Watch the M1 Apple Silicon MacBook Air Blaze Through Opening Every Default App

[DocNo]

If I were buying one of these new systems (and I just might) I would strongly consider the 16GB version.

For me it comes down to risk/reward. I hang onto my Macs typically for at least five years. Often longer - for me the cost of such an upgrade over my anticipated lifespan is a pittance. It's almost ridiculous to quibble over by comparison. $200 is far less than the cost of swapping an entire machine.

If you routinely change your machines out every two years, then obviously the risk is greatly reduced. If you make the wrong choice you only have to live with it for two years before you will be able to correct it.

It's like insurance. Will you pay out more for premiums vs. the value you get?

Speaking of insurance, as I stated earlier if it came down to AppleCare or the RAM I would pick the RAM every time. Then probably still score a cheap Applecare serial number off of eBay

You can also get the 7 core GPU with 16GB - that knocks $50 off the RAM upgrade. If I was counting every dollar I'd start there.

 

[djjeff]

For me it comes down to risk/reward. I hang onto my Macs typically for at least five years. Often longer - for me the cost of such an upgrade over my anticipated lifespan is a pittance. It's almost ridiculous to quibble over by comparison. $200 is far less than the cost of swapping an entire machine.

If you routinely change your machines out every two years, then obviously the risk is greatly reduced. If you make the wrong choice you only have to live with it for two years before you will be able to correct it.

It's like insurance. Will you pay out more for premiums vs. the value you get?

Speaking of insurance, as I stated earlier if it came down to AppleCare or the RAM I would pick the RAM every time. Then probably still score a cheap Applecare serial number off of eBay

You can also get the 7 core GPU with 16GB - that knocks $50 off the RAM upgrade. If I was counting every dollar I'd start there.

Given this is a new architecture I may be reluctant to spend a lot of money on a higher configuration system. At $700 the entry level M1 is an inexpensive way to test the waters. We all know Apple will be releasing more capable systems in the future so maybe I might want to dip my toe in the water with a low cost system and purchase the new and improved when it's released. This happened with the original MacBook. The first release used the CoreDuo processor and the next version, released within a year of the first, used the Core2Duo. The Core2Duo is what I really wanted and thus ended up buying it and selling off the CoreDuo model.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

But my point is my 30 second 1080p workflows do NOT require 110GB+. In fact, video professionals and educators agree that 8GB is more than enough for 1080p work. Yet I have After Effects using up 110GB of my RAM on it. That does not mean I am required to have 110GB of RAM. Just because people see 60GB of 64GB used might not mean they are required to have 64GB of RAM. Just like with my example provided.

Again, I am not saying there are ZERO use cases where you need more RAM. I don't think anyone here is saying that. I have some servers that NEED 4TB of RAM. Yes, that is terabytes.

What is with the attitude? "Who am I to tell you what system you need". Well if you need RAM-intensive systems, DON'T get the new LOW priced and powered Apple systems. Its that simple. The maxed out Mac mini was NOT replaced, so there is a chance you can still get a Mac mini with the more powerful chips next year with 32GB+ RAM.

 

[DocNo]

What is of interest to me is the pace at which Apple will be able to maintain large increases in performance. This is like being in the 90's all over again. Will AS eventually see diminishing performance gains in a similar manner being attributed to x64?

Apple has more headroom than AMD/Intel right off the bat. Headroom they can never get. And at this point, I think it's safe to say even if Apple's designers were using x86 they would be more power efficient than Intel/AMD. If for no other reason than they can drop stuff they will never use, but because Apple has obvious edges in process that no one else is getting close to - even other ARM chip producers. Yes TMC prints the chips, but they didn't design what they print - Apple does.

Having said that, I think it does a real disservice to what I see as the actual differentiator: Apple is no longer at the mercy of "one size fits all"/"Least common denominator" parts sourced out of the same bin as everyone else picks from.

System performance isn't solely determined by CPU core speed. System performance is the sum of all the parts that comprise the system

Example - look at the comments about Javascript performance in iOS and now M1 Macs in that Anandtech article. Javascript everything is a floating point number so Apple optimized the crap out of floating point performance. Javascript is heavily used in the web and I suspect most people use the web at least a few times a day.

