Register
Notebookcheck

Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Mmick
« on: December 12, 2020, 19:21:52 »

I'm also trying to decide whether to spend an extra $200 for 8 more GB of RAM. For me it is more a case of future-proofing (I know, I know) so the decision comes down to how much the extra RAM reduces battery life

On these Apple-silicon machines, 8GB = 16GB Intel devices; 16GB = 32GB Intel.

If you won´t use too much Adobe apps and not too much apps at same time, the 8 GB RAM version will work fine;
if you plan using Adobe apps frequently and many at same time, or 8K video, or many Office apps etc. then the 16 GB RAM.

I opted to buy the 8GB version (= 16GB Intel) as I don't do too much heavy work with many apps simultaneously, then I saved 200€. Perhaps in 2-3 years I replace for the M3 and perhaps by then it will come with 512 GB SSD / 16 GB RAM as default and only then I use the 200€ I saved now.

I have my Mac mini M1 8GB connected to an 8K monitor and everything runs very smoothly.
NO! The only reason that the ram difference does not make a difference to performance is because the SSD swaps the memory when the memory gets full. You will use basically just as much memory in any app as on an intel mac, it just won't be as noticeable, because of how fast swap memory is. The one thing you will notice, is that swap memory tends to degrade the SSD if used over a long period of time. So, if you tend to need more than 8gb, get more than 8gb.

All reviewers tested the amount vs. swap and every single version had swap, even the 16 GB RAM had more swap, as Mac OS is always backing up the RAM as swap. So the 16 GB even had bigger and more writing than the 8 GB RAM. So on the 8 GB RAM version the OS just releases more RAM (closes background Apps / Data) for the main App. Then it loads again the Apps / Processes, but as the SSD is so quick it *reads* very fast. At the end no issues with writing cycles.

I have the Mac mini M1 8GB and the writing processes are minimal, so I am fine with it.
Posted by: Gmosk
« on: December 03, 2020, 03:35:29 »

I'm also trying to decide whether to spend an extra $200 for 8 more GB of RAM. For me it is more a case of future-proofing (I know, I know) so the decision comes down to how much the extra RAM reduces battery life

On these Apple-silicon machines, 8GB = 16GB Intel devices; 16GB = 32GB Intel.

If you won´t use too much Adobe apps and not too much apps at same time, the 8 GB RAM version will work fine;
if you plan using Adobe apps frequently and many at same time, or 8K video, or many Office apps etc. then the 16 GB RAM.

I opted to buy the 8GB version (= 16GB Intel) as I don't do too much heavy work with many apps simultaneously, then I saved 200€. Perhaps in 2-3 years I replace for the M3 and perhaps by then it will come with 512 GB SSD / 16 GB RAM as default and only then I use the 200€ I saved now.

I have my Mac mini M1 8GB connected to an 8K monitor and everything runs very smoothly.
NO! The only reason that the ram difference does not make a difference to performance is because the SSD swaps the memory when the memory gets full. You will use basically just as much memory in any app as on an intel mac, it just won't be as noticeable, because of how fast swap memory is. The one thing you will notice, is that swap memory tends to degrade the SSD if used over a long period of time. So, if you tend to need more than 8gb, get more than 8gb.
Posted by: mmick
« on: November 27, 2020, 23:21:27 »

I'm also trying to decide whether to spend an extra $200 for 8 more GB of RAM. For me it is more a case of future-proofing (I know, I know) so the decision comes down to how much the extra RAM reduces battery life

On these Apple-silicon machines, 8GB = 16GB Intel devices; 16GB = 32GB Intel.

If you won´t use too much Adobe apps and not too much apps at same time, the 8 GB RAM version will work fine;
if you plan using Adobe apps frequently and many at same time, or 8K video, or many Office apps etc. then the 16 GB RAM.

I opted to buy the 8GB version (= 16GB Intel) as I don't do too much heavy work with many apps simultaneously, then I saved 200€. Perhaps in 2-3 years I replace for the M3 and perhaps by then it will come with 512 GB SSD / 16 GB RAM as default and only then I use the 200€ I saved now.

I have my Mac mini M1 8GB connected to an 8K monitor and everything runs very smoothly.
Posted by: cougar falcon
« on: November 27, 2020, 23:18:41 »

Are you seeing any traces of PWM?
Posted by: mock
« on: November 27, 2020, 23:12:52 »

...performance of emulated x86/x64 apps, and how they perform. Perhaps even try some old applications /games to see backward compatibility and performance.
Thank you.

I have the Apple Mac Mini M1 (comes always with the 8-Core-GPU) with 8GB RAM + 256GB SSD. I just sold my old Intel i7 + 16 GB RAM + 256 GB SSD NVMe (Windows 10) + GTX 970 and this Mac mini is much much faster! (except on the GPU part) but is much faster than my laptop with an Nvidia MX150.

