Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS swapping a small amount is perfectly normal and not an issue. So if you see 1-2 GB swap, then don't worry. It's normal and does not necessarily indicate that you have too little ram. And you will most likely not feel it at all. But if you start seeing 7+ GB of swap, then that's usually an indication that you need more memory. Or it's been a long time since you restarted your computer. Mac OS seem to hang on to a bit of swap after resuming from sleep.

Some of you are also talking about the memory pressure metric. This is a very poor metric and it's very unreliable. My current Mac has 32 GB of ram and swaps 35 GB right now, but the pressure is green. And I can easily tell a huge difference between how the machine performs right now and if I close everything down and restart. Periodically it will also immediately spike to being red for 20-60 seconds and then return to green again.
Swapping should absolutely be avoided, but don't worry about it if you see a very small amount of swapping.

But really, unless you are strapped for cash or you live in a country with crazy import tax, then just get the 16 GB. It's not that expensive(And I live in Denmark which has some of the highest tax and VAT rates).

If you want to see how a computer looks that is in dire need of more ram, then take a look at this screenshot I just took from my machine. 😄

Screen Shot 2020-11-24 at 18.57.57.png
 
The best SSDs can handle thousands of terabytes written to them. The best Samsung SSD can handle up to 9000 terabytes written. So if you write 1Tb a day, it would take 24 years to ruin the SSD.
SSDs are better today than they used to be, but swapping is still MUCH slower than having enough memory. Swapping should never be something to consider as an alternative to more ram(if you need the ram).

1 TB a day is not much - This is a screenshot from my machine that has been running for a couple of days - 74 TB and counting.

Screen Shot 2020-11-24 at 19.00.20.png
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Maximara
No, no and NO! Stop repeating that nonsense!

8 GB M1 = 8 GB Intel.
16 GB M1 = 16 GB Intel.

The M1 might have better performance and you might feel swapping slightly less, but swapping is still to be avoided. Swapping will ALWAYS be slower than a workload that has ram enough. Swapping is the last resort to ensure the computer doesn't have to run close down apps to stay running. Most tests of the 8 GB shows a fairly heavy use of swapping even in moderate workloads. So unless your workload is just a few tabs in a browser, some regular office stuff and watching Youtube, then you need to get the 16 GB version. And those of us which have a much heavier workload should really be hoping for a 32 GB and 64 GB option in future versions.

The M1 is impressive but you are not get a free launch. Your data and apps still require the same amount of ram - No ifs, ands or buts!
Actually, they DID mention something in the presentation about less duplication with the M1/MacOS system, and the lack of need to copy from one to the other.

Again, the is a video on YouTube now where the take a base Mini (that is 8GB) and load it up with more tracks than a sane person would need to record an orchestra, while loading over 900 plugins and multiple virtual drummers. It processes 4K120 video better than my I9 with 32GB of RAM and upgraded Radeon Video card.

I don't care if it is 16GB of RAM or 16K of RAM. I Care very much if it loads and runs my apps. I care how fast it goes. I don't need to measure my RAM and see if it is bigger than your RAM. I do not need to brag about how big my RAM is or how much my work takes more than yours. Does it work?

If it can eat 4K120 (with a few effect/transitions), that makes me happy (except for what I spent on the 16" MB Pro, but lets not talk about that).
If it can process my music nicely, that makes me happy (except I don't actually have an M1 yet).
If it can render my photos and 3D art, that makes me happy.

I do not care it it is 1 MHz or 1THz.

The wattage only matters because I care about the heat, battery life, and recharge times. If it doesn't get hot, lasts as long as I need, and can recharge quickly enough in the car, I don't need to worry about the specifics.
 
16 GB is not for future proofing, but for being able to have more apps, tabs and files open without slowing performance.
Tell that to the poster upthread who specifically stated he/she wants 16GB for futureproofing. LOL. Get over yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
I don't care if it is 16GB of RAM or 16K of RAM. I Care very much if it loads and runs my apps. I care how fast it goes. I don't need to measure my RAM and see if it is bigger than your RAM. I do not need to brag about how big my RAM is or how much my work takes more than yours. Does it work?
Nobody is bragging or comparing the length/size of anything, so maybe calm down a bit. But no matter how much you argue against facts, it's not going to change them.

Yes, the new M1 is very impressive and seems to eat through a lot, but that does not mean that 8 GB is the right amount for any kind of workload you can think of. The only fallacy is that you and some other people seem to think the M1 is pure magic that can just load anything into 8 GB, no matter what it is.

If you like 8 GB, then go ahead and get it - Nobody is stopping you. But do not for a second believe that 8 GB is the perfect amount for any kind of work, especially not if it's a more heavy workload.
 