I guess another way to look at it - Apple doesn't have to deliver CPU/Core performance to stomp all over other vendors. Look at the Neural engine and other "accelerators" baked into the M1 SOC. If Apple sees an aspect of their ecosystem (like floating point performance) used by a significant portion of highly used code (like javascript) they can address it without having to convince anyone else.

I see this as the real strength of Apple Silicon. Hyper specialization. The trade off is flexibility in running non-Apple software, but you know what? I couldn't care less. I'll happily partake of the benefits. Indeed, I think the days of the general purpose PC's from bins of off the shelf parts are coming to a close and in general that does concern me a little. It will be interesting to see how the PC market reacts. I think the performance differences in the high end machines are going to be so astonishing that anyone arguing about the strength of mashing together unoptimized parts willy nilly is going to look darn foolish.

I guess we will see!

Speaking of no longer dependent on failings of others I hope target display mode comes back to the iMac. We lost it because Intel couldn't deliver integrated graphics that could handle the 5K displays and Apple had to cobble together their own controller. I would love to see target display mode come back so I could share an iMac display with my Windows computer. Especially if they could also figure out how to let Windows use all 5K - but even 4K would be a huge space saver if I ever feel the need to replace my 2010 Mac Pro (an M series iMac may just give me such an itch!)

 

[Ethosik]

Please, oh wise and wonderful oracle of memory, tell me how much I don't need

Again, what is with the attitude? If I approach you saying I only play video games at 720p resolution, and I say I NEED a RTX 3090 to play it, I would be wrong correct?

Simply put: If your workflow needs more RAM, good. These systems are not meant for you. Did you notice that they did not replace the top spec Mac mini, any of the 16" MBP, any of the iMacs or the Mac Pro? These are the LOW END systems only.

This is exactly like complaining that a $200 Dell Desktop does not have 128GB of RAM. That computer is not meant for you.

This is going to be a 2 year transition. They did not update the higher end pro systems yet with the additional memory. People are acting like Apple announced the 2020 Mac Pro that only maxes out on 16GB of RAM. These are the LOW END SYSTEMS.

 

[DocNo]

Given this is a new architecture I may be reluctant to spend a lot of money on a higher configuration system.

Really? Apple has literally sold the farm on this transition but you think they may backtrack - or it may fail?

OK - I guess anything, however improbable, is still somewhat plausible - but seems like a silly worry.

I mean if I needed a 16" MacBook Pro (sans Windows or x86 compatibility for other software of course) and Apple had an equivalent AS MBP I'd take the AS MBP without hesitation. x86 on Mac is dead - it's not a matter of if, but when.

Luckily Apple isn't changing out everything overnight and ending all Intel support at the same time so no one needs to rush into anything - but if your needs fit within the constraints of the M1 today I wouldn't see any need to be reluctant about a higher end AS system either.

 

[Ethosik]

Your iPad is running an ENTIRELY different OS with an ENTIRELY different memory management model.

You are NOT comparing similar things. ARM is not magical. It does not change the laws of physics. Apple Silicon Macs will be FAR closer to Intel Macs for memory requirement comparisons. ARM has some efficiencies that may make a few hundred megabyte differences but it's not going to be gigabytes.

And even if the new SSDs swap fast enough that you don't notice, flash memory in SSDs has a fixed lifespan. A fixed life span that is orders of magnitude lower than RAM chips. Have fun repairing that permanently attached SSD you prematurely wear out from excessive swapping all to save $200. $40 a year if you keep it for five years. Less if you keep it longer.

If you routinely swap with 8GB on your Mac today, it would be NUTS to get an 8GB M1 Mac just because you think ARM has some sort of mystical RAM fairy.

The only reason my current '15 MBA only has 8GB is it was the max that was offered at the time. Safari has become such a pig in Big Sur I can't wait to upgrade to a machine that can hold 16GB of RAM.

Even if EVERYTHING ELSE on the iPad Pro was not running (I would still get notifications from Apps so other things are still running), Affinity Photo on the iPad with the same test with the 4GB RAM limitation was just as good as my iMac where Affinity Photo used more RAM than was even possible on the iPad. I tested with thousands of layers on both systems with the same things applied.

