Apple's upgrade markup.

In the end, if 8GB is enough, then 8GB buyers will be winners and 16GB will be fleeced. If it isn't enough, then the 8's are losers and 16 winners. I suppose the former is the best outcome, since the people buying 16GB probably won't miss their money as much as the other set.

Not all buyers are created equal. There are a lot of people who use their laptops to answer email, surf the web, run MS office, and interact with the company database. They can’t install any additional software because the company won’t allow it. Just try telling the corporate IT department it should pay for 16GB machines just because people editing 8K video need it.

 

[iMi]

What I find interesting is that Apple showcased large files opening near instantaneously. How could that be possible if the memory function the same way as it does under Intel?

Edit: corrected Intel spelling

 

[Ethosik]

Now with you saying 99 percent, do you have evidence to back this up or are you talking about something in which you have no knowledge of? The Youtube channel Max Tech which is a very Apple centric channel did a good comparison of 8GB, 16, 32GB, and 64GB. There was a notable performance boost throughout moving to 16GB or higher.

“8 Gigabytes is simply not enough even with basic web browsing on chrome. It suffered greatly in basically every single test. Taking almost twice as long for video and photo editing. If you’re a gamer you will need at least 16GB of RAM for a smooth gaming experience.”

People mistake the term "NEED" here. Taking twice as long for video and photo editing. Cool, but do you NEED it 2x faster? NEED means you CANNOT get work done. But they can, it was just twice as slow. If you are extreme time constraints, definitely. If you are on a budget and can wait 2x as long for your video to export, then you don't NEED 16GB of RAM here.

 

[brianmowrey]

Just try telling the corporate IT department it should pay for 16GB machines just because people editing 8K video need it.

That's... equating the 8GB "discount" for what 16GB costs... literally what I opened my take with. My point is not that consumer niches do not exist, and there will be some mismatch between some consumers and the offerings Apple has gone with based on what niches they wish to target. My point is that Apple got rid of plugin memory so they could better align the mismatch with their target niches. In the case of "is 8GB right for the entry level Macs or should those users upgrade," we literally can only guess and by the time we finally know, the product will have evolved again, and that's precisely by design.

It's like playing rock-paper-scissors with an opponent that sees your move first. *edit: upon reflection, it's actually like playing rock paper scissors where you know the opponent's move first but the opponent changes the hierarchy each time in an unknown fashion, which is a less cool metaphor :/

 

[Ethosik]

If your workflow runs out of RAM and starts swapping to SSD on an Intel Mac with less than 64GB of RAM then it is highly likely to run out of memory and start swapping to disc on an Apple Silicon Mac with less than 64GB of RAM.

Maybe in some cases the new features of M1(unified memory, new GPU features, hardware codec acceleration) will eliminate the need for a buffer or intermediate copy - or just be sufficiently faster in other ways to make up for memory-related slowdowns - but that's going to depend case-by-case on the workflow, file formats and how well optimised the software is for the M1. So maybe, say, FCPx will do certain jobs with certain file formats with less RAM - but that's not going to generalise. Apart from that, 1GB of data on Intel is the same size as 1GB of data on ARM. If you need to composite 50 1GB images, load up dozens of virtual sampled instruments, or create 8 Linux VMs with 8GB RAM each then your RAM requirements are not likely to change.

Some people have drunk far too deeply of the Kool Aid and seem to think that ASi Macs will turn a 4GB bitmap into a 1GB bitmap "because Unified Memory". It won't - and if it did you could be sure that Apple would have been singing it from the rooftops on Tuesday (along with the new perpetual motion powered Apple Car).

Anyway, what 64GB under Intel? These M1 Macs replace the Air, the low-end pro and (frankly) the 2014 "Headless MacBook Air" Mac Mini. None of those supported 64GB.

More pertinently, on memory-heavy tasks, in 6 months time, your 16GB M1 Mac is likely to be left in the dust by a 64GB M2/M1X/Whatever 16" MacBook Pro/iMac/Mini Mac Pro replacement.