And my car drives way faster than the Epyc. The Ford F150 has WAY more towing capacity. Why, I bet the Epyc couldn't even tow a jet ski.

And how is that relevant you ask? Well, it isn't. An $8000 chip that draws 225 Watts and needs 1TB of RAM has absolutely nothing to do with how fast a car goes, how much a truck tows, or a CPU designed for a laptop/ entry level PC.
You obviously didn't follow the thread. The poster was declaring that the next Apple chip was going to destroy the Epyc cpu because reasons.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IG88
Maybe people just spend their money more wisely than you? Better to spend that $200 up-front and invest the money you'll save paying for an early upgrade.

Maybe people just care more about the environment than you? Making computers is very environmentally damaging, and upgrading regularly is a great way to increase your carbon footprint.

I'm both of these people. I have a £3500 desktop PC and a £2500 MacBook Pro, both over seven years old now. They're due to be replaced with the MacBook coming first as soon as Apple reveal.

Instead of skimping on a few hundred up-front I've been able to put thousands more in to investments. A quick result from the calculator of one of the products shows that £6000 invested in 2015 is worth £13,500 now. It pays not to be profligate, however rich or poor you may be.
Good for you! Yes, I’m sure there are plenty of people who spend more wisely than I do and who care more about the environment too. Neither of these issues have anything to do with futureproofing. And I’m still LOLing. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
SSDs are better today than they used to be, but swapping is still MUCH slower than having enough memory. Swapping should never be something to consider as an alternative to more ram(if you need the ram).

1 TB a day is not much - This is a screenshot from my machine that has been running for a couple of days - 74 TB and counting.

View attachment 1678633
1 TB/day is perhaps not much for you. But it is much!

Here is mine that has also been running for a few days (with me actually actively using the computer for several tasks several hours each day):
Screen Shot 2020-11-24 at 12.47.08 PM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
1 TB/day is perhaps not much for you. But it is much!

Here is mine that has also been running for a few days (with me actually actively using the computer for several tasks several hours each day):
View attachment 1678660

I agree that my workload is above average and therefor is hitting the SSD more than most people are likely to see. What kind of workload are you doing when you see those kind of numbers?
 
I agree that my workload is above average and therefor is hitting the SSD more than most people are likely to see. What kind of workload are you doing when you see those kind of numbers?
I've been spending the past couple of days writing/researching. So between half a dozen/dozen Firefox tabs, several pdfs, several word docs, a few research apps, Mail, Spotify, Messages, Notes. I also got in about an hour of Medieval 2 Total War (super old but still so good).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlykke
The 16" and 2020 iMac are just embarrassing. I had high hopes for Apple Silicon but it exceeded my expectations. What has Intel been doing for the last 5 years?
Yup. Seems if Apple doesn't release the higher end M1 models soon or they'll be forced to drop prices severely on current models. I imagine the reburb. store is gonna be bloated with Intel models nobody wants.
 
Absolutely. If you're going to start a business then you have to spend money to make money. There are many other areas that the developer would also need to spend money on.

You're forgetting the other stuff a solo indie developer has to spend money on.

Intel Mac, yearly program fee, backend servers, marketing, website hosting, etc...

Regardless, the original point was that you're saying no one was forced. Yet developers were forced. You're wrong.
 
You're forgetting the other stuff a solo indie developer has to spend money on.

Intel Mac, yearly program fee, backend servers, marketing, website hosting, etc...

Regardless, the original point was that you're saying no one was forced. Yet developers were forced. You're wrong.
Simply the cost of doing business.
 
Sorry I don’t think that this is a good test. If he just want to probe that memory management is better on M1, why just compare to an intel with same capacity and do specific memory use case tests??
 
You're forgetting the other stuff a solo indie developer has to spend money on.

Intel Mac, yearly program fee, backend servers, marketing, website hosting, etc...

Regardless, the original point was that you're saying no one was forced. Yet developers were forced. You're wrong.
Developers didn’t need to buy the DTK. Nothing was preventing them from waiting until macOS 11/M1 dropped commercially, from which point they could access retail hardware.
 
The best SSDs can handle thousands of terabytes written to them. The best Samsung SSD can handle up to 9000 terabytes written. So if you write 1Tb a day, it would take 24 years to ruin the SSD.

Yes they "can" handle it, but they can also die far earlier. Samsung provides a warranty of 150TBW on a 250GB EVO. Fact is, the more you write to your SSD the greater the chance it will die and the sooner it will die if it does. Another factor to consider is that an SSD that's close to being full will have much less opportunity to perform wear-levelling, increasing the risk of death yet further. Take a risk paying for an expensive logic board replacement if you like.

I agree that my workload is above average and therefor is hitting the SSD more than most people are likely to see. What kind of workload are you doing when you see those kind of numbers?

