Different architectures, different operating system, different applications (no, being the same named application with the same functionality does not make the internally the same), different design goals. There's four alone. Probably the largest impact is OS and application. Too much variation to reach the conclusion you have.
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
I have not ordered one but I am planning on getting the 16GB one anyway. I do overbuy on my products. Which is why I have a system with 128GB of RAM when I do not really need that much HAHA!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
Architectures would be the same now right? Its an iPad chip enhanced for the Mac. Why can't the Operating System change? And with the ability to load up iPhone and iPad apps natively they would be the same app right?
Maybe you're right but I'm far from convinced. Rumours are that Apple are releasing a small Mac Pro. It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up killing the Mini altogether. For only £300 more you can get almost the same performance as the Mini in a portable device - the Air. Previously the Mini had a much stronger CPU relative to the low-end portables.
Because macOS and iPad OS manage memory in totally different ways. If an iPad is low on memory it will evict other apps to free up memory for the app you're actively using. If macOS runs out of memory, it starts swapping to your disk drive instead but keeps all apps open. The iPad approach is not suitable for a Mac and vice-versa.
I am not advising people to wait for a better version. What I am saying is there will be growing pains during this transition. Some people may not want to invest a lot in the first generation and deal with the growing pains when an improved version is likely to be released shortly and most likely once most of the growing pains have been resolved.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
Either way it's nice to once again have Apple hardware that's unique and worth getting excited about! Fun times indeed.
I am one such person. At $699 the entry level Mini is an attractive buy. The primary reason I haven't purchased one is the growing pains. Yes, software developers are moving full throttle in releasing native software. But not everything is native. I figure by the time it is Apple will have released something better (such as mid or higher end systems) so I would want to hold off investing, say, $1,300 into the first generation system when I could take the difference and apply it to the next generation system.
Whether the OS can change or not is irrelevant. The reality is they currently are different. Same with the applications.
I dunno - RAM is pretty special. It never goes unused - any free RAM is used for caching, for example. I don't know if I would upgrade to 128GB at Apple prices, but if available I would have no problem going to 32GB. And depending on the price difference 64GB - but anything above 16GB with Apple has traditionally came at a steep premium. Which is why I hope the higher end desktops still have RAM slots like the current Mac's.
It will also be interesting to see just how much of a perf boost they get from the on-SOC RAM. Unless they only release desktop chips without integrated RAM. Will make it that much harder to do direct comparisons. Knowing how Apple is it's going to be VERY interesting to see how they hand RAM on the higher end desktops. The less they have to reveal will likely influence the path they choose; I hope practical concerns on the higher end desktops will win. If they had only done the iMac Pro and not the new Mac Pro I'd be a little more pessimistic than I feel today that they will offer things like RAM expansion on the higher end desktops. Memory is still easily upgradeable on the 27" iMacs.
It would also be fun to know if AMD is working with Apple on GPU drivers, or if Apple thinks they can go toe to toe (or good enough - which I'm sure most of us won't agree is good enough).
So many still unanswered questions. I haven't felt this way about hardware in decades - it's fun to speculate and painful to wait to see what Apple ultimately delivers!
I don’t think they’re going to kill the high end mini. They only just suddenly made it good again two years ago, and to a bit of a fanfare, because they know people where clambering for it. I know Apple has precedent to do this type of thing but I’m not sure they’re following that route anymore. They seem to have learned some lessons in this department.
Not only that, but I think they would have killed the high end mini with this update if that was the end goal. I suspect they’ll release a mini pro when the higher end chips are ready, maybe that’s even what the Mac Pro rumours are are about.
I've now decided not to buy a Mac at all until there's an AS Mac with a 64GB RAM option, ideally in the form of the 16" MBP. I just can't invest in Intel Macs right now, and I also don't want to waste money on an inadequate 16GB M1 machine. For now I'll put up with my 16GB late 2013 MBP for mobile use, and build a i9-10900K/64GB hackintosh + gaming PC with the money I haven't spent on an M1 Mac.
It's not a change in as much an entirely different philosophy on how applications and memory are managed. That fast application startup? iOS has used that for years to outright kill apps, thus freeing their memory, and leveraging that fast app reload to help mask what's going on behind the scenes.
If they tried that with macOS I'd be in the front of the line with torches and pitchforks.
