Apple Silicon (ARM based) Macs buyers and owners thread (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Carlo,

I have heard that argument and believed it for quite some time.

However, there are others who still insist that RAM is RAM no matter what architecture it is attached to.



There are countless discussions on the other Mac forums about whether 8GB Intel Ram is equal to 16GB on a silicone machine. So far, the answer I get is that there is no difference.

It doesn’t help that, unless I missed something, Apple hasn’t even talked about how differently RAM behaves in their silicone machines. Perhaps it’s to their advantage that they don’t.

And you can sit here and poke fun at the way I use my computer and my need for a lot of ram since I have dozens of startup programs running at once. That’s my decision and it works for me. All I can tell you is that I returned an M1 Mac Mini with 16GB of ram because it choked when compared to my Intel with 64GB of ram (which I would estimate was only using 32GB total).

Here is a quote I found that I don’t completely understand but might explain what is going on…

The seeming smaller impact of swap could be explained by the better performance of moving pages between swap/RAM. The larger RAM pages of the M1, along with the faster 4KiB-16KiB read/write performance of the SSD controller certainly can help make swap less painful, meaning that even if you are pushing an 8GB machine, the M1 might come out of it feeling much snappier than the Intel equivalent, despite similar RAM usage.

UMA does limit the amount of RAM you lose to the iGPU though, up to 1.5GB (max). That does make 8GB go further than it might otherwise.

 

[Carlo_M]

So I won't click on that guy because...I won't give him any more ad dollars. I think of his opinion as...well not worth the time it would take to click on it. That dude makes crazy YT money preying on those who think he...well I'll just stop here before I say something really nasty about him.

As far as "countless discussions". It's exactly that. Discussions. Likely by people who aren't any more knowledgeable than your average keyboard warrior.

It's how the machine works for your workflow. I seem to recall you had one and returned it. Was it slowing you down? If so, then it's a good thing you returned it. But if you returned it out of fear that "well it's fast right now but some day it might slow you down" - well again that's your money and your decision, but that doesn't mean that it was slow for your needs. I don't make fun of the way you run your computer. Run it how you like, it's your experience, not mine.

I can only tell you that I had a 12 track Logic Pro session with multiple effects per track, a multi-tab Chrome browser up, Word, Excel and Powerpoint, and I cycled through all five apps doing things and there was nary a slowdown or hiccup. That right there is more use case than I'd say 95% of people who will buy a Macbook Pro. Maybe 98%. Apple is creating devices that they can ensure meet that use case (and again I'm nowhere near maxing it out, or overtaxing it). There's not much point in them creating a device to cater to that last 1-2%. Remember, it's not just that you'd like a machine with 64GB RAM. It's that you'd like them to make every Macbook Pro of that line you want to buy capable of 64GB, which will add to their cost, which they'll pass down to the consumer, which will have an adverse effect on their market share. Remember to go up to 64GB, you're not just asking them "hey make another RAM module available to me". You're asking them "hey, create a whole new architecture that supports 64GB and throw out your 32GB architecture".

If I'm Apple and I have to make 18 million of these, am I going to cater to the handful of people who want that extra 32GB and drive up my cost for the other 17.9+ million units? Apple is just like every other company. There's a huge dollars and cents component, and your specific need would drive up that cost for every other machine they make, with very little ROI for them.

 

[Carlo_M]

Your situation, Ron, reminds me of a quandary I was in with Apple a few years ago. I too wanted something that clearly they weren't going to give me because I was in an edge case. I love the Mac OS ecosystem. But I also loved PC gaming. I had to get to the point where I had to realize Apple wasn't going to give me what I wanted, which was PC gaming on the Mac. And no, Bootcamp wouldn't have worked because I would have needed to have a desktop where I could easily swap out for more powerful video cards like you can on PC.