That means on the iPad Affinity Photo would be using at max 4GB of RAM (but not really as other things are running in the background getting notifications, the OS is still running, and more). And on my iMac it was using more than the iPad has. It doesn't matter if things were suspended in the background, the iPad Pro has 4GB Max (the 2017 one which I performed the test).

Something is clearly different. If its the App that is different, then these Arm Macs would still use less RAM potentially by running the iPad versions of the apps with the same advantages to how they handle memory in the app.

 

[mike...]

Again, what is with the attitude? If I approach you saying I only play video games at 720p resolution, and I say I NEED a RTX 3090 to play it, I would be wrong correct?

Simply put: If your workflow needs more RAM, good. These systems are not meant for you. Did you notice that they did not replace the top spec Mac mini, any of the 16" MBP, any of the iMacs or the Mac Pro? These are the LOW END systems only.

This is exactly like complaining that a $200 Dell Desktop does not have 128GB of RAM. That computer is not meant for you.

This is going to be a 2 year transition. They did not update the higher end pro systems yet with the additional memory. People are acting like Apple announced the 2020 Mac Pro that only maxes out on 16GB of RAM. These are the LOW END SYSTEMS.

Why are you replying as if my comment was directed at you?

You think the Intel Mac Minis are worth buying? People have a choice between the fast CPU + iGPU which will have longer software support from Apple, or spending £400 more to get a slower i7 and Intel GPU plus the cost of the RAM upgrade. It's not a very compelling choice, is it?

You say "the maxed out Mac Mini was not replaced" but even the base Mac Mini could be maxed out with 64GB of RAM. That Mac Mini has been replaced with one that can't.

 

[djjeff]

Really? Apple has literally sold the farm on this transition but you think they may backtrack - or it may fail?

Just the opposite I think they'll be quite successful with this direction. What I said was the M1 is their first step in this transition. There will be growing pains, such as the availability of native software, which could prevent them from reaching their full potential. By the time the growing pains are addressed Apple will have released a better version.

Because of this one may wish to dip their toe in the water on the first generation. It's exactly what happened with the first generation MacBooks. The first model used the 32-bit only CoreDuo processor whereas the next model used the 64-bit capable Core2Duo model. Anyone, like me, who purchased the CoreDuo model had to live through the growing pains, such as the availability (or not) of native applications, associated with adopting a new architecture. Many of those growing pains were resolved by the time the second model MacBook was released. Thus it may have been wise to choose the entry level white MacBook over the top of the line black MacBook.

 

[djjeff]

Even if EVERYTHING ELSE on the iPad Pro was not running (I would still get notifications from Apps so other things are still running), Affinity Photo on the iPad with the same test with the 4GB RAM limitation was just as good as my iMac where Affinity Photo used more RAM than was even possible on the iPad. I tested with thousands of layers on both systems with the same things applied.

That means on the iPad Affinity Photo would be using at max 4GB of RAM (but not really as other things are running in the background getting notifications, the OS is still running, and more). And on my iMac it was using more than the iPad has. It doesn't matter if things were suspended in the background, the iPad Pro has 4GB Max (the 2017 one which I performed the test).

Something is clearly different. If its the App that is different, then these Arm Macs would still use less RAM potentially by running the iPad versions of the apps with the same advantages to how they handle memory in the app.

Uh yeah, that's what people have been trying to tell you. There is too much variation to to make the conclusion you have. If secondary storage can only supply data at 16GB/sec then it doesn't matter if the processor is capable of ingesting it at 30GB/sec or 100GB/sec. The weak link is the secondary storage transfer limitation.

 

[Ethosik]

Uh yeah, that's what people have been trying to tell you. There is too much variation to to make the conclusion you have. If secondary storage can only supply data at 16GB/sec then it doesn't matter if the processor is capable of ingesting it at 30GB/sec or 100GB/sec. The weak link is the secondary storage transfer limitation.

People have not specified the details. Just "THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!!" I want to know HOW. How is it Affinity Photo on the iPad with the 4GB limitation can do the same thing at the same performance as the iMac version which requires way more RAM to do? And why can't that same improvements be made to the new computers?

If its just the iPad version of Affinity Photo handling memory more efficiently, then we can still benefit by running iPhone and iPad apps that have these efficiencies in place.

 

[Ethosik]

Why are you replying as if my comment was directed at you?

