Comments
krectus t1_j4srezt wrote
I would think those who need more than 32GB of ram aren’t buying Mac minis.
Pubelication t1_j4t9men wrote
This. These complaints come from people who would never need/use more than 8 or 16GB. Big Sur runs great on a 2014 8GB Mini. MacOS is extremely efficient in its use of RAM. The M processors make up for any loss, and if that's not enough, you shouldn't be buying a Mini.
RBTropical t1_j4ua3qn wrote
Remember that RAM is combined on these machines. Ofc this was the case for prior Mac Minis but important to remember for anyone used to iMacs with AMD GPUs
wadewad t1_j4u5jg3 wrote
The 64GB ThinkPad X1 Yoga says hello
Raymoundgh t1_j4qv7w9 wrote
Will charge 500$ for the memory upgrade!
lolsup1 t1_j4rcifv wrote
I’ve got 32gb in my old Mac mini I’ve converted into a server. Was like $20 and super easy to install
pseudocultist t1_j4sqgl4 wrote
IDK about the M2 Mini, but the M1 was not upgradeable. This is Apple's new thing, and I hate it.
alc4pwned t1_j4t3hs1 wrote
Well yeah it's an SoC. Not really possible to make that upgradeable.
lolsup1 t1_j4srsvf wrote
I imagine they both won’t be. My Mac mini is well over 10 years old
pseudocultist t1_j4ssk4b wrote
The 2022 Mac Mini spec page shows "configurable" to 32gb which is the same language as the last one. So nope, much like the Mac Studio, there will be no RAM upgrades moving forward. Also guessing they are using those custom SSDs that can't be swapped with other hard drives, like the Studio.
The Mini has always been a great product, because you can keep beefing it up, but it looks like they want them to have a short life. This is the tradeoff for the $100 price drop, I assume.
MyVoiceIsElevating t1_j4uz4jh wrote
Yes it’s all soldered. No one likes it. The only benefit is faster speeds than removable chipsets.
SpicyPepperMaster t1_j4ws0o6 wrote
> The only benefit is faster speeds than removable chipsets.
That is an unbelievably huge benefit though
MyVoiceIsElevating t1_j4xb3s8 wrote
PC users don’t care about the performance difference. Specs matter, except for when they don’t.
Raymoundgh t1_j4rdp04 wrote
Exactly! This is why I haven’t bought any new macs. This pricing is atrocious! Also the SSDs actually have a lifetime.
Nehal1802 t1_j4t2v5v wrote
So not supporting Apple but the whole “give us upgradable memory slots” is a little hard with the M series chips. The RAM/SSD/CPU/GPU is all on one chip. The design would make it impossible to allow upgrades.
Now a secondary RAM slot or SSD slot surely is possible. I’d be curious what that would do to the performance. I’m assuming part of your speed and battery life is due to everything being on one chip.
[deleted] t1_j4t3sk1 wrote
[deleted]
Nehal1802 t1_j4t9c47 wrote
That’s true but I think that was more for the slimness of machines. The Mac Mini had the upgrade slots until the M series CPUs.
Take a look at RAM upgrades on an HP. I was recently looking at an HP Zbook Fury for work. Their RAM upgrade prices were ridiculous, even more than Apple. The kicker is that the HP had RAM upgrade slots. I think more manufacturers are charging crazy amounts for memory because they can get away with it. The people of Reddit might go ahead and open a laptop and upgrade the RAM but none of my relatives will do it even though it’s possible. They’d pay the manufacturer to do it. Lots of Windows laptops are also losing upgradable RAM slots.
Now the SSD issues including where you can’t retrieve data because of the link between the T2 chip and the SSD, that’s a dick move. Louis Rossman has a video on that. From what I gathered, Apples decision means you can’t in any way retrieve the data from a MacBook that has the T2 chip if the board dies.
MidgarsJanitor t1_j4x7mod wrote
It's not for the "slimness of the machine" it's because of a unified memory architecture that's only achievable by combining components with the SoC. So many misinformed users here blasting Apple over something they don't understand at all.
danielv123 t1_j4r6dh2 wrote
Memory upgrade? Lol. Not sure if I would call it an upgrade if it can only be done from the factory.
22Sharpe t1_j4t9whw wrote
It’s the tradeoff of an SOC. Faster performance but no upgrade path post purchase. I get the argument both ways.
GrimmRadiance t1_j4r4pf7 wrote
Yup. So obnoxious
One-Gap-3915 t1_j4uaxr7 wrote
As someone who uses a Lenovo thinkpad and an (intel) MacBook Pro on a daily basis, both with 16GB ram, it’s night and day difference.
