Why Apple's M1X Macs Don't Need 64Gb Of Ram!


We've recently had new reports coming out saying that the m1x max could be limited to only 32 gigabytes of ram contradicting previous reports and expectations of up to 64 gigabytes of ram for apple's upcoming pro mac books. And while many people are now disappointed saying things like the m1x, max won't really be pro if they are limited to just 32 gigabytes of ram after looking over our previous tests and doing some in-depth research. I came to the conclusion that these upcoming macs don't, actually.

Need 64 gigabytes of ram for three reasons. And even if they do end up giving us a 64 gigabyte option, I won't be buying it. Anyway.

And you shouldn't either. Let me explain exactly why as far back as I can remember computer enthusiasts have been buying the most ram that we can, or at least the most ram that we can afford. I remember my first serious 4k video editing computer 10 years ago and me shelling out a ton of money to get myself, 32 gigabytes of ram most likely the same amount that the m1x will. Have in 2021 at the time I was building a custom video editing pc designed to cut through 4k footage.

Back when many people were still editing 720p. Let me just say that I have always loved high quality. Video back in the day when most people were editing across multiple slow, spinning hard drives running out of ram was a disaster. And if that happened most systems would lock up messing your work, 32 gigs of ram was the optimal amount back then, but due to poor software, optimization actually editing.4K video ended up being a nightmare, and I ended up selling it and buying a trash can mac pro, which had weaker hardware and only half the ram.

But thanks to macOS and Final Cut Pro the system ran laps around my custom water, cooled Windows pc with the best SSD and the best graphics card on the market. And an overclocked extreme, intel processor, and it wasn't only because of mac specific software a year or so later, I tested what the optimal amount of ram was for video editing using the same hardware. And the same inefficient premiere pro, and the really tough video export was basically just as fast with 16 gigs of ram and macOS as it was with 32 gigs of ram in windows. And unlike today, back then premiere was way more optimized for windows, of course, since then windows has gotten a lot better and running at a ram doesn't mean, your computer will just blue screen of death or cause apps to lock up and close. But the software efficiency difference is still there just over a year ago. We basically.

Revisited that same comparison and built a custom pc that smoked our new mac pro in terms of hardware using 32 thread ripper cores, which resulted in an embarrassing amount of extra CPU performance and an NVIDIA graphics card that has over 50 percent more raw power with a ton of coda cores. And about double the gaming performance as well as PCI Express 4 SSD that was smoking fast. But even with that in most tasks, the weaker mac pro was still faster like in regular 4k editing and an even bigger. Difference in the much more difficult h.265.

And this is all with premiere pro that we're, not talking about final cut here with that in the very optimized, da Vinci resolve, the real world graphics, raw power for video and rendering was somehow the same. What all of this shows is how important software optimization and efficiency really is, and that macOS works very well with less powerful hardware and less ram, even with cross-platform software. But what about what we're talking about here where you. Have two macs both running the same operating system, the older generation with 64 gigabytes of ram and the other newer more powerful, m1x mac being limited to just 32 gigabytes of ram.

And what will that mean for real-world performance? Well, I think you'll be surprised because on top of all that software optimization, we just talked about apple leveled up their performance and efficiency with their Apple Silicon chips and 32 gigs of ram will perform the same or better than 64 gigabytes of ram with. An intel machine and with that, you will save 400 compared to last year. Let me explain exactly why and how when apple announced their m1 chip. They put a huge emphasis on the unified memory architecture. Meaning, the memory is right there next to the processor and the graphics. This is not only important for speed, but also for performance and efficiency and how much ram you need in most laptops that use integrated graphics.

The graphics has to use ram that is shared with the CPU, just like with the m1. But because the ram has a lot more latency, and it has to be sent and controlled by the CPU. It takes much longer to send data back and forth compared to Apple Silicon with that apple built in even faster, specialized tile memory and processing to minimize the need to use system memory.

Even though the latency is much lower than intel based systems because of this, even though the m1 air's, raw, graphics performance wasn't that much faster than the latest intel processors in real world. Use the m1 ends up. Being much faster than the raw performance would have you expect. And this is using non-optimized software.

When you look at partially optimized, software like da Vinci resolve, the difference grows even further. Now, this only shows performance, not the optimal amount of ram. But as you can see working with eight gigs of ram and integrated graphics is really slow because of bandwidth and that total amount. But because apple's unified memory is so fast tasks, don't need to keep data in the ram for as long.