So you know what I ended up doing? I voted with my feet (and dollars). I built a PC gaming rig and it's done me right ever since. Sometimes we want things Apple isn't going to give us because, when they do the calculus, it's just not feasible for them to re-do an entire product line to cater to niche needs. And I'd hazard a guess there's a lot more Apple users who'd love to be able to easily swap video cards and play PC games than want 64GB upper RAM limit. And if they're not catering to that group...

Apple got to be a 2 trillion dollar company not by building the most powerfully spec'd out computer possible. They got there by providing the best user experience for their target audience, while maintaining a healthy profit margin. There's a whole lot of calculus that goes on in doing all of that, some of which we wouldn't like if we were privy to it. Kind of like the scene from Fight Club:

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Carlo,

I am not a huge Rene Ritchie fan either. However, I had the same question you had about RAM in silicone machines and I spent weeks trying to find the answer across Mac forums, Reddit, and you name it.

Nobody has a clear answer to that question. Whether Rene Ritchie actually knows what he is talking about I don’t know. If you go to that YouTube video on their page and read the comments absolutely no-one is disputing his claims.

And I am fine with 32GB of RAM if indeed it performed as well as 64GB on an Intel. But again, nobody really knows that so of course, if Apple did release their upcoming MBP with a limited 32GB and no explanation of how well it performed then people are going to be upset. If their new M2/MX2 architecture only supports a max of 32GB then at least come out and admit it. Would really stop the wealth of questions from those of us out here that are completely uneducated on all of this.

All of this confusion could easily be calmed if Apple came out and said that RAM performs twice as well on silicone architecture than it does on Intel. They aren’t doing that, so of course, the next best thing you have is Rene Ritchie. And those who are seeing improvements with RAM, is it the actual RAM or is it the improved silicone architecture and its improved memory management?

It's how the machine works for your workflow. I seem to recall you had one and returned it. Was it slowing you down? If so, then it's a good thing you returned it. But if you returned it out of fear that "well it's fast right now but some day it might slow you down" - well again that's your money and your decision, but that doesn't mean that it was slow for your needs. I don't make fun of the way you run your computer. Run it how you like, it's your experience, not mine.

No, I actually did a test loading the same amount of startup programs on the 16GB M1 as I did on the 64GB Intel. I didn’t get nearly all of the programs installed before the M1 started choking at startup. So, for me, that proved that I wasn’t getting twice the amount of RAM performance (as I think I only normally use 32GB of my 64GB) as I was on the Intel.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Your situation, Ron, reminds me of a quandary I was in with Apple a few years ago. I too wanted something that clearly they weren't going to give me because I was in an edge case. I love the Mac OS ecosystem. But I also loved PC gaming. I had to get to the point where I had to realize Apple wasn't going to give me what I wanted, which was PC gaming on the Mac. And no, Bootcamp wouldn't have worked because I would have needed to have a desktop where I could easily swap out for more powerful video cards like you can on PC.

So you know what I ended up doing? I voted with my feet (and dollars). I built a PC gaming rig and it's done me right ever since. Sometimes we want things Apple isn't going to give us because, when they do the calculus, it's just not feasible for them to re-do an entire product line to cater to niche needs. And I'd hazard a guess there's a lot more Apple users who'd love to be able to easily swap video cards and play PC games than want 64GB upper RAM limit. And if they're not catering to that group...

Apple got to be a 2 trillion dollar company not by building the most powerfully spec'd out computer possible. They got there by providing the best user experience for their target audience, while maintaining a healthy profit margin. There's a whole lot of calculus that goes on in doing all of that, some of which we wouldn't like if we were privy to it. Kind of like the scene from Fight Club:

Your situation is different than mine mainly because I don’t game.

I switched from being a long-time PC user to a Mac user decades ago because I was tired of buying buggy custom built Windows machines from major companies. I was also tired of having to constantly format and reinstall Windows because of virus issues.