Using x64 (x86 64-bit) for Mac OS I can say that most apps are about 70-80% of performance from the ARM version. The only App lagging hard is the Steam app, but works fine and I installed some games (mainly Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, etc) and they work perfectly! Even on the high settings on 1080p (on my 4K monitor) they work very smoothly, a joy :-).
Posted by: ERIC GOLD
« on: November 27, 2020, 22:35:08 »

I'm also trying to decide whether to spend an extra $200 for 8 more GB of RAM. For me it is more a case of future-proofing (I know, I know) so the decision comes down to how much the extra RAM reduces battery life.

Thanks!
Posted by: Rick
« on: November 27, 2020, 11:19:14 »

Would love to know as I'm working out which spec to buy: My 2019 base model MacBook Pro 13 (8GB RAM / 8th gen Core i5 1.4GHz) regularly freezes due to memory pressure with my workflow which is: all Office 356 apps open, several Safari Tabs, several Chrome tabs Acrobat Reader & MS Teams video calls on top. I was going to buy a 16GB one of these, the internet seems full of videos about how much this machine manages to run in just 8GB. Before I blow the extra £200, could I manage in 8GB?
Posted by: Robin_From_The_Hood
« on: November 26, 2020, 22:21:56 »

What's the point of this article if you didn't include any power draw measurements & temps of the whole SoC? Well, measuring the temp seems kinda impossible right now but as of power draw, you can do it in 2 ways:
  • Either subtract every component's max power draw (besides the SoC, of course) - when almost every component is at 100% use - from the total power draw of the whole laptop and you'll end up with only SoC's power draw when the cpu, igpu and ram are being simultaneously 100% used. This is how i ended up with ~20W on the whole SoC.
  • From running that terminal command (look it up from those biased-reviewers that others already mentioned here), which gave results that were pretty close to my calculations. From a video on youtube, the MBP 13 was drawing ~30W from the wall socket during CBR23. From another video, just the cpu was drawing ~13W (with that command), the i-gpu (8core version) around 8W. The ram (depending a bit on the amount) ~2-3W. In total you're getting ~22W on the whole SoC.

Please confirm this somehow, or just measure the power draw and add it in your full review. I hope that your review will stand out from those weak "reviews" that youtube has been plagued with. Those are straight up terrible.
Posted by: _MT_
« on: November 26, 2020, 19:16:43 »

Also metal seems to be very favorable for the M1.
Which isn't surprising given that Metal is Apple's API. Interestingly, M1 (8 core) managed to match the 560X on high settings. The higher the settings, the smaller the gap. Of course, it's not playable on those settings. Who knows what's going on there. The game was emulated which is far from ideal. You can definitely expect better performance from native applications.
Posted by: Gunnarol
« on: November 26, 2020, 13:16:27 »

Hi!

Question :
Please test external displays / preferably 2 monitors, preferably at least 2k res / how them works.

Thanks!
Posted by: miran
« on: November 26, 2020, 13:14:04 »

please include comparison between m1 pro and m1 air (8 gpu)
i am interested into how much does a fan contribute to real game performance in the case of m1.
i am guessing the air is severely limited by the estimated 10w tdp passive cooling, while the pro will have estimated 20-24w tdp based on anandtech mac mini article.
then i am also interested if 20-24w on the pro is still a bottleneck for the m1
max tech had compared them , go check his youtube channel

well I only found this video:
v=CmMOJTs7Pu8
which is not exactly what i'm looking for

they both perform great in designed benchmarks, but we can see in this topic, that while in the benchmark it's performing extremly well, the actual game of borderlands then is below radeon pro 560x. While this is still impressive, I am wonder if the m1 pro can do alot more.
Designed benchmarks are probably designed to not stress the cpu at all, and i'm wondering if now an actual game starts to limit the gpu more due to required cpu load.
Also metal seems to be very favorable for the M1.
Posted by: SnappyJoe
« on: November 26, 2020, 10:55:27 »

In your macbook air review please conclude with suggestions as to whether to get the 8core 512 gb macbook air or the 256gb pro?Having never used the touch bar I am not sure if it is useful or a problem which is prone to hanging, accidental touches so recommendations on that would help.
Please also comment on the difference for those looking at ms office productivity tasks with plenty of word, excel, ppts, chrome tabs and pdfs open at the same time. Most reviews focus on video editing which is only a very small portion of actual buyers
Posted by: RolandRoy
« on: November 26, 2020, 10:38:39 »

Can you comment about previously mentioned BigSur privacy/spying issues?
Posted by: vrdev
« on: November 26, 2020, 09:17:19 »

An early native version of Blender was posted on Twitter by @stefan_3d, a primary contributor to that version.

Rendering a common test scene using the GPU would be a good way to test both relative power and sustained performance. I can’t remember if you can render using CPU+GPU with Blender, but that’d be the ultimate test.
Posted by: Rick
« on: November 26, 2020, 08:25:12 »

You should definitely run as many tests as possible in emulated mode. Also, being this unit passively cooled, I expect there will be a huge difference between peak and sustained performance, worth to check it.

 
C 2018 » Impressum     Sprachen: Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | Svenska