Entirely different philosophical approaches. macOS, by it's very nature, *is* going to use more RAM than iOS. That's not a bug, it's a feature 🙃
It could still be their goal to kill it off. They may just have inventory to get rid of, and it's cheap for them to accommodate BTO RAM configs as it's just somebody spending 10 seconds to put the right SODIMMs in. I have seen a lot of base-spec i3 and i5 minis appear in their refurb store recently, possibly getting rid of the slower systems that look poor compared to the M1 Mini.
And I agree Apple made the Mini good again and it will be sad to see it go. Actually, I disagree. They made it great. I would own one now if it wasn't let down by is iGPU. My next Mac will be driving a 5K2K display and from what I've read the Mini is sluggish doing that.
I don't think they have a choice. The RAM will have to be external. 8GB per chip is as dense as DDR4 gets right now, as far as I know. So to match the iMac's 128GB option alone would need 16 chips, whereas Apple's photos show two chips taking up a huge amount of space on the package. Getting to 1.5TB like the Mac Pro offers? No chance if it's on the chip.
My theory is their desktop-class chips will have 8GB or 16GB onboard that acts an extra layer of cache between the CPU and external RAM. So it should maintain the advantages of the unified memory architecture close to the CPU, while benefitting from a vast pool of RAM.
I have an i7 3.2 with 32 gb. It’s a pretty epic computer I love it.
I’m convinced they’re going to divide it in to mini and mini pro. That’s what iPads iPhones, MacBooks and iMacs all follow.
I think they have turned a corner when it comes to catering to people that want power. After years of not caring for them, I think they have ‘the bug’ and will now go all out. The 2018 high end mini, the 16” MacBook Pro, the new Mac Pro, the iPad Pro, and now the new m1 chip all testify to that.
Now they need to bring their pro apps to ios and BRING BACK APERTURE FFS.
So far from what I have seen the growing pains are surprisingly minimal. Far fewer than I expected even. They really seem to have hit it out of the park with Rosetta. I mean you can create a shortcut for Terminal, get info on it, tell it to launch as x86 and install Homebrew and other cli tools and so far it seems to be pretty transparent.
That's simply amazing when you think about what is going on under the covers.
If I handed my mom an AS MBA instead of her existing one the only thing she would notice is that it's much, much faster and there isn't any fan noise (as my fan is screaming just from Safari - seriously, I think I may go back to Catalina at this point).
Right now it looks like the only show stopper is going to be something that has x86 code that Rosetta just can't handle. I haven't seen anyone report anything other than the usual suspects like Windows/boot camp yet, but then again it's only been a few days. I would expect far more reports of glitches since there is a significant component of tech YouTube that would love to be able to find something to crow about. That's what amuses me to - there are lots of people intentionally trying to break things and so far nothing significant has surfaced.
I can see why Apple was confident and bold enough to start with their highest volume/best selling Mac's first. It's a pretty brass balled move and apparently they were entirely justified in making it.
Having said that, still no reason to move if you aren't ready or compelled to. They said at least 2 years, so if you feel better sticking with Intel there is nothing wrong with that either. I just realized I might come across as coming on pretty strong for AS; and I am for me - but I certainly don't want anyone else to think they would be dumb to stick with Intel for whatever reasons. PowerPC support was quite a thing long after the first Intel Mac's were out and I suspect Apple will for at least the next five years. There are a ton of Intel Macs out there and there is no reason to antagonize a large portion of the base more than they already have with some of their recent aggressive changes in the last four years. At least now we know what many of those changes were building to
I'm thankful the machine I most need to upgrade is in the first batch, and so far there appears to be nothing but upside to the new machines. Unless something catastrophic pops up I look forward to getting my upgrade after the first of the year!
If Apple was going to go down that path then why bother with the new Mac Pro? Also I'm sure the M1 many has nothing to do with a spike of returns for Intel Minis that eventually end up in the refurb section on Apple.com. Nope
I think Apple got the message about desktop Macs several years back. If we were still in the "iMac Pro is the best you are going to get and you'll like it" Apple then I would agree that the high end mini's days are numbered, but I don't think that's today's Apple. Heck why bring out the space gray Mini period if they weren't interested in the higher end.
Also, don't forget that there are literally racks of mini's in data centers with maxed out RAM. You don't think Apple knows that? You don't think data center operators are salivating at the reduced power and cooling costs with these new Minis? Crypto coin miners with GPUs on PCs are going to have nothing on datacenter owners devouring higher end Mac Minis when they are released.
