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.
Video Demos Performance Differences Between 8GB and 16GB Apple M1 MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To the credit of Maxtech, they have a new video doing more RAM intensive workload. I shared the new video on my previous post.
In the end, Imo the recommendation is simple.
If you will only keep the laptop for a year or two, or if your usage doesn't involves a lot of tabs or apps open, just get the 8GB model. By the time you're thinking of needing more ram, Apple will already have higher tier models with higher ram limit.
For those looking to keep the laptop for 5+ years, or those who use a lot of tab browsing and keeping apps open, 16GB is the better choice right now. Those who needs even more already knows to wait for higher tier models to be released.
I ordered an M1 MBA with 16 GB of RAM. That was mainly based on the idea that more RAM will let more tabs and apps stay open without slowing down, minimize paging to the storage, and help resale value down the road.
If none of those hold true, it was $180 over a period of years, so a minimal cost.
If none of those hold true, it was $180 over a period of years, so a minimal cost.
Great point. No need to wear out the SSD - that’s what RAM is for. The question is, would it have a noticeable effect within a couple of years, by which time the machine may be upgraded anyway, once the total redesigns with an M2 or M1X or whatever they call it comes out?
Based on the shipping dates I am seeing, everyone is ordering the 16GB versions anyway. I can get an 8GB Mini on Black Friday (the week after if I want <512GB of storage), but have to wait for the New Year for anything with 16GB of RAM, regardless of storage.
Whew! Thanks for letting us know. We were losing sleep wondering what you were going to do. I’m staying away from AAPL until I hear you are ready to buy Apple Si Macs. //s
Any user thats going to pounding on it that hard is going to be going "newer and better" is less that two years anyway. 8GB is fine for 95% of who will be buying this model.
Yes, like any other new hardware you’re required to purchase it.
that contradicts your earlier statement: "No one forced them to purchase them." ...?
DTK was mentioned after you said that statement. Your original statement was regarding the early adopters that didn't wait for 32GB variants of Macs.
if you could upgrade the RAM, it would be a necessarily different architecture, which means it wouldn't be anywhere near as performant or efficient a system.
This is such an game-changer in the long view. People love to criticize Apple for losing sight of their users, and concentrating on the next emoji release, etc. And here they are, cutting the tethers to chip manufacturer’s product cycles and limitations. Not only making their own chipsets (which many could do poorly), but making transformative, cutting edge chips. This is a serious shift in strategy and reminiscent of Henry Ford’s pioneering moves in vertical integration. Apple making its own chips for all of their hardware - is back to Apple’s core of thinking different.
I think we are both using the same term for two different things. And quite possibly, we are both correct.
IMHO that is the safest bet especially if you are uncertain about how intensive your workflow is and if time is a premium.
I wasn't talking specifically about you. I was referring to a number of people who proclaim nonsense such as 8 GB M1 = 16 GB Intel and that believe the M1 has some kind of "magic sauce" that all of the sudden makes your files take up less space when loaded into memory.
And regarding the "badge of honor" - It's just such a nonsensical thought to me, that I don't see it like that. So when I mention the amount of ram my system has or the amount of swapping I see with my workload, I don't see that as a flex or a way to say "look at me". I can't even see how anybody would think there is anything cool about having a high number of something on a computer. I use it as an example of how 8 GB is far from enough for everybody, contrary to what some want us to believe. It's a matter of knowing your workload and what you need - I just don't want people to think that because they get an M1, all of the sudden they only need half the memory.
The number of tracks you can run in programs such as Logic is almost purely CPU based, unless you are using some kind of ram intensive plugin. The M1 has some crazy performance and seems to have a very low memory latency, which gives it some awesome performance characteristics. It doesn't mean that the computer uses less ram to load data into memory compared to the Intel based Macs.
The M1 is very very impressive - I fully agree. But it still doesn't mean that the M1 can load a 100 mb Photoshop file into less memory than the Intel based Macs can. The performance stems from the fact that the processor itself is close to previous top-models and for single core, surpasses them. It stems from the fact that the processor as we used to think about it has changed, because it's no longer just about cores but about all the specialized chips that is bundled in to the package, such as ML cores, HEVC encoding acceleration etc. The fact that memory is so closely attached to the CPU cores also speeds up loading and avoids some copying processes. This is all the stuff that makes the M1 extremely impressive. But it still doesn't have any significant influence on the amount of ram you need for loading X amount of data. The SSD might be fast so you feel the swapping less, but the SSD is already fast in the latest Intel versions and you don't feel the swapping in those much either. Until a certain point then you will start feeling it, both on Intel and the M1.
I'm really just trying to make certain people understand that the M1 is awesome, but it does not mean you need less memory than you used to. In the end it's just a matter of taking a realistic look at the way you use a computer and get the specs that match your needs. I don't care if you are a casual user or you have a heavy workload - It doesn't make any more/less cool. What might make you more cool though, is if you create some awesome stuff with your computer.
TL;DR
The M1 is very impressive but doesn't significantly change the amount of ram that is needed to load X amount of data. In the end it's a computer so get the one that suits your needs. Maybe you can get by with 8 GB, but that doesn't mean that others wont require 16 GB or even more.
If you do some regular browsing with 1-20 tabs, doing emails, using an office suite, watching Youtube videos and maybe doing the odd photo editing and similar, then 8 GB is fine.
If you want to have many apps open at the same time, have a lot of tabs open in the browser, do more heavy workloads such as heavy photo or video editing, heavy development that requires VM's or compiling and other types or heavy loads. Then 16 GB is a minimum for that workload.
