12 ms·

1. You can add more 2. New RAM is not like old RAM. Macs are dramatically more optimized than they used to be. I have a MacBook Air (M1) with 16GB of RAM and

1. You can add more 2. New RAM is not like old RAM. Macs are dramatically more optimized than they used to be. I have a MacBook Air (M1) with 16GB of RAM and it runs more smoothly than older systems that had twice that much. 8GB of RAM today feels like what 32GB of RAM used to. 8GB of RAM can handle very process-heavy tasks, like... running Chrome ;)

dijit 4y ago
Everything you said is true; I'll even add that MacOS is probably the best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions! However the parent is right, it's disgusting how much memory capacity is needed to run a basic environment. Maybe having exceptionally fast machines with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage.
- davidy123 4y ago
  > the answer to bloated apps RAM is dirt cheap these days. Bloated apps are bad, but 8GB really is simply a joke that punishes many people for the sake of product categories, at least until RAM is indistinguishable from storage.
  - Tepix 4y ago
    Not all RAM is dirt cheap. RAM in DDR4 sockets is dirt cheap.
    - cmatthias 4y ago
      8GB of general-purpose RAM, regardless of form factor, is dirt cheap. In fact, not having the sockets might make it cheaper than socketed RAM in volume, since there are fewer parts in total.
      - jimsmart 4y ago
        Except, with Apple's new kit here, the RAM isn't simply some external chip soldered to the main board, it's actually on-die with the CPU silicon (and everything else in that silicon: GPU, memory controllers, etc). So yes, arguably there are fewer parts (just one), but in the event of e.g. some bad RAM during manufacture, it's far more costly to throw out the chip containing that bad RAM.
        jeffbee 4y ago
        No. It is not possible to make DRAM on the same silicon process as high-performance CPU logic. It is a myth that Apple Silicon includes the RAM on its die. Apple uses external LPDDR packages, just like everyone else, which you can clearly see in this photograph of the mac mini's CPU module: https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_chip-900x900.jpeg https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_ch...
        jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
        cmatthias 4y ago
        I don't think this is correct. https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-unified-memory-architecture/ https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-un... is an article which describes the architecture. It's not on-die, it's next to the CPU, basically as close as it could physically possibly be without being on the die. Here's a photo of an M1 CPU: https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf6775b9b4c9b60cc4436eab5a3c.jpeg https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf... Those chips on the right side are LPDDR4x chips (which you can verify by googling the part numbers visible on them). They are "off-the-shelf" so to speak, not custom on-die memory.
        jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
- qwytw 4y ago
  > best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions Not it's not. Gnome or KDE can have 2x if not 3x memory overhead. > with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage Why? Memory is cheaper than designing new CPUs. 8GB in the base model is just a way for Apple to upsell upgrades and improve margins through market segmentation. If they shipped 16GB in the base model they'd have to cut prices or lose customers. It's a simple as that.
  - dijit 4y ago
    GNOME and KDE are desktop environments, not operating systems. Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. Solaris run (ran?) GNOME and was also excellent when there was low memory Why force people to build software more efficiently? Because I have a desktop with 64G of ram and it is doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 was doing, only a few more pixels, a few less animations and a whole bunch of people thinking that hardware can pick up the slack from development companies externalising their costs (since devs cost money, right!?). well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software.
    - qwytw 4y ago
      > Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. I assumed you were talking about system with low amounts of memory rather than well almost all available memory is already used. You might be right about the second case (of course why would anyone have a new Linux PC with just 8GB of memory. Linux laptop OEMs charge the same for an upgrade to 64GB as Apple does for 16GB) Why do you need to buy the latest macbook with a very fast CPU? Well you wouldn't, if software was more efficient. It's exactly the same argument as with memory. > doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 Similarly to how your desktop from 2008 was doing the "same" job as a Windows 98 machine? Except it's not really doing the same job, expectations consumers have on software have changed dramatically over the last 15 years. > well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software. Yes it does cost money. Because Apple charges extremely high margins on memory upgrades. If you could update your own RAM or if Apple's upgrades had the same margin as the base model itself additional 8GB wouldn't be more than extra $50 (maybe a $100 at most if the memory Apple uses is so 'advanced' AFAIK it's not..).
counttheforks 4y ago
> 1. You can add more Tell that to Apple so they can do that out of the box. > 8GB of RAM today feels like what 32GB of RAM used to No. I think you're confusing memory speed with capacity. Making ram faster doesn't mean it can magically store more.
- seanw444 4y ago
  If it's running an SSD, at least the swap speed won't be as crippling. Assuming it uses any.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- coder543 4y ago
  > Making ram faster doesn't mean it can magically store more. For real. This myth that "Unified RAM" doesn't need as much capacity as "regular RAM" needs to stop being perpetuated. Intel-based Macs already had memory compression and SSD swap. My M1 MBA with 16GB of RAM was definitely limited by the amount of RAM a number of times throughout its life, and my 24GB M2 MBA has a much better balance due to the additional RAM. 8GB is fine for someone who doesn't do anything but basic web browsing and word documents, but I'm not comfortable recommending 8GB of RAM to anyone who intends on doing more than that. I'm honestly a bit uncomfortable with 16GB these days, but it is tremendously nicer than 8GB. If Apple hadn't just lowered prices by $100 on Mac mini, I would say that 16GB should be the minimum, but for $599... I think 8GB is probably fine for what you're getting.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dijit 4y ago