I can open as many apps as I want on the MacBook and it hardly slows, presumably macOS is very efficient at allocating memory. Meanwhile on the thinkpad it slows down after just a few applications are open.
I wondered why tech forums always obsess over memory because I’ve never found it that big a deal, but when I started using the thinkpad I realised where it came from. And this is comparing with an Intel Mac, apple silicon ones are even better apparently.
helixflush t1_j4u4zyo wrote
macOS is much more efficient than Windows lol
wadewad t1_j4u5fst wrote
real work involves more than idling the OS
helixflush t1_j4u6v0s wrote
I don't know what you mean by "real work" but it's a very capable machine with 32gb
[deleted] t1_j4vsdwk wrote
[removed]
rakehellion t1_j574hs2 wrote
Do you know of a small form factor PC with more than than? People will complain about anything.
wadewad t1_j577m54 wrote
even ultrabook form factor laptops are shipping with 64GB (see Thinkpad X1 Carbon, X1 Yoga), old ass thinkpad's like the T480 could do 2x32GB
the copium from apple fanboys is hilarious
rakehellion t1_j577t34 wrote
Macbooks ship with 96GB, but this isn't a laptop.
0000GKP t1_j4uuw0h wrote
> supports up to 32GB of memory. >
> wow! dude!
For a lot of people who would have bought the Studio for no other reason than because the Mini was limited to 16GB, this will save them $500 or more. I’m glad to see it.
HypocriticalIdiot t1_j4sxzbm wrote
I won't lie, that base mini m2 is looking pretty good for the price (especially if you can get a student discount)
The price increase on the macbooks is an ouch though... Especially since they aren't much different than the previous generation (which makes sense but still)
ardi62 t1_j4q86ip wrote
Can it run crysis?
comedycord t1_j4uu1x0 wrote
16 years later and this still gets a chuckle out of me!
[deleted] t1_j5hbjgi wrote
[removed]
MiguelDeYisus t1_j4qsftk wrote
Somehow Apple still selling 8GB base model in 2023
Youvebeeneloned t1_j4r3oit wrote
because they can with M chip. The ARM chips are significantly more efficient with memory over Intel chips. Its still stupid, but you would be surprised at how fictional 8 gigs is with a M1 vs 8 gigs with a intel chip.
To be fair with it though, even base model laptops from Dell and HP are still rolling with 8 gigs or even less.
danielv123 t1_j4r7id7 wrote
Ram usage doesn't really have anything to do with the architecture, just the software you run. The macOS doesn't use as much ram as windows and it is more liberal with suspending background applications than windows.
It also has a fast SSD to page things to, which helps.
Veranova t1_j4udhqt wrote
Given both RAM/SSD are essentially on the same chip with transfer designed to utilise the SSD under the RAM, and a much faster SSD than what you’ll find in other machines, the broader architecture absolutely affects the performance here.
Obviously they’re confusing Arm with Apple Silicon and this is what they meant
danielv123 t1_j4ufpd0 wrote
No, I am not. And no, the SSD on apple silicon is not on the SOC, although the SSD controller and RAM is.
Yes, I know that apple chips are more energy efficient than competitors. That does not change how memory works.
No, the SSD isn't much faster than what you will find in other machines either, just other similarly priced machines. It does about 1.4/1.3 GB/s while 130$ SSDs from other brands do 3 - 7GB/s.
junkie-xl t1_j4sa4qj wrote
It's not that fast tbh, slower than pcie3.0 SSDs on PC.
danielv123 t1_j4sj9le wrote
Faster than the built in SSDs you will find in windows laptops with 8gb ram.
junkie-xl t1_j4ssrll wrote
Comparing the SSD in a $400 devicea to the SSD in a $1200 device are we?
danielv123 t1_j4u3ht7 wrote
Yes, since we are comparing the amount of ram apple ships in 1200$ devices with the amount of ram other manufacturers ship in 400$ devices.
[deleted] t1_j4tcdbl wrote
[deleted]
timmeh-eh t1_j4t8xc8 wrote
This is a brand new SOC, just curious where you’re “not that fast” commentary is coming from. Im assuming you’ve benchmarked one of these just released systems? Care to share your data?
Car-face t1_j4tr5s0 wrote
They're talking about the SSD, not the SoC.
junkie-xl t1_j4u628g wrote
Keep downvoting apologists but the storage on these SoC's doesn't go over 3000MB/s. Meanwhile PCs have been enjoying 7500 for years with pcie5.0 around the corner.
agracadabara t1_j4w1cp3 wrote
That’s bullshit. The Pro and Max models will do PCI-E 4.0 speeds so 7.4 GBps.
