Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Has anyone taken a deep dive into the RAM issue?
That is, how much RAM is truly needed on the upper level Mac platforms?
I understand Apple's point that the new design means that their soldered-on RAM performs better. But how much better?
|
Honestly, that seems a bit like Apple marketing hype to me.
Putting the RAM on the package reduces latency, sure. Having unified memory between CPU and GPU also reduces the need to copy buffers. But I see this "you need less RAM now" stuff a lot, and… that just doesn't sound right to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Does the 16 GB RAM on the M1 perform like 24, 32, or 64 GB?
An Intel iMac goes up to 128GB RAM, and I don't see Apple offering that. Even if they did, I doubt real people could afford it.
Apple's RAM upgrade pricing is deeply messed up.
|
I think if you previously needed 128 GiB, there's no way you'll be happy with 16 now.
IMHO, this is simply a design limitation for the M1. They made the M1 as a slightly upgraded A14 / ersatz A14X, and made Macs to fit those requirements. They fit them really well in some ways, in that the CPU and GPU area arguably overpowered; they barely fit them in other ways, e.g. in the limitation of external monitors and Thunderbolt ports. And in RAM.
Higher-end Macs won't be a good fit for the M1. They need an architecture that supports RAM that isn't on the package, because Apple isn't going to make a monstrous die that can fit the 1.5 TiB RAM you can put in a Mac Pro. Sooner or later, there'll have to be some kind of chip that offers external expansion.