М1 8Gb vs 16Gb

[IngerMan]

I mean it just beggars belief. That you actually think that is true and are others are beliving it as well, sad, sad, sad.

Of course I don’t believe its true, 8=8, I was just quoting the video from Max. It’s more like the performance of the M1 8GB is achieving better results then the current Intel in its same class of 16GB.

There is certainly enough I know best in the forum, I just buy for myself what I chose to purchase, I don’t need convinced from MacRumors or YouTube videos.

 

[LeeW]

I just buy for myself what I chose to purchase

Good, wish everyone else would do the same

 

[joelhinch]

Can't decide between 16/256 and just get a T7 or 16/1TB
Plan on upgrading when (if) a 'mini Pro' comes out. Really want an 8 core (8 high performance cores) M1X, 32GB RAM & 1TB for long term use.

 

[pldelisle]

Really want an 8 core (8 high performance cores) M1X, 32GB RAM & 1TB for long term use.

Do you really need it?

This is the question to ask.

 

[tpivette89]

Can't decide between 16/256 and just get a T7 or 16/1TB
Plan on upgrading when (if) a 'mini Pro' comes out. Really want an 8 core (8 high performance cores) M1X, 32GB RAM & 1TB for long term use.

I, too, am considering a new M1 Mini... however, I will definitely get the 16GB version. This machine will hold me over until Apple either releases a Pro Mini... or a mini Pro (whichever comes first).

 

[Fishrrman]

"This machine will hold me over until Apple either releases a Pro Mini... or a mini Pro (whichever comes first)."

I doubt that we will see either.
The Mini is the Mini. It is what it is.

We -may- see a future model with an upgraded "m" CPU which can handle 4 USB4 ports on the back and more RAM. But I wouldn't think of that as a "pro" model, but rather... just getting back to where the Intel version left off.

My -guess- is the reason the m1 Mini (and other m1 Macs) has only two USB4 ports and a limit of 16gb of RAM is because that's all the m1 CPU can handle...

 

[pldelisle]

"This machine will hold me over until Apple either releases a Pro Mini... or a mini Pro (whichever comes first)."

I doubt that we will see either.
The Mini is the Mini. It is what it is.

We -may- see a future model with an upgraded "m" CPU which can handle 4 USB4 ports on the back and more RAM. But I wouldn't think of that as a "pro" model, but rather... just getting back to where the Intel version left off.

My -guess- is the reason the m1 Mini (and other m1 Macs) has only two USB4 ports and a limit of 16gb of RAM is because that's all the m1 CPU can handle...

But we all know an M1X is coming soon for the 16 inch MBP. Apple has no reason not to upgrade the mac mini with this chip since power limit is well below what the mini can afford. And that M1X will have more IO and memory for sure.

 

[Pressure]

"This machine will hold me over until Apple either releases a Pro Mini... or a mini Pro (whichever comes first)."

I doubt that we will see either.
The Mini is the Mini. It is what it is.

We -may- see a future model with an upgraded "m" CPU which can handle 4 USB4 ports on the back and more RAM. But I wouldn't think of that as a "pro" model, but rather... just getting back to where the Intel version left off.

My -guess- is the reason the m1 Mini (and other m1 Macs) has only two USB4 ports and a limit of 16gb of RAM is because that's all the m1 CPU can handle...

There is a reason why the space gray Mac mini still is Intel based.

 

[LeeW]

I am fairly confident we will see a more powerful Mac Mini, whatever they call it. Tim is changing direction with his focus on services. He knows that will only work or work better from a revenue point of view if he can ramp up the customers. More affordable, more accessible, and more useful devices bring more customers rather than the old ways of handicapping devices like the Mini to force people into buying iMacs and so on.

Alternatively, the Mini will stay as is and the rumours of a smaller Mac Pro will become the next step up from the current Mac Mini.

 

[PatrickCocoa]

News Flash: You can sell your MacBook!

Buy the 8BG. If (if if if if) it's not enough a year or two in the future, sell your 8GB MacBook to someone who doesn't do the exciting, demanding, professional things that you do. Then buy a new MacBook with 16BG, or 32BG, or more!

 

[theluggage]

News Flash: You can sell your MacBook!

Buy the 8BG. If (if if if if) it's not enough a year or two in the future, sell your 8GB MacBook to someone who doesn't do the exciting, demanding, professional things that you do. Then buy a new MacBook with 16BG, or 32BG, or more!

