I was under the impression that getting to max memory pressure would then negatively affect performance.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Six months later - how does everyone feel about 16GB of RAM on the base M4 Mac Mini?
- Thread starter Ishimura
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was under the impression that getting to max memory pressure would then negatively affect performance.
For regular consumer use even 8 GB is more than sufficient
I do basic coding, productivity, web browsing etc on my M2 MacBook Air with 8 GB RAM. Not once has memory pressure been and issue. I am not too bothered about using much Apple Intelligence. My use case will probably remain so for years to come. I’m sure I’ll be able to use this thing until it wears out.
At that point I’ll buy another base model MacBook, and I’m sure that will give me years of use too.
I do basic coding, productivity, web browsing etc on my M2 MacBook Air with 8 GB RAM. Not once has memory pressure been and issue. I am not too bothered about using much Apple Intelligence. My use case will probably remain so for years to come. I’m sure I’ll be able to use this thing until it wears out.
At that point I’ll buy another base model MacBook, and I’m sure that will give me years of use too.
If the memory pressure is high then the computer is being slowed down by lack of RAM. It may be running faster than your old computer, but you are not getting full performance out of your hardware.
If it is high on day one - then you are storing up problems for the future as RAM requirements are hardly likely to go down.
So in a few months time you get the hassle of selling your machine for a decent price, the inevitable depreciation *and* you now have to shell out for the $200 upgrade on top of the price of your new machine. Not a good deal.
If you just browse the web and check your email then you only need a Chromebook or a base iPad. If someone wants to buy a $600 (+ display) computer for that, that’s fine, but it doesn’t justify giving the $600 computer $300 specs.
This is an artificial problem caused by Apple’s pricing strategy - which has only got worse over the years. Any other system - sticking 24GB RAM and 1TB SSD in there “just in case” (if it wasn’t already the base spec) would be easily affordable. Apple could charge what they liked for the upgrade from M4 to M4 Pro - but their current pricing makes it abundantly clear that they’re supplying the bare minimum base specs and charging astronomical markups on RAM and SSD.
I’m amazed by its performance. Going from a high end 2017 iMac with 64GB ram for graphic design and photography and this thing smoked it. It was just supposed to be a temp machine while I waited for the studio to come out but I see no need for it now
This is simply not true, every OS including MacOS is designed to use whatever's available and will fill up your RAM whenever possible. But most of that fill-up will be useless stuff for 99% of the time and will be changed with useful stuff whenever necessary.
Which is exactly why people should look at the actual performance of their device instead of what memory pressure says. Is it slow and constantly reloading apps you're using then you have a memory issue. Do you never have a problem multitasking or slow performance then you don't have a memory issue. Simple as that.
Last edited:
That's true of Activity Monitor's "Memory used" reading, or even the fact that swap used is non zero - but I said memory pressure for a reason. The memory pressure reading takes account of things like page fault rates that indicate when the system really is running out of RAM & depending on swap (which, even with fast SSD, is still way slower than RAM). The thread starter was correctly referring to memory pressure, too.
It would. "Memory used" can be deceptive, because MacOS fills unused RAM with cached data (which does help performance or they wouldn't bother, but isn't going to be a night-and-day improvement) but high "Memory pressure" is a sign that you're getting a lot of swap activity that will be slowing down your system.
What exactly are you going to use the Mini for?
I have an M1 Pro MBP with 16GB of RAM and I rarely think about memory limitations, and that's using heavyweight apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, running VMs in Parallels, and playing RAM hungry games like Cities: Skylines. (Obviously I don't do all of these at the same time except for running Lightroom and Photoshop in tandem).
Will I jump to 32 when it's time to upgrade? Sure, but this machine will last me a few more years and 16GB is fine.
I have an M1 Pro MBP with 16GB of RAM and I rarely think about memory limitations, and that's using heavyweight apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, running VMs in Parallels, and playing RAM hungry games like Cities: Skylines. (Obviously I don't do all of these at the same time except for running Lightroom and Photoshop in tandem).
Will I jump to 32 when it's time to upgrade? Sure, but this machine will last me a few more years and 16GB is fine.
8GB has been fine on an M1 Air for the last 5 years already, running Lightroom and Photoshop, at the same time, zero issues worth mentioning.