You think the Intel Mac Minis are worth buying? People have a choice between the fast CPU + iGPU which will have longer software support from Apple, or spending £400 more to get a slower i7 and Intel GPU plus the cost of the RAM upgrade. It's not a very compelling choice, is it?

You say "the maxed out Mac Mini was not replaced" but even the base Mac Mini could be maxed out with 64GB of RAM. That Mac Mini has been replaced with one that can't.

Uh yeah, high end Mac mini with an eGPU setup is still miles ahead the new ones they just introduced. It cannot beat my 5700XT eGPU in performance.

 

[mike...]

Uh yeah, high end Mac mini with an eGPU setup is still miles ahead the new ones they just introduced. It cannot beat my 5700XT eGPU in performance.

Miles ahead if you need an eGPU otherwise it's miles behind

 

[Ethosik]

Miles ahead if you need an eGPU otherwise it's miles behind

That is exactly what I said.....

 

[cupcakes2000]

Uh yeah, high end Mac mini with an eGPU setup is still miles ahead the new ones they just introduced. It cannot beat my 5700XT eGPU in performance.

Of course they can’t. But soon they’ll replace the high end Mac mini’s, I suspect then your config will fair worse against them.

 

[Ethosik]

Of course they can’t. But soon they’ll replace the high end Mac mini’s, I suspect then your config will fair worse against them.

That is still the point I am making. They have not replaced the high end Mac minis yet we have people screaming that 16GB of RAM max is out of this world. Next year we WILL get systems that allow more RAM. These are just the LOWEST of the LOW Apple systems available. People are expecting too much from these systems.

 

[DocNo]

Something is clearly different. If its the App that is different, then these Arm Macs would still use less RAM potentially by running the iPad versions of the apps with the same advantages to how they handle memory in the app.

Perhaps. If the iPad app feels far more clunky with a mouse/keyboard vs. the native Mac version memory will be the least of your concerns.

I would love to see a magical reduction in RAM requirements - again, who has ever complained about having too much RAM? Nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong. I'd still buy the 16GB version

 

[cupcakes2000]

You say "the maxed out Mac Mini was not replaced" but even the base Mac Mini could be maxed out with 64GB of RAM. That Mac Mini has been replaced with one that can't.

It’s clear to someone who is a tech follower, like yourself, that what you’re saying is here is just to somehow prove your point.
You KNOW that they have used this opportunity to create a low Mac mini with the new chip, the cost is reduced and the spec is reduced - aside the new chip.
You can clearly see the intel high end versions are still for sale, and you obviously know or like the rest of us, strongly suspect that a new higher performance mac mini is in the pipeline.
Your argument is literally just for arguments sake. Like you have done all over this thread.

 

[Ethosik]

Perhaps. If the iPad app feels far more clunky with a mouse/keyboard vs. the native Mac version memory will be the least of your concerns.

I would love to see a magical reduction in RAM requirements - again, who has ever complained about having too much RAM? Nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong. I'd still buy the 16GB version

Again, don't get me wrong. There are clearly different workflows that require a WIDE range of RAM. I have MANY MANY computers from 8 GB of RAM to 128GB of RAM. I have some servers that have 4TB of RAM and it NEEDS it. So I clearly understand what is needed and when.

 

[Ethosik]

It’s clear to someone who is a tech follower, like yourself, that what you’re saying is here is just to somehow prove your point.
You KNOW that they have used this opportunity to create a low Mac mini with the new chip, the cost is reduced and the spec is reduced - aside the new chip.
You can clearly see the intel high end versions are still for sale, and you obviously know or like the rest of us, strongly suspect that a new higher performance mac mini is in the pipeline.
Your argument is literally just for arguments sake. Like you have done all over this thread.

Thank you. This is my point that these systems are the lowest of the low end products. Apple said this will be a 2 year transition.

I do suspect we would have seen something different if COVID did not happen. This might have delayed the more higher end Mac mini for example. After all, for a while you couldn't have as many workers in the office engineering these chips.

 

[vladi]

Ok don't want to get into RAM discussion here because you can do this: Resolve 17.1 is native M1 app, download it and use Fusion tab, start making comps, if you don't know how I will paste a code below and then see what happens to RAM. Fusion is all about RAM to boost performance, forget cores, forget GPU it's workflow is RAM.