And when it needs to be cleared out, it can clear much faster as well. An Aztec took a deep dive into apple m1 in its architecture and was shocked by the memory performance. Instead of dual channel memory with intel consumer chips apple's, m1 runs an 8-channel memory, resulting in very high bandwidth and having so many channels means much faster speed for certain workloads. As we've shown off when we compared a dual channel, ram iMac, quad channel, iMac Pro and 6 channel macs pro the iMac Pro was faster. For bandwidth, limited photo work, even though its ram was slower. And it only had 32 gigs of ram instead of 64 as well as an older slower, a core processor, instead of a new much faster, 10 core because of the superfast, ram and 8 gigabyte m1 chips smokes, the latest 5k iMac with way, more CPU and GPU performance.

Apple's, 8 gigs of ram is even faster than 16 gigs. Ram on that iMac, showing you that you no longer need a high amount of ram to get proper speeds and nanotech also showed off that even a single. Core can reach 59 gigabytes. A second, which is crazy, intel's latest 11gen chips reach only just over half the performance at 34.5 gigabytes. A second. And that is after a big jump with big improvements from the 10th generation and keep in mind apple's, only MacBook that offers 64 gigabytes of ram has memory significantly slower than that.

And it used to smoke 13-inch models based on sheer power. But now efficiency is starting to take over and a dollar eight gigs. MacBook Air is almost as fast as a 4 000. Macbook with four times the amount of ram in tasks that are really ram limited and with programs that aren't yet optimized and also keep in mind that macOS itself takes up a good three to four gigs of that eight gigs of ram. And that brings you back to the main topic of 32 gigs of ram versus 64 in the upcoming m1x. And why having 64 gigs doesn't matter we've done a lot of testing in the past between 32 gigs of ram and 64 gigs of ram and both MacBook pros and iMacs. And in almost every single test.

Having 64 gigs of ram didn't do much of anything. And that is intel compared to intel with slower speeds and less efficiency. So when it came time to give suggestions on how much ram to buy for mac books, I suggested 32 gigs of ram to almost everybody, even those that might run multiple productivity tests and many webs, browsing tabs. And you've already seen just how much more efficient apple's unified. Ram is compared to regular ram with an intel based mac and how much faster it is at being used and. Cleared for new tests and based on our testing 8 gigs of unified, ram performs more like 16 gigs of regular, ram and 16 gigs performs more like 32 gigs. The same thing will go for 32 gigs of unified memory in the m1x acting similar to 64 gigs of ram.

But without costing you that extra 400 that's, not only because of sheer speed, but hardware and software design that apple has made it is now showing developers how to do simple optimizations for that significantly cut down on ram usage with apple. Silicon, max, in one example, cutting ram usage from 2.16 gigs down to 810 megabytes and saving an additional 216 megabytes by not needing duplicate copies. These are the kind of hardware changes that make the m1x no longer require 64 gigs of ram, or if you're somebody that previously bought 32 gigs as I suggested, even 16 gigs will be plenty. And as you've seen with the current m1, max systems that previously offered 32 gigs. Now only come with 16, and they perform much better because macOS is so efficient. You never get a crash if you hit your ram limit.

But instead less important tasks will be saved to the SSD in the form of swap memory. Now I know swap has a bad rap since people have paid way more attention to ram. And swap after the m1 came out with less, total, ram available. But swap works wonders by virtually giving you more ram from your SSD in my ultimate ram stress test only once I loaded up a ton of pro programs and a bunch of safari and Chrome tabs did I notice that 8 gigs of ram was starting. To run out and web pages had to be reloaded from the SSD, but surprisingly that still happened very fast that is because with the m1, max apple no longer puts in much worse, SSDs and their cheaper, macs, but really fast ones across the board. And that brings me to my last reason I believe that the m1x max will finally have much faster storage than the 2.5 to 3 000 megabyte per second SSDs that have lived in the best mac since around 2016.

Apple is now finally putting these SSDs into the base max while. The m1 actually supports PCI Express 4, which is what's required to break that performance ceiling, which we used in our latest custom pc and apple isn't currently using that PCI Express 4 for the SSDs or for graphics, like you typically would because the m1 has built-in graphics into the soc. So my thought is since the gaming pc express 4. Now they are no longer limited by version 3. And they can finally put in faster SSDs and putting those into their more expensive pro line would make a lot of sense. It would once again, differentiate speeds between the cheaper, m1 max and the m1x max.

And in the case where you might need to use swap memory, you would get speeds that are roughly two to four times faster, because of the SSD increases and latency improvements. This is why the m1x mac books don't need 64 gigabytes of ram. And even if apple offers it, I personally will not be buying it, and I will not be suggesting it. Now, of course, we will be testing it out we'll show. You guys the differences if you guys.

Want to see that click that circle above to subscribe, and that will help us reach 1 million subscribers before the end of the year that is our goal. We would appreciate it check out one of those great videos over there. This one max, and I will see you in the next video you.

Dated : 18-Apr-2022

Leave Your Comment