> Meanwhile PCs have been enjoying 7500 for years
Evidence needed. How many years? List models of PCs from vendors.
junkie-xl t1_j4w2gyb wrote
Ok, then find me a single benchmark that shows M1 or M2 soc storage going over 3GBps. I don't think you understand what the T2 "security" chip does to performance.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23845748/291839779_411868900908667_5086083054058057192_n.png){kind=link}
agracadabara t1_j4w468x wrote
I said the Pro and Max model not the base M1/M2.
There is no T2 security chip on Apple Silicon Macs. You don’t seem to know much about these systems.
junkie-xl t1_j60g5zy wrote
M2 Pro vs M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14 - ACTUALLY Worse?: https://youtu.be/PgapGwkH9cU
Enjoy. (:
agracadabara t1_j60to03 wrote
ACTUALLY faster… Enjoy! :-)
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/01/24/new-macbook-pro-ssd-speeds/
Nothing to do with SOC but number of NAND chips on the board.
>“When Macworld tested with the Blackmagic disk speed app, the 16-inch MacBook Pro with M2 Pro in a 2TB storage configuration achieved a read speed of 5,372 MB/s and a write speed of 6,491 MB/s. The previous-generation 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M1 Pro chip and 1TB of storage scored a slightly higher 5,797 MB/s read speed than the 16-inch M2 Pro; however, it scored a lower write speed of 5,321 MB/s.”
Let’s see PCI-e 4.0 speeds too.
Oh look the Dell and HP laptops are ACTUALLY much SLOWER... So much for PCs have been enjoying faster speeds for years... Oops! You are still utterly clueless!
AnAverageBengali007 t1_j4u8w8s wrote
Sooo, do you have PCIE 5??
dekvik t1_j4zs7ef wrote
PCIe 5 is 14GB/s if in not mistaken.
dalizijun t1_j4s5mvl wrote
I have a M1 Pro MacBook with 16GB ram. I am constantly utilizing about ~13 GB using it. So I do think for 13 inch M2 MBP, 8GB is a bit shabby with starting price of 1299.
[deleted] t1_j4s99bx wrote
[deleted]
Youvebeeneloned t1_j4st0jy wrote
Bingo the OS is designed to utilize any available ram, and that availability drops depending on what other apps you have running in the background. It also knows to suspend apps that are not using any memory so it can’t pull from the pool.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4r6svc wrote
>The ARM chips are significantly more efficient with memory over Intel chips.
No. Stop justifying Apple's shit. My phone has 12 GB of ram.
Neg_Crepe t1_j4rg70a wrote
And performs worse than apples phone with less ram.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4ri9en wrote
Yes, the phone with an ARM vs the phone with the ARM most definitely performs way worse.
Stop being such a fanboy. Apple isn't some magical company that designs everything perfect.
Neg_Crepe t1_j4rkonf wrote
Fanboy? Lmao. As if you’re been objective buddy. My example proves to you that ram ain’t everything.
No matter how you will want to spin it, your 12gb of ram ain’t shit if it’s not the most powerful
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4rn7jc wrote
Yay, your "faster" phone is better at browsing facebook and tiktok.
Congrats, fanboy.
Now quick, your tiktok has a new challenge for you!
Neg_Crepe t1_j4rqqb6 wrote
Lmao.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4s4eg9 wrote
IKR! RAM is only going to help with the # of shit you're running, I personally barely use my phone. As far as CPU? You say the iPhone is faster? The tensor holds up pretty well, and new CPUs are coming out almost daily. But really, are you seeing "massive" difference in performance between different phone generations? Oh boy, got me on that 1 millisecond faster load time on some shitty game!
Neg_Crepe t1_j4s4pqx wrote
> The tensor holds up pretty well,
No. Stop justifying Google’s shit.
Kinkboiii t1_j4s7cg3 wrote
Tensor is actually pretty weak. Google's priority isn't the speed or power of Tensor. SD 8 Gen 2 is a much better example though it still isn't as powerful as the A16 Bionic.
[deleted] t1_j4x96uy wrote
[removed]
MidgarsJanitor t1_j4x8dt4 wrote
Have to love posts like this that are absolutely clueless. M1 has redefined the benchmark for high performance energy efficient ARM chipsets. M2 progresses further on this. The fact you're comparing it to your shitty phone processor and RAM shows you know zero about this topic.
If you hate Apple, cool. But please educate yourself or refrain from posting your highly objective and misinformed opinion.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4yewg0 wrote
Meh, no need - just trolling.