Personally I would never get a computer with less than 16 GB of ram in 2020 unless I was a super casual user. I'm hoping to be able to get an M1 or whatever it might be called at that point, with 64 GB of ram. But thats for my personal use - That doesn't mean it's the right config for everybody else.
Just for fun, let's use a car analogy to compare the 8 GB and 16 GB version.
The 16 GB version is like an Audi RS 6 Avant. It's very very fast and since it's a wagon it can carry a lot of stuff.
The 8 GB version is like an Audi RS 5. It's also very very fast but it can't carry the same amount of stuff.
So for workloads where you need to move a lot of stuff, the RS 6(16 GB) will be faster. The RS 5(8 GB) version can move the same amount of stuff, but it will have to drive multiple times back and forth, making it take longer.
For situations where you don't need to move a lot stuff, you just need to move it fast. They will be more or less identical in performance.
😁
The 16 GB version is like an Audi RS 6 Avant. It's very very fast and since it's a wagon it can carry a lot of stuff.
The 8 GB version is like an Audi RS 5. It's also very very fast but it can't carry the same amount of stuff.
So for workloads where you need to move a lot of stuff, the RS 6(16 GB) will be faster. The RS 5(8 GB) version can move the same amount of stuff, but it will have to drive multiple times back and forth, making it take longer.
For situations where you don't need to move a lot stuff, you just need to move it fast. They will be more or less identical in performance.
😁
It isn't nonsense:
"Native code running on Apple Silicon is not 5 times faster than on Intel, generally, nor is Intel software running under Rosetta on Apple Silicon twice as fast as on Intel. But retaining and releasing NSObjects is so common on MacOS (and iOS), that making it 5 times faster on Apple Silicon than on Intel has profound implications on everything from performance to battery life. It’s almost silly how much faster this is natively, and quite remarkable that it’s twice as fast even translated through Rosetta.
Broadly speaking, this is a significant reason why M1 Macs are more efficient with less RAM than Intel Macs. It’s the combination of software and hardware designed together. You don’t have to take my word for this — this, in a nutshell, helps explain why iPhones run rings around even flagship Android phones, even though iPhones have significantly less RAM" - "The M1 Macs" by John Gruber
It isn't "magic" it is efficiency. It is equivalent of a gas guzzler that gets 10 miles per gallon (Intel) and a more fuel efficiency vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon (M1) both of which have a 20 gallon tank (certain amount of RAM). The gas tank in the 20 miles per gallon vehicle doesn't "magically" double - it is just more efficient with that 20 gallons of gas.
Of course in the Intel world it is 'throw more RAM at it; that'll fix the problem'.
Actually it does per efficiency. Again the way the M1 and software interact with each other changes the whole RAM dynamic. This is why an iPhone runs rings around an Android phone even though they are both ARM.
Again you are ignoring the fact that efficiency totally messes with this premise. A chip-software combo with twice the efficiency needs half the RAM, pure and simple.Personally I would never get a computer with less than 16 GB of ram in 2020 unless I was a super casual user. I'm hoping to be able to get an M1 or whatever it might be called at that point, with 64 GB of ram. But thats for my personal use - That doesn't mean it's the right config for everybody else.
What you are talking about affects the performance NOT the amount of ram needed to load X amount of data. The speed of allocating NSObjetcs is performance, not how much data can be loaded before you need to resort to swapping and other fall-back methods.
For the last time, it is NOT magic and no, the ARM nature doesn't significantly affect how much ram you need!
I used a car analogy too
It is equivalent of a gas guzzler that gets 10 miles per gallon (Intel) and a more fuel efficiency vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon (M1) both of which have a 20 gallon tank (certain amount of RAM). The gas tank in the 20 miles per gallon vehicle doesn't "magically" double - it is just more efficient with that 20 gallons of gas.
CISC got bloated with instruction sets that rarely were used and ARM was created to address this. - Intel is in serious trouble. ARM is the Future. The really funny thing is that video was posted Dec 21, 2018. Now look at time stamp 18:27 and then look at 18:36 - 7 Core GPU, 8 Core CPU, Neural Engine. Now where have we seen that recently? Why the low end 13-inch MacBook Air (Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU)
"Within the next 24-months we will see Apple transition their family of products, that have so far relied on Intel chip to their own ARM based custom SoCs." Don't know how this guy called it but he did.
Your analogy just doesn't hold up. Amount of ram doesn't have anything to do with "mileage". 100 MB of data, takes up 100 MB of data. It doesn't matter if the processor is from Intel, AMD, Apple or somebody else. In your eagerness to confirm your own belief that the M1 is kind of magic, you are misunderstanding vital parts of how RAM works and how the computer utilizes it.I used a car analogy too
It is equivalent of a gas guzzler that gets 10 miles per gallon (Intel) and a more fuel efficiency vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon (M1) both of which have a 20 gallon tank (certain amount of RAM). The gas tank in the 20 miles per gallon vehicle doesn't "magically" double - it is just more efficient with that 20 gallons of gas.
CISC got bloated with instruction sets that rarely were used and ARM was created to address this. - Intel is in serious trouble. ARM is the Future. The really funny thing is that video was posted Dec 21, 2018. Now look at time stamp 18:27 and then look at 18:36 - 7 Core GPU, 8 Core CPU, Neural Engine. Now where have we seen that recently? Why the low end 13-inch MacBook Air (Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU)
"Within the next 24-months we will see Apple transition their family of products, that have so far relied on Intel chip to their own ARM based custom SoCs." Don't know how this guy called it but he did.