Apple has always given me everything I wanted with a few setbacks. For a few years, their MacBook Pros were struggling to find their way — especially with their faulty keyboards. One year they introduced a top-tier MBP that maxed out at 32GB. They got so much flack for it that the following year they rolled out a 64GB model.

I have never particularly needed the most powerful spec’d computer possible. However, the way I use my computer, RAM is the most important element. Sometimes, I run a virtual Windows machine at the same time I run all those startup programs so I am actually pushing the 64GB limitations. Again, my situation is unique, but I don’t mind paying for the ram knowing how well it benefits me.

But you are right, despite the setbacks along the way, Apple still provides the best user experience for its target audience. The ecosystem and the way the watch, iPad, iPhone and even speakers all communicate with each other is pretty darn amazing.

 

[Carlo_M]

I didn't mean to equate gaming with RAM. I was equating both of our stated desires for something that [apparently] Apple has no interest in currently providing. They can easily allow PC gaming/peripheral upgradability (they had it for the old Mac Pros) but they clearly crunched the numbers and didn't find it in their best interest to go down that route. I have zero doubt that Apple could create an M-class SOC that could have 64GB, 128GB, etc. max capacity. But nothing comes for free. That would likely increase their costs, and they're not just creating a one-off machine for you, they'd have to re-tool for all the 18 million Macbook Pros they sell in a year. Plus it would likely require a larger logic board for the added memory chips, etc. which would possibly impact their physical design (let's not forget that form, size, lightness, etc. are all part of the Apple calculus).

To get back to the RAM, when you had your M-class machine, did you overwhelm it's RAM to the point where it felt slower than your previous Mac? Because I've now had a few more hours of messing around on my M1 MBP and I seriously can't find anything where it's not faster (often significantly) than the 2019 16" MBP.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

To get back to the RAM, when you had your M-class machine, did you overwhelm it's RAM to the point where it felt slower than your previous Mac? Because I've now had a few more hours of messing around on my M1 MBP and I seriously can't find anything where it's not faster (often significantly) than the 2019 16" MBP.

Yes. I simply started slowly installing all the programs that I had on my 16” MBP

At some point, before the installation of all those programs were complete, I started having issues where when I did a reboot, the startup would actually hang, waiting for those startup programs to launch. I also believe my CPU was peaking at full-max and remaining that way for a good couple of minutes before it started inching down to normal levels. This caused a complete slowdown.

 

[Sam Posten]

There is absolutely no reason for consumers to have more than 16gb of ram. Logic, FCPX, and all other media creation tools run fine in 16gb even with a normal amount of other professional apps loaded at the same time. Sure, you can load an unreasonable number of apps into RAM but that’s not how the machines are designed to operate.

As far as "countless discussions". It's exactly that. Discussions. Likely by people who aren't any more knowledgeable than your average keyboard warrior.

And again, some of us in this discussion are actually in the developer program for more than just funsies and have 30+ years of software development in a variety of operating systems. We understand how the different categories of RAM, CPU, unified memory, swap and other portions of the stack work.

A section of radical and vocal users might gripe that they -want- more RAM but they absolutely do not -need- it unless they are running scientific and professional loads with enormous data sets on the scale of national assets. Those users absolutely should be buying bespoke workstations and not off the shelf Macs.

 

[Carlo_M]

Yes. I simply started slowly installing all the programs that I had on my 16” MBP

At some point, before the installation of all those programs were complete, I started having issues where when I did a reboot, the startup would actually hang, waiting for those startup programs to launch. I also believe my CPU was peaking at full-max and remaining that way for a good couple of minutes before it started inching down to normal levels. This caused a complete slowdown.

Interesting. I know (very few) people who put as much memory pressure as you do. But I know no one who puts that much memory pressure on startup (i.e. via launch apps/startup processes). I'm afraid Ron you're not even in the 1% use case. You may be in the 0.01% use case. As such, you may be waiting quite a bit for Apple to organically progress to meet your needs. I'm fairly confident they'll eventually release a 64GB max computer, but it likely won't be this current iteration, and may not even be next year's iteration.

