Unless Apple swings Mac sales this is not happening. I would like to remind you that mobile app developers went on to support Android which did not have a proper SDK, was slower, less stable than Windows Mobile, Palm webOS or Blackberry 10 only because it was available on more devices than these three superior mobile OSes.
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.
Watch the M1 Apple Silicon MacBook Air Blaze Through Opening Every Default App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unless Apple swings Mac sales this is not happening. I would like to remind you that mobile app developers went on to support Android which did not have a proper SDK, was slower, less stable than Windows Mobile, Palm webOS or Blackberry 10 only because it was available on more devices than these three superior mobile OSes.
You do realize, that no architecture changes how much RAM a certain amount of data needs. If I load an image with 100Mpix 8bit RGB into RAM, then I need 100M * 3 byte (300MB) of memory for that. No matter whether it's ARM, x86 or whatever exotic architecture.
The M1 won't change that. So people who need a lot of RAM, still need a lot of RAM.
The M1 won't change that. So people who need a lot of RAM, still need a lot of RAM.
Which, at this point in time, is very little. Opening a bunch of default applications quickly is IMO, not something upon which to start writing Intels obituary.
Sadly there are many who do not realize this. I have been discussing this exact thing with several people and, despite technical explanations and data, they still don't believe it. One used the memory consumed here to show how much better ARM was at memory management. I repeated this exercise on my 2012 base Mini which consumed slightly more than half of the memory consumed in this video. Crickets are chirping from that individual:
Starts here
So that's it? No further models from Apple? The entire product line is going to be these AS Macs?
His $15,000 Mac Pro can't do that cause he doesn't have proper SSD and GPU for such workload. What you see here is in the domain of Apple Afterburner but done internally inside the chip with SSD being two times faster than previous model. Basically it's behaving like CUDA. All of his videos (including R5) are either H265/H264/QT and these have hardware acceleration on the new chip. We knew that would come. Intel has the similar feature called AVX which also helps with transcoding video, FCPX has coded in support for orginal AVX back in 2013 and that was it. They never followed through the evolution of it.
I know 🤦🏻♂️ the forums are full of these people trying to tell technical people that clearly know what they're talking about, that they do not know what they're talking about and will be fine with 8GB/16GB RAM. I just don't understand their mentality. It's driving me crazy.
That does not invalidate the claims posted here. The scenarios I have tested comparing an iPad Pro to my 2019 i9 iMac with 64GB of RAM.
If you NEED more than 16GB of RAM, you need more than 16GB of RAM. But these things have proven to be more memory efficient and even reviewers are stating this. Even with Lightroom which is a memory hog, running in Rosetta, is not using as much memory compared to the Intel systems.
Programs tend to use more memory the more you have installed. I have a 30 second Adobe After Effect project. On 16GB of RAM it takes up 11 GB. On my 128 GB RAM system it takes up 110 GB. It doesn't mean I need 110 GB or more. They both perform the same in real world workflow.
If you need dozens of virtual machines, heavy statistical analysis, Logic Pro with thousands of instruments/effects, 16K video production or many other VERY high end tasks, then yes obviously you would need more than 16GB. But these systems were NEVER meant for you to begin with. You would be looking at the next 16" MBP, iMac or Mac Pro instead.
This type of back and forth is not really helpful for the conversations. OF COURSE there are workflows that need more than 16GB of RAM - I have some use cases where a server needs 4 TB of RAM. I don't think anyone is stating 16GB of RAM works for EVERYONE. People are seeing memory more efficient and reviews are too.
My 8-core iMac Pro is crying. At least it's crying silently as it has one damn fine cooling system.
No, they have not. At least not that I've seen. The M1 processor does not magically reduce memory requirements. At least not that anyone has been able to explain.
The reason this happens, quite logically, is that applications can detect how much RAM is available and ask for more to be allocated if it is. Why? Because keeping data in memory that could be re-used is faster than having to reload from disk or recalculate it all in some way. Adobe didn't make After Effects do that just for fun. They do it because more RAM accelerates performance. Not all workloads will scale like this. Some will need a fixed, but large amount. Some may do something in between, and have a fixed minimum requirement but be able to use extra memory for caching various things to improve performance.
Who are you to tell me what system I need? Previously I could buy a Mac Mini and add 64GB of RAM to it. That's no longer an option (well ok it is, but I'd be buying a slower legacy Intel system to get it which is a very poor compromise).
My workload is RAM-intensive, not CPU or GPU intensive. I don't need to pay for a Mac Pro that I don't need, and would never consider an iMac due to its small integrated display.
Last edited:
My 2015 iMac on Big Sur takes sometimes up to 30 seconds to launch an app. This new M1 is just in another GALAXY in terms of performance and I am dying to get one.
Can we get another stimulus check now? Thanks. 😅
Can we get another stimulus check now? Thanks. 😅
Your iMac is unfortunately hamstrung by Apple's stupid decision to keep shipping them with mechanical drives for the best part of a decade after MacBooks switched to flash.
The original poster said “what happens when you use them all at once and really need them”. These are ALL lightweight programs, you just switch to it and use it. Additionally, there’s no one using Keynote and Numbers and GarageBand simultaneously. Maybe Safari could be downloading something in the background, maybe Podcasts could be playing, but those are all lightweight tasks. There’s not an intensive app in the bunch. The only apps shown are the ones that the vast majority of macOS users will actually use.
Tell me about it, the drive on that thing is so slow I literally hate using it. I just basically use my iPad almost exclusively now and will continue to do so until I switch Macs again.
Yeah, also note the M1 mini is not available in the “pro” color. There’s at least one more shoe here.
Intel’s 14nm design rules are essentially the same as TSMC’s 10nm design rules.
So, yes, 14mn Intel vs 5nm TSMC is very bad for Intel.
And Intel designers are bad. You say they milked the original design from 8 to 64 bits. That’s not true. Intel’s 64-bit design was Merced/Itanium, which was a disaster and was not based on 8086.
That’s why Intel had to retreat and use *our* ISA design (AMD). Because Intel has bad designers.
It's not that they had (have) bad designers but rather they attempted to take PCs in a direction away from the x86 architecture. The very architecture most everyone (it seems) says is holding Intel back. Itanium was an attempt to break away from it. Due to the large installed base of x86 software few people wanted a break from x86, at least not if it broke (I would classify significantly decreased performance in that definition of broke) their existing software.
I am not sure what is up with their process issues. They really need to work those out.
If you keep it for 5 years it will be the best $40 a year you spent
I don't get this whole "x amount per year" thing. Are we buying the machines or are we renting the machines?If you keep it for 5 years it will be the best $40 a year you spent
Fact is: Apple's surcharge for RAM and SSD is ridiculously high. Not only with the M1 but also with other machines. But on MacBooks and all M1 machines you can't do it yourself anyway. Not even for the SSD.
According to independent testing using Cinebench R23, Apple’s M1 silicon scores among the top in single-threaded performance, but among the lowest scores for multi-threaded performance.
You are completely wrong, “they knew pros would jump on them as soon as released and then get mad” how would you know this? Please elaborate
Also I guarantee you don’t need 32gb or even 16gb of memory.