Go to this link, copy and paste this into Fusion tab inside Resolve 17.1

https://www.steakunderwater.com/VFXPedia/96.0.243.189/images/1_Day_Left_Dunn_G.comp

 

[DocNo]

Just the opposite I think they'll be quite successful with this direction. What I said was the M1 is their first step in this transition. There will be growing pains, such as the availability of native software, which could prevent them from reaching their full potential. By the time the growing pains are addressed Apple will have released a better version.

Because of this one may wish to dip their toe in the water on the first generation. It's exactly what happened with the first generation MacBooks. The first model used the 32-bit only CoreDuo processor whereas the next model used the 64-bit capable Core2Duo model. Anyone, like me, who purchased the CoreDuo model had to live through the growing pains, such as the availability (or not) of native applications, associated with adopting a new architecture. Many of those growing pains were resolved by the time the second model MacBook was released. Thus it may have been wise to choose the entry level white MacBook over the top of the line black MacBook.

So far apps under emulation are still outperforming them running natively on older hardware. And vendors seem to be producing ARM versions pretty quickly. Heck even *Adobe* has an ARM Photoshop beta out. I'm sure the whole carbon/32bit fiasco was hot on both Apple and Adobe's mind, especially since Apple has come a long way with the Mac from when all that went down the first time.

Don't forget tooling has dramatically improved - I think they did themselves more disservice by calling it Rosetta again. This isn't your fathers Rosetta! Xcode is completely different, Apple has been aggressively pushing folks more to public frameworks where Apple does the heavy lifting, etc. The Mac development ecosystem is in an entirely different place.

Indeed, with the CoreDuo transition Intel was a completely unknown quantity to developers; not so with ARM since the iPhone/iPad is now over 10 years old. I think that's why you are seeing so many apps popping up with ARM native versions so quickly. Indeed, going forward I think the code reuse between iPad and Mac apps is going to ignite changes we can't even anticipate. We may finally get a Mac version of Overcast! If nothing else I'll be able to run the iPad version 🙃

Finally waiting for a better version - there is always going to be a better version. If you don't have a compelling reason to buy then no one should feel compelled to get a new Mac. I feel compelled because my 8GB 2015 MBA is currently sitting on a 4.26GB swap file because I have a few dozen tabs open in Safari with Big Sur Having a Retina screen on my Mac would also be a huge upgrade. I'm tempted to wait for the 16", but I really love the size/weight of the MBA and I think that plus not having to wait will eventually win.

Either way it's nice to once again have Apple hardware that's unique and worth getting excited about! Fun times indeed.

 

[Ethosik]

Ok don't want to get into RAM discussion here because you can do this: Resolve 17.1 is native M1 app, download it and use Fusion tab, start making comps, if you don't know how I will paste a code below and then see what happens to RAM. Fusion is all about RAM to boost performance, forget cores, forget GPU it's workflow is RAM.

Go to this link, copy and paste this into Fusion tab inside Resolve 17.1

I do not know how Resolve works. I do know how Adobe works that the more RAM you have, the more it will use. That doesn't mean you are required to use that much RAM though. Again, video professionals/educators (and my own testing) all agree that 8GB of RAM is enough for 1080p video editing - which is what I do 95% of the time. So why is my Adobe After Effects taking up 110GB out of 128GB? Because the more RAM I have the more it uses. I don't think anyone here would say I NEED 128GB of RAM if I am just doing 1080p video editing.

Does Resolve work this way too?

 

[djjeff]

Not really sure what the point of this video is. I just performed the same test on my early 2016 MacBook (1.2GHz Core m5, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD). Applications opened just as quickly on it as they did on this M1 system. In fact what slowed me down was the use of the built in trackpad. If I had a mouse I could have moved across the dock faster.

Memory consumption after all this? 3.6GB Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[DocNo]

I do not know how Resolve works. I do know how Adobe works that the more RAM you have, the more it will use. That doesn't mean you are required to use that much RAM though. Again, video professionals/educators (and my own testing) all agree that 8GB of RAM is enough for 1080p video editing - which is what I do 95% of the time.

If you are going to do routine video editing why wouldn't you spend $200 on an extra 8GB of RAM? Just to prove a point?

Better you than me