5 ms·

> On the other hand, maybe there should be pushback against shitty inefficient software? How would that work? You whine on an online forum over how bloated a s

> On the other hand, maybe there should be pushback against shitty inefficient software? How would that work? You whine on an online forum over how bloated a software is, and in the process opt to be deprived of it's usage? Or would you continue to complain about bloated software while using it? Because none of those scenarios offer a compelling reason for the software maintainers to rearchitect their whole application. Meanwhile, a 8GB stick of RAM can be bought for what? 40€?

horsawlarway 4y ago
Way fucking cheaper than 40. Closer to $16 unless you really need DDR5. Even then, it's still around $29/8gb if buying 32gb or more. The issue is that Apple is integrating the RAM in the SoC. Personally, I'm not really a fan of "smart-phonification" of my desktop computers. I get that the mini is in a bit of a weird spot, since it's still got fairly challenging size constraints, but still... not my cup of tea.
- qwytw 4y ago
  Intel minis have upgradeable memory and their internals took up way more space compared to the (old) m1 mac mini at least.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > The issue is that Apple is integrating the RAM in the SoC Aren't there legitimate technical reasons for including the RAM in the SoC such as better bandwidth?
- loufe 4y ago
  The integration into the SoC is partially responsible for the amazing performance. The extra travelling distance for a click-in ram stick adds up, in terms of latency, quickly
  - astrange 4y ago
    Memory latency on the M1/M2 is no better than other systems. Other things are better, but not that.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      The memory bandwidth is a hell of a lot better than that $16 8GB stick mentioned upthread, though. 100GB/s on the M2 or 200GB/s on the M2 Pro. It may be possible to find actual comps with similar performance at a much lower price than Apple charges, but that $16 stick ain't it, or even close.
  - NavinF 4y ago
    That should happen in the future, but so far Apple hasn't really taken advantage of the massive improvement in signal integrity and their latency is similar to desktop x86. If someone figures out how to overclock one of these machines, we can find out if they're just being extremely conservative or if the memory controller is extremely weak compared to what you see on x86 desktop CPUs.
  - kimixa 4y ago
    Not really less latency so much as the signalling can be run at much higher speed and/or much lower power without having to worry about stuff like the optional termination, the electrical properties of the socket->dimm connection itself, and much shorter track lengths. It also allows you to have as wide a bus as you want, limited by cost of packaging and die sizes on the package, instead of dimm size and board layout, which naturally has a much higher trace pitch than the package. The higher speed "may" cause lower latency, but it's likely secondary at best.
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
"Meanwhile, a 8GB stick of RAM can be bought for what? 40€? " Ha! Not if you want to get it in your MacMini. 8GB will set you back $200! The Apple Cult has gone all in...
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  What's the memory bandwidth on the 40€ stick? Apple charges a premium most of the time, sure, but there's a loooong tradition of the loudest voices complaining about the so-called Apple Tax also failing to actually compare like-to-like when drawing their conclusions about e.g. "The Apple Cult".
almog 4y ago
Not saying you're wrong but specifically to address OP's memory usage issue when running over dozen tabs in Chrome, I'd suggest testing it against Firefox for start. I'm not proud of this bad habit, but I have an order of magnitude more tabs than that with FF running on a pre-M1 8GB Macbook and it's pretty great most of the time. I use Chrome mostly for development but wouldn't dream of keeping it running as many tabs as I have open on FF (perhaps that's a good thing if I want to get rid of my tab hoarding habits now that I think about it.).
- scns 4y ago
  Maybe because Firefox automatically suspends old tabs, Chrome needs a extension for that. If you reopen FF it reloads only the tabs you actually visit.
  - rob-olmos 4y ago
    FYI Chrome is trialing that feature natively titled "Memory Saver". It's available in my laptop's settings, but currently still not in my desktop's.
scarface74 4y ago
Simple, you don’t use Chrome and use the bundled browser that is much more power and memory efficient
jeroenhd 4y ago
Interesting, how are you planning on adding those extra 8 gigabytes if RAM to an M1/M2 Mac? Do you know of a mod that will make the motherboard take DIMM slots?
eigen 4y ago
> Meanwhile, a 8GB stick of RAM can be bought for what? 40€? I think the M2 chips use on-chip LPDDR5. is it a 6400MT/s LPDDR5 stick for that price or a 2133 MT/s SO-DIMM?