They have their ear to the ground and if, once they get the 32GBs out the door, there isn't a groundswell of "give me 64GB" by a significant portion of their users (and I'm going to guess there won't be), they will be in no hurry to put in the R&D resources to increase the cap when there's no significant market need for it.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Interesting. I know (very few) people who put as much memory pressure as you do. But I know no one who puts that much memory pressure on startup (i.e. via launch apps/startup processes). I'm afraid Ron you're not even in the 1% use case. You may be in the 0.01% use case. As such, you may be waiting quite a bit for Apple to organically progress to meet your needs. I'm fairly confident they'll eventually release a 64GB max computer, but it likely won't be this current iteration, and may not even be next year's iteration.

They have their ear to the ground and if, once they get the 32GBs out the door, there isn't a groundswell of "give me 64GB" by a significant portion of their users (and I'm going to guess there won't be), they will be in no hurry to put in the R&D resources to increase the cap when there's no significant market need for it.

Well, that is still the unknown.

We are taking the word of one source leaking information that may or may not be true.

If Apple could do it, they would not hesitate to offer 64GB of ram in their silicone MBP. They have been doing it in their Intel machines for years. Would they continue offering it if there wasn’t a demand for it and the cost of offering it outweighed their profit margin?

The only reason they would not do it would be if the architecture doesn’t support the memory. That could be an issue.

And I am fine being in the 0.01% case as long as I don’t have to continually justify to others why I run my laptop the way I do. Additionally, I tend to weather the storms pretty well. If the upcoming 16” only maxes out at 32GB of RAM then I’ll have to buy it as offered. I usually buy every new laptop Apple offers so it’s just a matter of time until I am back at 64GB.

 

[Sam Posten]

The only reason they would not do it would be if the architecture doesn’t support the memory. That could be an issue.

yeah I’m out on this conversation. Have fun

 

[DaveF]

So I won't click on that guy because...I won't give him any more ad dollars. I think of his opinion as...well not worth the time it would take to click on it. That dude makes crazy YT money preying on those who think he...well I'll just stop here before I say something really nasty about him.

What don’t you like about Renee Ritchie? (I rarely watch his videos, but I enjoy him when he’s a guest on podcasts I listen to.)

 

[Carlo_M]

Everything. For whatever reason he just grates on me. I think he’s a slightly more knowledgeable than average Mac user guy passing himself off as an expert. Luckily he regularly puts himself in his thumbnails so I know not to click when a video of his is linked.

 

[Carlo_M]

Also in addition to what I wrote above, I think for whatever reason he fits under this category for me...

(PS don't take too seriously, this is just my personal feeling)

 

[DaveF]

Ok then I don’t watch his videos in small part because I hate his poster images so much. But he’s explained them on twitter: big-expression video preview images bring views, and when he didn’t use them his views dropped significantly. Hate the game, not the player.

But I do like him as a guest on podcasts and he’s been one of my favorite newer regulars on MacBreak Weekly. Though after over ten years of weekly listening, I finally stopped listening to MBW earlier this year.

There’s a completely different tech-commentator that’s pretty popular and been around for years that I’ve given up on. He was a guest on a podcast I listen to weekly, and I just punched out and deleted the episode when his section started. He went from quirky-interesting, to getting tedious with his schtick, to personally gross for me. Sometimes, a “personality” just doesn’t work for us.

 

[DaveF]

As for the RAM issue

We’ll know how much RAM the new MBP has when there’s a new MBP. I think it’s premature to get worried about not having enough RAM for a non-existant machine with non-existant upgrade options.

But reviews I’ve read say, as Carlo summarized, that because of the speed of the solid state storage propelled by the speed of the M1, supporting active RAM as an super-fast drive cache, these new computers can do big heavy workloads with much less “RAM” than previously possible with x86 computers.

