4 ms·

Another author making unsubstantiated claims that 8GB RAM is 'enough' for the base model with no evidence. Nothing to see here.

coldtea 2y ago
Well, perhaps nothing was seen. Because the post says: "I do think it’s true that Apple silicon changed this equation. Perhaps even, as a rule of thumb, by a factor of 2 — that an Apple silicon Mac with 8 GB RAM performs as well under memory constraints as an Intel-based Mac with 16 GB. But base model consumer Macs have been stuck at 8 GB for a long time, and it’s impossible to look at Schaub’s charts and not see that regular increases in base RAM effectively stopped when Tim Cook took over as CEO. Apple silicon efficiency notwithstanding, more RAM is better, and certainly more future-proof. And it’s downright bizarre to think that come this fall, all iPhone 16 models will sport as much RAM as base model Macs. (Supercomputer pioneer Seymour Cray on virtual memory: “Memory is like an orgasm. It’s a lot better if you don’t have to fake it.”)"
- nullindividual 2y ago
  Truth lacks facts. The author supplies no numbers, no benchmarks, no evidence.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Doesn't need to. We also have this thing called experience. We're not minds in a jar only being fed numbers and statistics.
    - nullindividual 2y ago
      You're not even _curious_? That's sad.
      - coldtea 2y ago
        No, I'm not. Not to mention if the numbers say that "X GB memory is fine" regarding the metrics they'd benchmark for, but one's actual experience is shit, it's shit - not fine. And vice versa. It's irrelevant whether some render or a benchmark ends in M minutes instead of N minutes. We're talking about how it feels in actual everyday use with the base-model memory versus something bigger.
        nullindividual 2y ago
        You bring up irrelevant benchmarks that measure CPU/GPU. Not interested in that. No, instead memory pressure and hard paging with common tasks are what is important, here. But, if you treat computing like people treat religion, eh whatever I suppose. Your loss.
        coldtea 2y ago
        >But, if you treat computing like people treat religion, eh whatever I suppose. Your loss. Irrelevant and ad-hominem? Nice!

coldtea 2y ago

Well, perhaps nothing was seen. Because the post says: "I do think it’s true that Apple silicon changed this equation. Perhaps even, as a rule of thumb, by a factor of 2 — that an Apple silicon Mac with 8 GB RAM performs as well under memory constraints as an Intel-based Mac with 16 GB. But base model consumer Macs have been stuck at 8 GB for a long time, and it’s impossible to look at Schaub’s charts and not see that regular increases in base RAM effectively stopped when Tim Cook took over as CEO. Apple silicon efficiency notwithstanding, more RAM is better, and certainly more future-proof. And it’s downright bizarre to think that come this fall, all iPhone 16 models will sport as much RAM as base model Macs. (Supercomputer pioneer Seymour Cray on virtual memory: “Memory is like an orgasm. It’s a lot better if you don’t have to fake it.”)"

nullindividual 2y ago
Truth lacks facts. The author supplies no numbers, no benchmarks, no evidence.
- coldtea 2y ago
  Doesn't need to. We also have this thing called experience. We're not minds in a jar only being fed numbers and statistics.
  - nullindividual 2y ago
    You're not even _curious_? That's sad.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      No, I'm not. Not to mention if the numbers say that "X GB memory is fine" regarding the metrics they'd benchmark for, but one's actual experience is shit, it's shit - not fine. And vice versa. It's irrelevant whether some render or a benchmark ends in M minutes instead of N minutes. We're talking about how it feels in actual everyday use with the base-model memory versus something bigger.
      - nullindividual 2y ago
        You bring up irrelevant benchmarks that measure CPU/GPU. Not interested in that. No, instead memory pressure and hard paging with common tasks are what is important, here. But, if you treat computing like people treat religion, eh whatever I suppose. Your loss.
        coldtea 2y ago
        >But, if you treat computing like people treat religion, eh whatever I suppose. Your loss. Irrelevant and ad-hominem? Nice!