Video Demos Performance Differences Between 8GB and 16GB Apple M1 MacBook Pro

Maconplasma said:
What a ridiculous post. The same can be said with Dell, HP, Lenovo and Microsoft. Your trolling isn't helpful here.
Click to expand...
TO THE DEFENCE OF THE OP.. I will state he is absolutely correct. iT IS A WASTE OF MONEY.. I feel sorry for those who got the non-upgrdable 16 inch macbook pro and spent 6000 dollars on such a paperweight.. No, Apple is a very narccicist based company with no regards to anyone but themselves. So, I am in 300 percent agreement with the other poster. Its a waste of money to keep upgrading and upgrading.
 
Maconplasma said:
Don't waste your breath. That member is hoping for bad reports of bugs so they can be right. There's been a few here hoping for bad report. They can't stand good news about Apple. The M1's have been rocking and many people here have said great things about them.
Click to expand...
The M1 Macs look amazing don’t get me wrong but not a bad idea to wait it out until all the bugs get worked out. I remember jumping on board with the gen 1 MacPro G5’s and it had nasty chud issues or something and it was a real pain and eventually all got smoothed out over time in later gen machines.
 
Last edited:
Zdigital2015 said:
Look everyone, it’s Rahtid from Intel’s Marketing Department.

Hi, Rahtid...will you be handing out swag bags or t-shirts today?!? Also, can you tell me where I can pick up my dinner voucher, thanks? Above your pay grade? Not surprised.
Click to expand...
I'm nothing to do with Intel. I prefer AMD since K7 Athlon they always had superior floating point, I've used Netburst and my only core machine is a first gen unibody 17 MBP, which lasted. I'm running AMD with nVidia and I like to use legacy software, Apple let me do that by moving to x86. No longer but as its no longer osx I'm not that invested in Apple as its back to being a periphery architecture not much use for work.
 
Populus said:
Beware of the swap disk space!

In most of the benchmarks performed on 8GB M1 machines, if Activity Monitor is shown, the swap space usage is always between 2,5GB and 4GB or even more. In my 10 years of being a mac user, I’ve never seen such big swap space being used unless I’m stressing my machine heavily, and that usage may be aging your SSD.

I have my choice clear, 16GB, even if it’s just for future-proofing my purchase.
Click to expand...
It was either arstechnica or tomshardware that explained this... I believe it had something to do with the new storage controller- something about the fact that it’s so incredibly fast that rather than a swap being necessary, but slow; with the m1 it is so fast that it is the most efficient method.
 
The fiancé is using a first gen 11” air as a daily driver. Considering she keeps it for 10 plus years I would feel foolish with less than 16 Gniewek . I was going to get her 32 gb, but I guess she will have to close some tabs.
 
SDJim said:
Did you expect groveling at your condescension? Sorry, I'll kiss each of your 4gb rings before speaking next time.

If 64gb RAM is insufficient for your workflow, then you require a workstation-class computer, placing it so far beyond what is applicable to this thread that there is no relevance whatsoever.

You were saying?
Click to expand...
I do have a workstation, a Mac Pro. OT: it’s the worst purchase of my life. Should’ve put that money into an AMD Epyc-based server and stuck with an iMac Pro for the desktop.
 
Chompineer said:
How would you like to be able to do that and still integrate it directly into the SOC for the accompanying benefits?

What’s next, being mad you can’t change out individual resistors breadboard style?
Click to expand...
There are users on these forums who would argue that both the CPU and GPU should be replaceable in laptops, so you’re not that far from the truth. The paradigm is shifting and they’re plenty happy to stay with Intel come Hell or high water.
 
The linked video is a bad one. Max clearly does not know enough about hardware beyond running benchmarks. Most of the tests do not stress RAM at all, so of course there's not much of a difference. He needs to open up 100 chrome tabs or 100 large PSDs and see how the performance changes.
 
Maconplasma said:
I would thank Max Tech rather than MR. The video would be on YouTube still without MR. Max Tech puts his heart and should into amazing test videos free of charge.
Click to expand...
Yeah man! Been looking at their videos for the best part of last week and it has been a blast. From the base Air geekbench scores, temperature camera to using Lightroom, league of legends full high quality to the more video editing benchmarks on the other Max Yuryev channel (on also the Air and MBP 13”).
Happy to finally see them being quoted this publicly.
 