I don’t know who needs 16GB or 32GB or 64GB or why. This will be an active concern of mine when there’s new iMacs to buy. But I suspect that a lot of enthusiasts have more emotional need of bignum RAM than actual computational need.

But enthusiasts do weird things that are marginally supported by the big vendors — I live there with my media PC. So, if you do weird stuff and need some niche extreme computer configuration, more power to you. But unfortunately that can sometimes require you pick less than favorite hardware to get that weird support you need. (Which is why nVidia Shield is my preferred movie device over AppleTV.)

 

[Thomas Newton]

I do, so allow me to enjoy it! And, you can bet there will be a lot of disappointed Mac owners if this turns out to be true.

Quite frankly, I can't see Apple releasing the new pro without 64GB capability.

The Apple-Silcon-based Mac Pro desktop is likely to be in a class of its own, way above the iMacs and Minis. Current Intel-based 27" iMacs can take up to 128 GB of RAM, but some of the Mac Pros accept 1.5 TB.

So the question is more, what will the features and limitations of the 27" iMacs, 16" MacBook Pros, high-end Minis, and high-end 13" MacBook Pros be?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

The Apple-Silcon-based Mac Pro desktop is likely to be in a class of its own, way above the iMacs and Minis. Current Intel-based 27" iMacs can take up to 128 GB of RAM, but some of the Mac Pros accept 1.5 TB.

So the question is more, what will the features and limitations of the 27" iMacs, 16" MacBook Pros, high-end Minis, and high-end 13" MacBook Pros be?

The feature limitations we won't know for a few more weeks. However, I think we are asking nearly the same questions.

Is it the architecture that is limiting the amount of RAM being offered, is it Apple limiting the RAM it offers, or does silicone perform that much better that it doesn't need the kind of RAM Intel does?

(And again, we don't even know that the 14" and 16" models will only offer 32GB. Consider that nonsense at this point)

Those are the unanswered questions and somehow I have ruffled feathers asking those questions, but seriously, this is a learning experience for a lot of people.

 

[Thomas Newton]

My question, because silicone architecture is completely new to everyone...

Is it the architecture that is limiting the amount of RAM being offered, is it Apple limiting the RAM it offers, or does silicone perform that much better that it doesn't need the kind of RAM Intel does?

Those are the unanswered questions and somehow I have ruffled feathers asking those questions, but seriously, this is a learning experience for a lot of people.

It's unlikely that the instruction set architecture is limiting the maximum amount of RAM. The architecture of a particular Apple Silicon chip may be a different story.

No CPU of any type available in the near future is going to support 2^64 bytes of actual RAM, a.k.a. 16 billion billion bytes of RAM. This would blow up memory mapping tables, cache, and the space required to hold the RAM way beyond the limits feasible with today's technology. An advantage of 64-bit addressing is that if you slowly increase physical addressing from, say, 35 bits (32 GB) in one CPU, to, say, 37 bits (128 GB) in another, there's no need to recode all of your existing application binaries.

I do not know if the M1's 16 GB limit reflects some hardware architectural limit of the M1's virtual memory and cache implementation; if it's simply the most RAM Apple can easily stuff into the physical space allotted in the SoC package; or if they could ship 64 GB M1s and have simply chosen not to do so.

However, if they are designing a M1X/M2 to replace machines that currently support 64 – 128 GB of RAM, it is extremely likely that the M1X/M2 will support at least 32 GB of RAM, and probably more, in some fashion. The chances that a M3 chip for a Mac Pro will support gobs of RAM would seem to approach near-certainty.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thomas,

The reply you gave is perhaps the best explanation and I apologize, I should have been more specific and said “chip” rather than architecture as the limiting factor to how much memory can be paired with it.

I could never figure out if the 16GB limitation was due to how much Apple could pair with the M1 or they just decided to keep their first silicone products entry level machines.

Thanks for taking the time to provide that explanation.