horsawlarway 4y ago

Way fucking cheaper than 40. Closer to $16 unless you really need DDR5. Even then, it's still around $29/8gb if buying 32gb or more. The issue is that Apple is integrating the RAM in the SoC. Personally, I'm not really a fan of "smart-phonification" of my desktop computers. I get that the mini is in a bit of a weird spot, since it's still got fairly challenging size constraints, but still... not my cup of tea.

qwytw 4y ago
Intel minis have upgradeable memory and their internals took up way more space compared to the (old) m1 mac mini at least.
Nextgrid 4y ago
> The issue is that Apple is integrating the RAM in the SoC Aren't there legitimate technical reasons for including the RAM in the SoC such as better bandwidth?
loufe 4y ago
The integration into the SoC is partially responsible for the amazing performance. The extra travelling distance for a click-in ram stick adds up, in terms of latency, quickly
- astrange 4y ago
  Memory latency on the M1/M2 is no better than other systems. Other things are better, but not that.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    The memory bandwidth is a hell of a lot better than that $16 8GB stick mentioned upthread, though. 100GB/s on the M2 or 200GB/s on the M2 Pro. It may be possible to find actual comps with similar performance at a much lower price than Apple charges, but that $16 stick ain't it, or even close.
- NavinF 4y ago
  That should happen in the future, but so far Apple hasn't really taken advantage of the massive improvement in signal integrity and their latency is similar to desktop x86. If someone figures out how to overclock one of these machines, we can find out if they're just being extremely conservative or if the memory controller is extremely weak compared to what you see on x86 desktop CPUs.
- kimixa 4y ago
  Not really less latency so much as the signalling can be run at much higher speed and/or much lower power without having to worry about stuff like the optional termination, the electrical properties of the socket->dimm connection itself, and much shorter track lengths. It also allows you to have as wide a bus as you want, limited by cost of packaging and die sizes on the package, instead of dimm size and board layout, which naturally has a much higher trace pitch than the package. The higher speed "may" cause lower latency, but it's likely secondary at best.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

"Meanwhile, a 8GB stick of RAM can be bought for what? 40€? " Ha! Not if you want to get it in your MacMini. 8GB will set you back $200! The Apple Cult has gone all in...

yamtaddle 4y ago
What's the memory bandwidth on the 40€ stick? Apple charges a premium most of the time, sure, but there's a loooong tradition of the loudest voices complaining about the so-called Apple Tax also failing to actually compare like-to-like when drawing their conclusions about e.g. "The Apple Cult".

almog 4y ago

Not saying you're wrong but specifically to address OP's memory usage issue when running over dozen tabs in Chrome, I'd suggest testing it against Firefox for start. I'm not proud of this bad habit, but I have an order of magnitude more tabs than that with FF running on a pre-M1 8GB Macbook and it's pretty great most of the time. I use Chrome mostly for development but wouldn't dream of keeping it running as many tabs as I have open on FF (perhaps that's a good thing if I want to get rid of my tab hoarding habits now that I think about it.).

scns 4y ago
Maybe because Firefox automatically suspends old tabs, Chrome needs a extension for that. If you reopen FF it reloads only the tabs you actually visit.
- rob-olmos 4y ago
  FYI Chrome is trialing that feature natively titled "Memory Saver". It's available in my laptop's settings, but currently still not in my desktop's.

scarface74 4y ago

Simple, you don’t use Chrome and use the bundled browser that is much more power and memory efficient

jeroenhd 4y ago

Interesting, how are you planning on adding those extra 8 gigabytes if RAM to an M1/M2 Mac? Do you know of a mod that will make the motherboard take DIMM slots?

eigen 4y ago

> Meanwhile, a 8GB stick of RAM can be bought for what? 40€? I think the M2 chips use on-chip LPDDR5. is it a 6400MT/s LPDDR5 stick for that price or a 2133 MT/s SO-DIMM?