Base m1 was like 4-5 years ago. did we have that much ram with oldest macs too, 30 years ago? 4-5 years at same base RAM is incredibly cheap behaviour from Apple. Some phones are literally close to that RAM now.
You could (unsupported) run 16gb ram on 2010 rMBP models, back before it was soldered on. Worked great, not to mention swapping the spinning drive for an SSD.
At this point, I get the soldered on ram, for better or worse... I do wish at least storage was more approachable.
The Pro sales page says their RAM is unified, which is more efficient than traditional. Anyone have a concept by how much more efficient unified RAM performs vs RAM?
Their sales copy for reference:
"M-series chips include unified memory, which is more efficient than traditional RAM. This single pool of high-performance memory allows apps to efficiently share data between the CPU, GPU, and Neural Engine.... This means you can do more with unified memory than you could with the same amount of traditional RAM."
It just means it's shared between GPU and CPU. Has its advantages in specific workloads, but dedicated super fast GPU RAM usually is better.
Everything else in this statement in marketing bullshit and Apple trying to look like they invented the wheel and discovered fire.
The fact that it's unified just means it's shared between CPU/GPU usage which can be a good thing. A lot of the performance comes from more channels and a more stable distance from the CPU itself... Getting really fast performance from RAM is more difficult with a detachable interface in the middle, and longer traces.
Still not the fastest ram, that they use for dedicated GPUs, but faster than most x86 options.
Well, they could continue the 8gb joke so let's appreciate the fact that they finally switched to 16gb base models (and similarly stopped the 128GB SSD madness, these models were outdated when bought).
For perspective I have a 12 year old MacBook with 8 gigs of ram and it’s still perfectly usable for all the things I do on it. If you need more RAM because you are video encoding, compiling, or gaming (why!?) then you aren’t a basic consumer.
I’m not trying into be a fanboy and maybe it’s a little bit “cope”, but apple has always put as much RAM as is necessary for the computer to work—and not a lot more—in their base models.
> I know it’s silly, but I think I represent over 90% of apples customers in that way
You're not silly, you're just able to see reality.
Apple knows who is buying the bulk of their computers, and it isn't power users ... most people buying computers don't have a clue what RAM is even used for.
I'd hit beachballs, but macOS balances 8GB of RAM fine even with Tahoe for regular users
And a "pro" computer that comes with half a tb of storage by default with a $200 premium for another 0.5 tb of storage. Oof. Just gross.
I know people complain at every release. But I look at the three choices presented and they are all disappointing to me. It's a huge turnoff to see the only initial differentiator presented to be a choice between "measly" amounts of RAM and storage to "barely acceptable" amounts.
To get even close to the specs on my Surface Pro I'd have to hit the configurator and spend at least $1000. Even more to hit the config of my work issued HP notebook.