No, that's only for the low power DDR4 used in the M1. You know, the chip predominantly aimed at portable devices on batteries.
No need to be hobbled by special low power DDR4 on a pure desktop chip. And this is Apple we are talking about. While I fervently hope they have slotted RAM in the desktop Mac's, there isn't really anything forcing them to go that way. And we would likely see a significant performance boosed from RAM being on the SOC package.
Those outrageous prices Apple charges for RAM would be justified from the dense chips they would have to use.
I'm 50/50. If it delivers more than 30-40% speed increase like it's thought the advantage with the M1 is then we are toast - it will be fixed high price RAM from Apple. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but if it delivers the goods as far as speed - other than the temporary pain when you first purchase, overall will it be so bad as you reap the rewards for that design trade off over time?
Ugh. I think I'll just focus on thinking about my new MacBook Air before I give my wallet a thorough heart attack just thinking about paying Apple for 64GB or more of RAM 🙃
Oh god please - Photos is such a disaster. I miss Aperture (and no, Lightroom is NOT an Aperture replacement. If you like Lightroom then good for you. I wish I could feel the same).
If Apple was going to go down that path then why bother with the new Mac Pro? Also I'm sure the M1 many has nothing to do with a spike of returns for Intel Minis that eventually end up in the refurb section on Apple.com. Nope
There's nothing to indicate they were returns, but they started appearing frequently about a month before the M1 reveal.
Did they though? Sure we got an iMac Pro and a beautiful Mac Pro, but what has happened since then? They've been abandoned. An i9 iMac is much better value than an iMac Pro now, at less than half the cost. Its biggest selling point is that it's space grey.
Also Apple still hasn't got the message about people wanting a proper desktop Mac. The Mini is nice but people who wanted a GPU had to pay for overpriced eGPUs or forced to get an all-in-one system. People have been demanding an upgradable desktop class system for years but they never delivered. For so many people, the Mac Pro is overkill and far beyond their budget.
While this is true, I'm sure their mouths have dried up at the prospect at having to pay Apple's RAM prices. It costs £1000 to add 64GB to a Mac Mini. You can buy it yourself for £217. You'd have to use a lot of electricity to make up that difference.
If they killed the high end mini for the xMac I would be thrilled. I could move to complaining about the lack of an Apple monitor that doesn't cost three times what my computer costs!
Who's making 128Gbit chips? I can only find 64Gbit on Micron's website for example: https://www.micron.com/products/dram/ddr4-sdram
Refurbs are returns. New in box goes in the clearance section. They aren't going to rip new in box product out of a retail box and put it in refurb packaging.
I live in the Apple return/clearance sections. Decades of experience at this point
What has happened since then? Well, let's start with the lack of anything new and compelling from Intel? And then end at the topic of this thread. That might have them a little pre-occupied. Maybe.
No argument from me about the lack of the xMac/IIcx/IIci replacement. There are rumors their finally may be an AS variant. I would love that. I think it's wish casting at this point, but there is nothing I would love to be more wrong about.
With desktop macs it won't be about electricity (and it's moot since the low power DDR4 caps out at 16GB anyway) - it will be ALL about performance, baby!
What if they have a custom memory controller that could let the CPU talk to each chip simultaniously or some other crazy memory architecture we haven't even thought of yet. For Pro's time is money - they won't even bat an eye.
Which is why I'm at 50/50. My wallet hopes they stick traditional. My inner geek who doesn't understand/care about finances at all wants to see something new, exotic and above all wicked fast.
If you want something you've never had you need to do something you've never done. That's Intel's problem - it's hard for them to do something truly new. Apple has no such restrictions (or at least far, far fewer).
You know, I always liked the idea of Itanium. But, unlike Apple, Intel didn’t have the weight to push their entire userbase around. Not with AMD out there wanting to do something, ANYTHING, to gain mindshare/marketshare. I mean, it was similar to microchannel, if I read my history right.
In a lot of ways, the PC industry is tamed and corralled by a fear of someone else doing “today’s stuff, just faster” while you’re working on “truly groundbreaking, but the word ’break’ is in there for a reason”. Apple doesn’t have competition for running macOS so if they decide “going forward, all graphics cards will be TBDR”, there’s no one going to market with a compatible solution that just builds on the current tech instead. Very likely why Mac clones were killed as Steve Jobs could already see that happening.