RONS67 said:
I do have a workstation, a Mac Pro. OT: it’s the worst purchase of my life. Should’ve put that money into an AMD Epyc-based server and stuck with an iMac Pro for the desktop.
Click to expand...
This is totally different. When the "M1" Mac Pro comes out, and if the M series scales as I think it will, it will make the Intel Mac Pro look like a snail out for a walk. Remember we are looking at entry level Macs here ie the worst the M1 is capable of.
 
Macbookprodude said:
TO THE DEFENCE OF THE OP.. I will state he is absolutely correct. iT IS A WASTE OF MONEY.. I feel sorry for those who got the non-upgrdable 16 inch macbook pro and spent 6000 dollars on such a paperweight.. No, Apple is a very narccicist based company with no regards to anyone but themselves. So, I am in 300 percent agreement with the other poster. Its a waste of money to keep upgrading and upgrading.
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for anyone who bought a 16” to run Apple apps at home.

As a business we are not touching the M1 Macs until our applications are native. The $6000 paperweights remain earning money the same way they did 2 months ago, whereas the M1 would be the paperweight.

Also we upgrade annually normally, and it makes total financial sense to do so. Again not with personal money though - that would be stupid.
 
Rahtid said:
I think Apple is back to a pre-intel era. Marginal and this time without any benefit of being the underdog. The reverse halo effect. Everything Apple is limiting once again, good luck.
Click to expand...
Marginal? You do realize that this is just the low range of the line and it is going up against an i9, right? Wait to you see the rest.
 
RONS67 said:
It has a cooling fan to enable sustained high clock speeds on long production jobs. That puts it solidly in the pro category.
Click to expand...
LOL. That makes the Mac mini and nearly every laptop / desktop Apple has ever produced, aside from the 12" MB a "Pro" by that reasoning.
 
Last edited:
max2 said:
I have 1000s of Firefox tabs at any given time open.

This is why I have 32 GB of ram instead of 8 GB or 16 GB of ram.
Click to expand...
Dang, that's a lot of pr0n to be surfing!

1000's? Seriously? Why? Give each page 10 seconds of a 'once over' and you've blown through over 5 hours of life (and that is assuming 1000's only means two thousands).

I can't imagine a good reason to have that many tabs open, but I can think of a few evil reasons.
 
Haven’t watched the 2nd video in full yet but quickly saw issues with the analysis. Both laptops had about the same 2-1/2 GB memory in a “used” state—memory being used mostly by Geekbench probably but also by other “processes” (programs or apps). But the 16 GB laptop had roughly 5 GB more SSD data cached that won’t need to be re-read from SSD if needed again. Reading from SSD is far slower than having the data already cached in RAM. The SSD on the Air is much faster than Intel predecessors’ but it doesn’t come close to the speed of the new unified memory of the M1. Remember as well that any data on an encrypted SSD needs to be decrypted upon reading, which is performed by the M1. If macOS is doing a proper job of data protection (which I expect), SSD swap storage will be encrypted, too.

Both laptops have roughly 1+ GB memory in ‘wired’ state. This memory is unusable for file caching and apps, yet over an eigth of the 8 GB model’s memory is consumed just by wired memory (used to store VM maps and kernel code and data).

Geekbench appeared to be just frugal enough with memory to not require cached data to be dropped in order to support running processes.

The 8 GB model really only has about 7 GB memory available for apps running under low to moderate stress conditions. The 16 GB model has about 15 available. Push them hard into swapping memory to SSD and wired usage will grow, further reducing the memory available for apps and file caching.

IMHO anybody buying only 8 GB who can afford 16 is just playing harder into planned obsolescence.
 
Last edited:
Frixos said:
The people I know don’t really know the difference between an HDD and an SSD
Click to expand...
That’s what I was getting at. I’ve supported thousands of people throughout the years. The vast, vast, vast majority couldn’t understand how to remove a battery from a laptop...that was designed to be removed. The idea that ANYONE is looking at SSD writes on the secondary market 😂

Idk what that guy was talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top