Everything you said is true; I'll even add that MacOS is probably the best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions! However the parent is right, it's disgusting how much memory capacity is needed to run a basic environment. Maybe having exceptionally fast machines with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage.

davidy123 4y ago
> the answer to bloated apps RAM is dirt cheap these days. Bloated apps are bad, but 8GB really is simply a joke that punishes many people for the sake of product categories, at least until RAM is indistinguishable from storage.
- Tepix 4y ago
  Not all RAM is dirt cheap. RAM in DDR4 sockets is dirt cheap.
  - cmatthias 4y ago
    8GB of general-purpose RAM, regardless of form factor, is dirt cheap. In fact, not having the sockets might make it cheaper than socketed RAM in volume, since there are fewer parts in total.
    - jimsmart 4y ago
      Except, with Apple's new kit here, the RAM isn't simply some external chip soldered to the main board, it's actually on-die with the CPU silicon (and everything else in that silicon: GPU, memory controllers, etc). So yes, arguably there are fewer parts (just one), but in the event of e.g. some bad RAM during manufacture, it's far more costly to throw out the chip containing that bad RAM.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        No. It is not possible to make DRAM on the same silicon process as high-performance CPU logic. It is a myth that Apple Silicon includes the RAM on its die. Apple uses external LPDDR packages, just like everyone else, which you can clearly see in this photograph of the mac mini's CPU module: https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_chip-900x900.jpeg https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_ch...
        jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
      - cmatthias 4y ago
        I don't think this is correct. https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-unified-memory-architecture/ https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-un... is an article which describes the architecture. It's not on-die, it's next to the CPU, basically as close as it could physically possibly be without being on the die. Here's a photo of an M1 CPU: https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf6775b9b4c9b60cc4436eab5a3c.jpeg https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf... Those chips on the right side are LPDDR4x chips (which you can verify by googling the part numbers visible on them). They are "off-the-shelf" so to speak, not custom on-die memory.
        jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
qwytw 4y ago
> best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions Not it's not. Gnome or KDE can have 2x if not 3x memory overhead. > with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage Why? Memory is cheaper than designing new CPUs. 8GB in the base model is just a way for Apple to upsell upgrades and improve margins through market segmentation. If they shipped 16GB in the base model they'd have to cut prices or lose customers. It's a simple as that.
- dijit 4y ago
  GNOME and KDE are desktop environments, not operating systems. Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. Solaris run (ran?) GNOME and was also excellent when there was low memory Why force people to build software more efficiently? Because I have a desktop with 64G of ram and it is doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 was doing, only a few more pixels, a few less animations and a whole bunch of people thinking that hardware can pick up the slack from development companies externalising their costs (since devs cost money, right!?). well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    > Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. I assumed you were talking about system with low amounts of memory rather than well almost all available memory is already used. You might be right about the second case (of course why would anyone have a new Linux PC with just 8GB of memory. Linux laptop OEMs charge the same for an upgrade to 64GB as Apple does for 16GB) Why do you need to buy the latest macbook with a very fast CPU? Well you wouldn't, if software was more efficient. It's exactly the same argument as with memory. > doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 Similarly to how your desktop from 2008 was doing the "same" job as a Windows 98 machine? Except it's not really doing the same job, expectations consumers have on software have changed dramatically over the last 15 years. > well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software. Yes it does cost money. Because Apple charges extremely high margins on memory upgrades. If you could update your own RAM or if Apple's upgrades had the same margin as the base model itself additional 8GB wouldn't be more than extra $50 (maybe a $100 at most if the memory Apple uses is so 'advanced' AFAIK it's not..).

counttheforks 4y ago

> 1. You can add more Tell that to Apple so they can do that out of the box. > 8GB of RAM today feels like what 32GB of RAM used to No. I think you're confusing memory speed with capacity. Making ram faster doesn't mean it can magically store more.

seanw444 4y ago
If it's running an SSD, at least the swap speed won't be as crippling. Assuming it uses any.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
coder543 4y ago
> Making ram faster doesn't mean it can magically store more. For real. This myth that "Unified RAM" doesn't need as much capacity as "regular RAM" needs to stop being perpetuated. Intel-based Macs already had memory compression and SSD swap. My M1 MBA with 16GB of RAM was definitely limited by the amount of RAM a number of times throughout its life, and my 24GB M2 MBA has a much better balance due to the additional RAM. 8GB is fine for someone who doesn't do anything but basic web browsing and word documents, but I'm not comfortable recommending 8GB of RAM to anyone who intends on doing more than that. I'm honestly a bit uncomfortable with 16GB these days, but it is tremendously nicer than 8GB. If Apple hadn't just lowered prices by $100 on Mac mini, I would say that 16GB should be the minimum, but for $599... I think 8GB is probably fine for what you're getting.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]