I got mine about 6 months ago. It's primarily a media server for my two AppleTV's and other devices, with my library on an external 4tb SSD. It's also connected to my stereo system with speakers in different rooms. I listen to my library directly using the Music app and also stream SiriusXM in Safari.
Really happy with mine, for my usage I suspect 8gb would also have been fine, but it doesn't hurt to have more; it replaced a 2014 Mini with only 4gb RAM and that was also fine for this kind of usage (although certainly slower). Anyway, I think the base m4 Mini is great, I paid $529 at a Black Friday sale when Apple was selling them for $600, I saw them for $490 at Amazon a few days ago. Seems like a very good deal - considerably better than the base 2014 Mini with 4gb soldered RAM and a slow 500gb hard disk that sold for $500.
I suspect 16gb should be enough for many entry level users and if it's not then you can "pay the Apple tax" and get more memory or a bigger SSD.
Really happy with mine, for my usage I suspect 8gb would also have been fine, but it doesn't hurt to have more; it replaced a 2014 Mini with only 4gb RAM and that was also fine for this kind of usage (although certainly slower). Anyway, I think the base m4 Mini is great, I paid $529 at a Black Friday sale when Apple was selling them for $600, I saw them for $490 at Amazon a few days ago. Seems like a very good deal - considerably better than the base 2014 Mini with 4gb soldered RAM and a slow 500gb hard disk that sold for $500.
I suspect 16gb should be enough for many entry level users and if it's not then you can "pay the Apple tax" and get more memory or a bigger SSD.
Last edited:
I bought mine a couple of months ago and, yes, it's the base model with a 512 GB disk. Not my first Mac, but this tiny box has an appeal. I expanded its guarantee period to four years for just 50 bucks. That means no worries if swapping or RAM run over-pressured; for four years is a good life cycle for a Mac of under $1000.
That's something to worry about if/when you actually notice things slowing down. I never look at Activity Monitor unless I notice beachballs, lagging, etc. The Mac has excellent memory management and will offload stuff you're not actively working on onto a swap file. It's not the end of the world.
If that's the case, why are you asking about the base model RAM at all in the first place? What's the point of this thread? If your work is so mission critical that any slowdown will be an issue (I'm thinking studio music recording or animation?) then get 32 GB RAM or more and call it a day. No need for all this hand wringing, and no need to start a whole endless back and forth about it.
Fact is, most anyone looking at a base model Mac with 16 GB RAM is not "trying to spec their machine appropriately so as to avoid ever running into any wobbles in real-world performance". One size doens't fit all, and it doesn't exactly destroy most people's workflow if opening Word takes an extra 3 seconds because of disk swap.
Last edited:
Because the RAM upgrade adds a whopping 30% to the cost of the machine. If you can live with 16GB of RAM (and many people can) the base model is capable of far more than "personal productivity" jobs. If you need more RAM and SSD, the price really starts to rocket.
Since the m4's came out (before that, actually), I've been advocating that 16gb is no longer enough, for the Mini or other Macs.
I bought an m4 Mini at the beginning of March.
32gb RAM, 1tb SSD.
I'm one of the few [modern] Mac users in the United States who prefers to DISABLE virtual memory, so there is NO "swap file" being written/read/written/read ad infinitum to my SSD.
I'm sitting here right now reading MacRumors and have these apps open:
Safari
Mail
Text Edit
Messages
Brave Browser
Numbers
I open Activity Monitor, go to "memory", and get this:
Note:
Memory Used 13.83gb
but also:
Cached Files: 10.58gb
Hmmmm....
The OS -- even with next-to-no "load" on it -- is still gobbling up almost 14gb of RAM. On a 16gb Mac, would it be using up almost ALL of the installed RAM at barely more than idle?
But also...
Look at the "cached files" -- almost another 11gb.
On a 16gb Mac, where would these go?
I'm thinking... directly to swap, in.out.in.out.in.out.in.out.in.out (had enough yet?).
Thus the petabytes of "disk writes" that some users are seeing.
With the memory/cache combo above, it's taking almost 24gb of my installed RAM. But because I have 32gb, there's still enough "headroom" so that the computer just breezes along, even without being able to use VM.