News Flash 2: lots of other people will have the same idea, so when the M1X/M2/whatever machines - or M1 machines with micro-LED displays - come out, the second hand market is going to be flooded with M1 machines, so yeah, you can sell, but moderate your expectations as to how much cash you're going to get back.

If you were already in the market for a MacBook Air or low-end 13" MacBook Pro (which had the same RAM and SSD choices) then - once the inevitable teething troubles are sorted out - these machines look absolutely great, demolish the low-power Intel+iGPU macs that they replace and should serve you for years - and they're clearly even good for some video-editing and graphics jobs that their predecessors couldn't touch.

However, if you've got a higher-end Mac (anything with a dGPU and/or more RAM)... seriously folks, patience. Just because the initial gushy tests by youtubers showed the M1 matching 5k iMacs on simple, contrived tests doesn't mean they're a drop-in upgrade for the system you spent $2k-$3k or more on... They're not generally beating the bigger machines by a useful margin and they lose out on ports & I/O bandwidth, multi-display support etc. not to mention number of cores vs. the i9 machines.

Meanwhile, the more extravagant "16GB is the new 32GB" claims are mostly hogwash from people who don't know how to read RAM usage stats and/or are comparing tasks that weren't RAM-limited in the first place. Sure, it looks like the impact of swapping has been reduced somewhat... but swap is still an order of magnitude slower than RAM so if that page fault rate goes up, your M1 is being slowed down by lack of RAM. In 6 months time, when you're comparing with 32GB+ M1X/whatever systems, you might start to see a difference...

The way to answer the "8 vs 16 vs wait for more" question is simple: if your workload pushes the Memory pressure into the yellow or red on Intel with xGB of RAM it will most likely do the same, and be slowed down, by xGB of RAM on a M1 system. That may be acceptably fast today but it's likely to be hosed by the next wave of ASi Macs.

(Maybe you could create an empty RAM disc on your Intel Mac to simulate having less RAM...?)

Of course - its quite possible that your current Intel Mac has more RAM than you actually need - Apple's non-upgradeable RAM pushes you in that direction - and if you're fortunate enough to have an Intel Mini or 5k iMac that you can stuff with generic SODIMMs at a fraction of Apple's price then there was no need to skimp on RAM... but that was never an option with the LPDDR RAM used in ultraportables (mac or PC).

 

[BATman.Berlin]

But since some tests have shown additional RAM to have little to no affect on the performance of the same test on the same hardware sans one having more RAM, it could be said that 8GBs may be all this chip really was designed to utilize optimally.

Yes, exactly. Don't compare the architecture to the classic Intel architecture. I have seen people running. 4K Final Cut renders in no time, blowing Intel based systems out of the water.

For 699 ... if it is not good serving my demands I can upgrade next year. It will still be faster than my current iMac.

 

[The Prosecutor]

I've gone base 8gb for this purchase and depending on the M1's performance over the next year, i'll look at speccing out a redesigned 14 or 16inch.

 

[eba]

I've gone base 8gb for this purchase and depending on the M1's performance over the next year, i'll look at speccing out a redesigned 14 or 16inch.

I went with the base 8gb for the same reason. It's been great so far. Nice little computer.

 

[mlody]

Check out max techs new video. They compare the mbp with 8 and 16gb ram side by side.
In final cut, there are almost no difference in export time for 4K material. It's not until they export .R3D (Red Raw) 8K to 4K that the 16gb pulls away (by a lot). 2.5 times faster export

Then you can decide for yourself instead of listening to all the people screaming: You Need More RAM ;-)

If you plan only to use 1 app at times, then I guess 8 GB is more than enough. That, unfortunately, is not my workflow, so I think about investing in 16 GB model and keeping it for a while.

 

[trip1ex]

if you have to ask then you only need 8gb.

 

[gallico916]

And the 32GB limitation is likely due to the embedded RAM situation we have with the M1.

ARM servers support up to 1.5TB of RAM, it all depends on the chip design, I'm ASSUMING here that Apple limit it to 32GB for the "small" models (Air, 23" MBP, and Mini) and will for sure offer higher RAM in the 16" Pro, iMac and Pro

 

[InwardMomentum]

I have a 8 gig mac mini right now , And after I open all my workspace , I am using about 4Gig for swap file , but i dont experience a significant slowdown, so its not a problem for me.

My question is , with 4 gig of swap use, would it be better to have 16 gig or it does not change my for my case.

 

[aajeevlin]

I have a 8 gig mac mini right now , And after I open all my workspace , I am using about 4Gig for swap file , but i dont experience a significant slowdown, so its not a problem for me.