What is probably true is that 8GB is adequate for most general personal productivity/content consumption purposes (use bookmarks instead of leaving browser tabs open, folks) and that 16GB is plenty for light development and content creation - but if you have a genuine use case for 32GB+ RAM then these first M1 machines are probably not the Macs you are looking for.

Also please keep in mind that some software ALWAYS swaps to disk, I believe it was an earlier Chrome build that I was using on my 128 GB system and even two tabs open I saw some swapping going on. Not sure if this is fixed, I do not use Chrome as my main browser.

 

[NewUsername]

I was hoping Apple would use the transition to finally switch to 16GB. These AS chips are so powerful they’ll be fast enough for many years. But how would 8GB RAM look like in 2028? Probably embarrassingly low. And there’s no way to upgrade.

iOS devices also somewhat have this problem, which is why the iPhone 6 doesn't support iOS 14 but the iPad mini 4 does; both have the same A9 chip but the iPad mini 4 has 2GB and the iPhone 6 only has 1GB of memory.

 

[jwoodfin2012]

I have a Intel Mac with 16 gb of RAM. I have to run virtual machines for some of my stuff, so 8 GB would run out quickly. Im currently using 6 GB without a VM running. I can't imagine how much my machine would slow down.

 

[Ethosik]

I have a Intel Mac with 16 gb of RAM. I have to run virtual machines for some of my stuff, so 8 GB would run out quickly. Im currently using 6 GB without a VM running. I can't imagine how much my machine would slow down.

This is also part of the issue. You cannot really base things on how much memory you are using. On my iMac I have 32GB of my 64GB used and I do not have many things opened. The same things I can open on my 16GB system without issues. And on my 128GB system, it is usually around 50GB used with not much open.

 

[deeddawg]

The only way to justify the existence of the 8GB M1 is to confuse the $200 "savings" as an actual difference to the cost of manufacture. $200 is just Apple's upgrade markup.

Yep. Market pricing decisions for non-commodity goods rarely are based on differences in COGS.

In other words - that $200 difference has everything to do with what Apple thinks they can get people to pay and practically nothing to do with the actual materials/production cost difference.

 

[deeddawg]

This is also part of the issue. You cannot really base things on how much memory you are using. On my iMac I have 32GB of my 64GB used and I do not have many things opened. The same things I can open on my 16GB system without issues. And on my 128GB system, it is usually around 50GB used with not much open.

Exactly - macOS will try to use most all the memory you give it, even if it's just caching stuff and/or not clearing pages that haven't been used in a while.

With today's fast SSDs, even some virtual memory swapping isn't nearly as impactful as it was back in spindle days. Really depends on the use case though -- VMs would tend to favor lots of RAM. Having a bunch of apps open and switching from one to the other once a half hour likely won't see much impact if part of the app needs to be paged back into active RAM.

 

[phillytim]

If I spend over $1000 for a computer in 2020, it had better have 16GB RAM!

Apple is about to become the first 2 Trillion$ company in history; c'mon Apple, quit being frugal to a fault!!!

 

[deeddawg]

laptop owners do not know what is going to happen 5 months or even a year down the lane when it comes to using their laptop. Having 16GB of memory as standard allows for future proofing. You may not need it now but you may do a few months or a year from now.

"Future proofing" is bullpucky FUD made up by salespeople trying to scare folks into spending more than they need to spend.

IMHO - it would be very rare that someone's needs change sufficiently that an 8GB system became an impediment without those changed needs necessitating system replacement for other reasons as well.

That isn't to say someone shouldn't thoughtfully consider their likely needs through their anticipated ownership duration, but throwing $200 here and $200 there "just in case" of unknown unexpected possible future events is a waste of money.

 

[ADGrant]

What I find interesting is that Apple showcased large files opening near instantaneously. How could that be possible if the memory function the same way as it does under Inwell?

You mean Intel. My 2020 iMac can also open large files near instantaneously. That has an Intel CPU of course.