Put a heavy load into a 16gb Mini, and even with a modestly fast SSD (remember, the SSD's on the m4 aren't as fast as on the m4pro), things are going to start bumping against the edge of the envelope before too long.
16gb isn't enough any more.
That's my claim and I'm stickin' to it.
My opinion only.
Others will disagree.
Some will disagree vehemently.
I bought an m4 Mini at the beginning of March.
32gb RAM, 1tb SSD.
I'm one of the few [modern] Mac users in the United States who prefers to DISABLE virtual memory, so there is NO "swap file" being written/read/written/read ad infinitum to my SSD.
I'm sitting here right now reading MacRumors and have these apps open:
Safari
Text Edit
Messages
Brave Browser
Numbers
I open Activity Monitor, go to "memory", and get this:
Note:
Memory Used 13.83gb
but also:
Cached Files: 10.58gb
Hmmmm....
The OS -- even with next-to-no "load" on it -- is still gobbling up almost 14gb of RAM. On a 16gb Mac, would it be using up almost ALL of the installed RAM at barely more than idle?
But also...
Look at the "cached files" -- almost another 11gb.
On a 16gb Mac, where would these go?
I'm thinking... directly to swap, in.out.in.out.in.out.in.out.in.out (had enough yet?).
Thus the petabytes of "disk writes" that some users are seeing.
With the memory/cache combo above, it's taking almost 24gb of my installed RAM. But because I have 32gb, there's still enough "headroom" so that the computer just breezes along, even without being able to use VM.
Put a heavy load into a 16gb Mini, and even with a modestly fast SSD (remember, the SSD's on the m4 aren't as fast as on the m4pro), things are going to start bumping against the edge of the envelope before too long.
16gb isn't enough any more.
That's my claim and I'm stickin' to it.
My opinion only.
Others will disagree.
Some will disagree vehemently.
Last edited:
Yeah, and I'd argue that at that point you're probably using your Mac to make money. If you're a normal user 16GB is fine. If you're running a photography business or editing video or recording music and need all that extra RAM, you pay for it like you would a camera or a microphone or whatever.
Again, questions like "is 16 GB RAM enough" are utterly meaningless without context. The answer, as always is "it depends".
People agonize over hitting that optimal equilibrium point between future proofing (e.g.: get more RAM, etc...) and cost containment (e.g.: don't upgrade anything, keep it cheap), in the face of uncertainty about how things will work in 5 or 6 years.
This is where 'know who you are' becomes important. A number of people have the attitude 'If it's annoyingly slowed in 4 years, sell it and buy newer/more powerful,' and that's what some people do...and some people will not. Some people are gonna wring that 7 years+ out of it. The decision making process is different for them.
That statement shows one of 2 perspectives on the issue RAM upgrade cost issue that may impact how people view it.
1.) The % of base cost. Someone takes a pretty capable base M4 Mac Mini and pays another 30% of that base cost to get an upgrade (24 gig RAM over 16) of likely marginal benefit that may take years to notice.
-----Sounds bad.
2.) The absolute cost of around $200 (+ tax) to get peace of mind, possibly modestly snappier performance late-in-life (let's say at the 6 to 7 year ownership point, as a wild guess) and put a bit less swap file strain on the SSD.
-----Doesn't sound clearly compelling, but doesn't really sound 'bad.'
This is where I think a person's anticipated commitment to/with a Mac comes into play. People who sell and upgrade on a roughly 4 year cycle (who might be more likely to be concerned about retaining good resale value) might be best served getting 16 gig RAM. But someone who tends to stick it out for 7 years...might be happier with 24 gig RAM.
For some users, it'll get down to 'except that one thing.' Many years ago, it was the home user who decided to do some photo editing, creating and editing home videos or has one or more demanding video games...the person who mostly does light computing work, but has that one or two applications that strain the system enough to impact user satisfaction.
So to follow up your point, I wonder how many normal users like you mention are likely to get that 'one app.' that demands more, and of more interest what that one app. tends to be. Outside of the professional workplace, what are the main app.s a substantial fraction of home users use that demand 'more?'
Put another way, when home users see slow downs and wish they had more RAM, is it usually mainly due to having a bunch of browser windows open, or paying a Resident Evil game, or PhotoShop, or what?
Apple's move from 8 to 16 gig base RAM makes we wonder how much strain Apple Intelligence is going to create.