That is a lot and the kind of activity that killed my SSD. I strongly recommend you monitor the SSD's internal wear-levelling and wearout statistics.
 
This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you MR! Was debating on getting the 16GB Mac mini but it may be good enough with just 8GB!

Second thought, might as well get the 16GB for future proofing.

But then what if I don’t actually need it and it’s a waste? Here we go again

I gotta say, $200 for the RAM upgrade is pretty much always worth it unless you're someone who upgrades regularly. Although anecdotally, the SSD size seems to govern the longevity of machines more than memory ever since 8GB was the entry level option.

The thing that I find interesting is that I have been running on 16GB since 2014. I've read a lot about people wanting 32GB but honestly, even now, so many "normal" tasks have sort of hit limits. I ready someone on iFixit talking about the size of media "ballooning" but... is it? For the vast majority of users, I think that's a very hard argument to make. And even then, ballooning media is going to mostly affect mass storage and not memory. Most people aren't running multiple concurrent video streams at once. You can only work on a handful of photos at a time because, at some point, the limiting factor is the human brain, not the computer!

These M1 machines are not targeted at someone doing crazy video stuff with 8K streams. Who really needs more than 16GB right now? Heck, my mom is still using a machine with 8GB from 2012. It's not exactly lightning but it's also fine. I can use with without frustration. I can do most "basic" work from my phone these days and it's rocking a lot less. (Mobile probably has a lot to do with current hardware plateaus because most media is still being distributed to those devices and their constraints.)

This isn't the late '90s anymore where I was basically needing to double my RAM yearly. SSDs in their own right have a lot to do with this because they're so much faster than hard drives. Fetching data to RAM isn't the kick it used to be. And, obviously, your processor ends up being its own limiting factor depending on your workflow.

I know people doing high end things need more. I get it. Please don't respond with some utterly insane workflow you need personally. I get it. They exist. That's not what these M1s are for though. 16GB is really more than enough for these machines and probably more than enough to keep them quite usable before Apple marks them as "vintage" like two years before they should, lol.
 
Nobody is bragging or comparing the length/size of anything, so maybe calm down a bit. But no matter how much you argue against facts, it's not going to change them.

Yes, the new M1 is very impressive and seems to eat through a lot, but that does not mean that 8 GB is the right amount for any kind of workload you can think of. The only fallacy is that you and some other people seem to think the M1 is pure magic that can just load anything into 8 GB, no matter what it is.

If you like 8 GB, then go ahead and get it - Nobody is stopping you. But do not for a second believe that 8 GB is the perfect amount for any kind of work, especially not if it's a more heavy workload.
At no point have I said it was magic. I have specifically stated it was not.
I have said that it seems the M1 Macs can get by with less than Intel systems in general. Even you have to admit some people seem to think of it as a badge of honor that their RAM (SSD, processor speed, screen size, color depth, temperature, power draw, battery life, trackpad sensitivity, headphone jack, webcam resolution, or whatever) needs somehow exceed those of the "mere mortals" around them.

But, for example, an iPad Pro does not even have 8GB of RAM, yet it can load the same garage band project faster than my MB Pro with 32GB of RAM. The performance on both systems seems similar (though I am not trying anything outlandish). I do not know why that is, but I do know it and see it.

I have speculated that a smaller footprint for the OS frees up more RAM for applications. Apple specifically mentioned that the UMA allowed for less copying back and forth, which would imply less duplication also.

I have specifically stated an example of an absurdly large music project someone created to try and crash an M1 base model mini, only to have it keep running.

It isn't magic, but some of the rules are clearly a bit different than we are used to. Until we see a chance to test your specific use case (for something reasonably expected of a lowish end machine), it is unfair to say "there is just no way..." because they have clearly been punching above their weight class.

Microsoft Office? check
4k120 video editing? check
insane music projects in logic? check
photo editing? check
ridiculous numbers of simultaneous apps? check
games? check
Blender/Cinema4D renders - even extended ones? check

Everyone keeps saying, "yeah, but it will never handle my needs," but they do not know this if they haven't tested it. Yes, I will spot you that if you are running your own personal Matrix simulation of reality with 128TB of RAM and a 60 Petabyte SSD Octo-RAID 20 configuration powered by dilithium crystals, it will not run on a MacBook Air. (What laptop were you running it on before the announcement?). So far, I keep looking back and forth between the M1 and my 2019 16" MBPro that is maxed out on everything but storage (edit, and only 32GB of RAM, not 64 - oops), and the hand isn't writing on the wall, it is punching me in the face. I keep waiting to see where the M1s are going to really, actually fail (not speculative fail, measured tested, benchmarked fail). It hasn't happened yet that I have seen. Maybe tomorrow.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.