My question is , with 4 gig of swap use, would it be better to have 16 gig or it does not change my for my case.

It's seems like the way to tell is to monitor your "memory pressure" and if you also noticed any slow down (which is no for you).

When I stressed test my base M1 I can get up to about 6.5GB in memory used, and about 5GB in Swap, but I see no change in memory pressure (all green) and no obvious slow down.

 

[MacCheetah3]

I have a 8 gig mac mini right now , And after I open all my workspace , I am using about 4Gig for swap file , but i dont experience a significant slowdown, so its not a problem for me.

My question is , with 4 gig of swap use, would it be better to have 16 gig or it does not change my for my case.

Simple answer... Yes, 16GB of RAM would be better.

Longer answer... RAM chips are faster than any storage type thus far, despite how fast some NAND flash has become. So, you are still missing out on at least a little bit of possible performance. More importantly, having that swap file is adding wear to your machine's SSD/HDD, a bit more significant for SSDs as they typically able to endure less writes per block before a failure, though features/functions such as "wear leveling" help slow the impact.

How Long Does an SSDs Last? | Calculate Your SSD’s Lifespan

Learn how long your SSD will last and how to maximize their lifespan with our comprehensive guide.

www.enterprisestorageforum.com

Is that wear going to be problematic in the reasonable usable lifespan of your Mac mini? Probably not, however, being preemptive and cautionary isn't normally a bad approach.

 

[InwardMomentum]

Simple answer... Yes, 16GB of RAM would be better.

Longer answer... RAM chips are faster than any storage type thus far, despite how fast some NAND flash has become. So, you are still missing out on at least a little bit of possible performance. More importantly, having that swap file is adding wear to your machine's SSD/HDD, a bit more significant for SSDs as they typically able to endure less writes per block before a failure, though features/functions such as "wear leveling" help slow the impact.

How Long Does an SSDs Last? | Calculate Your SSD’s Lifespan

Learn how long your SSD will last and how to maximize their lifespan with our comprehensive guide.

www.enterprisestorageforum.com

Is that wear going to be problematic in the reasonable usable lifespan of your Mac mini? Probably not, however, being preemptive and cautionary isn't normally a bad approach.

cool , I am now migrating all my stuff from a windows 10 use to mac m1 because its so much faster for me. And I will wait for the biggest chip to invest in more rams. I just wish they put some big horsepower chip in the mac Mini , as I do not need the all in one feature of a Mac desktop or a laptop.

 

[hagjohn]

cool , I am now migrating all my stuff from a windows 10 use to mac m1 because its so much faster for me. And I will wait for the biggest chip to invest in more rams. I just wish they put some big horsepower chip in the mac Mini , as I do not need the all in one feature of a Mac desktop or a laptop.

Didn't they? I mean when your entry level M1 SoC/SIP is going up and in some cases beating an intel Xeon, I think it does have a big horsepower chip. Google some benchmarks.

 

[InwardMomentum]

imagine the 16 core and the 32 core chip they are talking about

 

[Spectrum]

I am fairly confident we will see a more powerful Mac Mini, whatever they call it. Tim is changing direction with his focus on services. He knows that will only work or work better from a revenue point of view if he can ramp up the customers. More affordable, more accessible, and more useful devices bring more customers rather than the old ways of handicapping devices like the Mini to force people into buying iMacs and so on.

Alternatively, the Mini will stay as is and the rumours of a smaller Mac Pro will become the next step up from the current Mac Mini.

I agree with your thinking...but actually wonder if what we may see is a SMALLER Mac mini.

For the past few weeks I was commuting into work with a 2018 mini, docking at home and work with keyboard, mouse and two screens. It was smaller than a laptop...which got me thinking, with the A14, how an iPAd or even an oversized iPhone (or maybe Apple TV) could actually provide plenty of CPU and SSD power and space. I definitely see this in the future. No reason for a Mac mini as big as it is when the components ar so small and fan assembly isnt even needed. Just power it from an external 25W USBC power adapter (or a connected USBC display), so no need for internal PSU.

 

[LeeW]

a SMALLER Mac mini.

Indeed, totally feasible given what's inside the Mini at the moment. My only doubt on that is the upcoming chips that whilst more powerful will likely see Ram on the motherboard and a dGPU rather than the current unified approach. You may well see the Mini enclosure filling back up again.

I doubt they would make a smaller enclosure if that means they still need to work with the existing one. But then it could mean a redesign either way into something a bit more compact.