16GB is usually enough for me but 256GB isn’t even close. It’s insane that Apple charges so much for upgrades when their SSDs are mediocre by industry standards these days
I sometimes get the message that my Mac is out of memory and I need to force quit apps so 16GB isn’t quite enough sometimes
I sometimes get the message that my Mac is out of memory and I need to force quit apps so 16GB isn’t quite enough sometimes
?? You may have misread my post. You are considering Apple's lowest end computer, and maxed out RAM for the low end base Mac mini is only 24 or 32, which is what I was referring to.
What I said was:
If one needs more than a base Mac mini with RAM maxxed out IMO a Studio is the appropriate next step up. IMO the Mac mini Pro chip is a poor value.
Sure, "basic coding, productivity, web browsing" with your "use case will probably remain so for years to come" will run [inefficiently paging to disk if you run more than one app at a time] and you will "be able to use this thing until it wears out."
Your example is appropriate for anyone who intends to limit their computing to "basic coding, productivity, web browsing" and whose "use case will probably remain so for years to come."
However even folks planning mundane computing usages forever should know that 8 GB RAM will mean paging to disk when multiple apps are open at the same time. Many users doing mundane computing activities may not care about the speed slowdown or the lessened operational smoothness caused by the OS coping with suboptimal RAM. But all should pay attention to keeping their boot SSD with plenty of free space; I suggest no more than 50% to 80% full.
Note: I was one of the few here who supported Apple's keeping pricing down at the low end by maintaining base 8 GB RAM. My reasoning was that the Mac OS makes usages like yours function adequately running under 8 GB of RAM; exactly what you report. I have always recommended buyers choosing more RAM than 8 GB, except for those with minimal needs who want to spend the absolute minimum; or those who plan very short life cycles.
Last edited:
I have had an M1 MacBook Pro with 16 GB RAM for several years, and I have never had a low memory problem. I am an avid photographer, and frequently open up over 1,000 45mp photos in my DxO photo editor. No memory problem. I am a video editor, and edit multi-track 4K videos. No memory problem.
My first computer was a Mac SE with 1 MB of memory and floppy disk drives. Multitasking came out a few years later. So I have always been aware of memory, and my personal habit is to avoid being a knucklehead who "needs" to have 6,000 browser windows and 10 media players and photoshop and lightroom and premiere all open at the same time.
The base model of 16/256 has far less storage than I need, so of course I use many terabytes of external storage. With a Mac Mini, external storage is very easy to use because you aren't carrying the thing about, it just sits on your desk.
So, here is what I think: Unless you know that you're going to use a lot of memory, go with the 16 GB, because when you need more memory, buy the new model, the M6 or M7 Mac Mini. However, 256 GB of storage is definitely not enough. If you know that you won't need a lot of storage, spend extra for the 512 GB storage and that will be fine. But if you want to play massive games or store a lot of photos and video, buy the 256 GB version and buy at least a 4 TB external Thunderbolt drive.
I can run multiple apps at the same time and still not encounter paging.
Even when it does happen, macOS is so efficient that the data paged to disk is that which it is not using at that moment. Even when it does retrieve the paged data, the slowdown for most typical usages scenarios would be minimal.
The system can probably recover that paged data from disk in the time it takes the window animation to complete.
I’d never recommend getting more RAM than the base unless you have a heavy workload.
Apple know this and that why 8 GB RAM was fine for non AI era, and 16 GB is likely more than sufficient, as it is, for the AI era.
Typical consumer use does not need the extra RAM and for most users they’d be better off saving the money. The system will likely be replaced in 5 to 7 or even 10 years for most users.
External storage is so much cheaper and makes backups better too. It’s always a risk to keep super important data on a boot drive. If that drive fails, it gone, if it gets corrupt, your data is corrupted.
So either backup to cloud where the data centers have extreme data integrity measures, and backups. Or backup to at least two external drives and keep them in different locations.
Anyone who keeps everything on their Mac hard drive without any backup is going to be in a huge shock when either the Mac or that ssd fails
And on the contrary, paging is efficient memory management. With a given amount of RAM, paging allows the system to keep running and indeed run programs that wouldn’t otherwise run if it weren’t there. That’s efficiency and the algorithms that manage the memory and paging in MacOS are super efficient.