But yeah, I do hate apple. And I don't care about the M1/M2/M3/M4/M5 whatever comes out. Something better will always come out.
MidgarsJanitor t1_j4zl1wp wrote
You aren't trolling though, your knowledge is just extremely poor and you think you have a valid point but don't.
Wrong again, there is currently no ARM chip that competes with Apple Silicone. Microsoft recently launched Volta which lacks many of the unique features Apple have implemented.
faste30 t1_j4rdfr4 wrote
Mine is perfect. Its basically just a home PC, remote server management console, and former Plex (now Jellyfin, just switched) server and its never really missed a beat.
st65763 t1_j507g3j wrote
I'm using an M1 Air with 8GB and the only time I've seen it start to bog down was when trying to use Unity. That was the first time I ever had that "it's running slow because I'm running it on a laptop" feeling while using my MacBook
[deleted] t1_j5hbogu wrote
[removed]
CuriousCryptid444 t1_j4qevd0 wrote
But will civilization still crash every turn?
Grundguetiger t1_j4q8ho3 wrote
Sweet. I wait for a tear down to see if one can swap the ssd for a bigger one.
Jsmith4523 t1_j4qdaqe wrote
Highly doubtful
Grundguetiger t1_j4qiedx wrote
I too doubt it, but Apple was good for some surprises lately.
Jsmith4523 t1_j4qiut1 wrote
Giving its $499 price tag for education and $599 regular retail, I don’t think they’re gonna be nice.
I own a base model M1 Mini and the first thing I wanted to try and do was upgrade my base storage. It was clear online that it just wasn’t possible. So, best thing I did was buy an external hard drive and plus my stuff goes to the cloud anyways. Only thing that gets in the way are applications
cjcs t1_j4ry62q wrote
It's soldered in, so no.
WholeHogRawDog t1_j4s3p87 wrote
Just have to try harder
samuraipizzacat420 t1_j4yvzft wrote
just getgood at soldering
twister55555 t1_j4ra9hp wrote
This will be the deciding factor for me, I want to own the machine and be able to upgrade, I'd feel like I was renting it if not...
MyVoiceIsElevating t1_j4uzjha wrote
Answer is nope. No different from any other M series SoC Mac. Everything is within the chip, there is not an SSD or Ram soldered in the traditional sense.
ticktickboom45 t1_j4sxn72 wrote
$600 M2 is great pricing.
2001zhaozhao t1_j4qsfbn wrote
$1299 for the M2 Pro version. I think (?) that's enough to build out a windows system with a top end i9 and midrange graphics.
TbonerT OP t1_j4qwqns wrote
A core i9-13900K is going to set you back $600 + tax. A midrange graphics card is about $300. RAM is probably another $75 or so. That leaves us about $300 for Windows, storage, and a tiny motherboard. You know that motherboard is going to eat up more than the remainder. It's an interesting exercise.
2001zhaozhao t1_j4qznqi wrote
Then there's CPU cooler, case and power supply. Hmm, perhaps it's just slightly too much to fit in the $1299 budget.
TbonerT OP t1_j4r1mf7 wrote
Perhaps. Lol
alc4pwned t1_j4t46is wrote
Also, for fairness maybe you should be trying to make that work in an sff case.
2001zhaozhao t1_j4te9w4 wrote
well, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, the PC also has benefits like being upgradable
alc4pwned t1_j4tr9g2 wrote
The Mac has way better power efficiency.
Hot-Gabe4004 t1_j4rb5z5 wrote
I don’t know about a 300$ dollar gpu but everything else looks right to me.
endthepainowplz t1_j4rnkbp wrote
Not top end, but you can get a very good pc with 1,300, and it can play anything on steams library. You can’t beat windows universality and versatility.
Ch4l1t0 t1_j4sko7j wrote
I just bought a AM5 mobo with a 7600X, 32GB DDR5 ram (2x16GB), 2x 1TB M.2 drives, all for less than 900 dollars, in Argentina, where this stuff is WAY more expensive than in the US.
Next will be a 6800XT for around 600 bucks, most expensive part by far.
edit: 900 bucks. Not 350. My bad.
endthepainowplz t1_j4sphzy wrote
You got an excellent deal, enjoy your new setup, and hopefully you don’t have any headaches getting a gpu
Ch4l1t0 t1_j4sqp4c wrote
Thanks! But I just realized I made a big mistake when doing the currency conversion(I didn't buy the parts in dollars). It would be more like 900 dollars. Sorry about the confusion, seems I can't math today.
On the bright side, there seem to be a few 6800xt available so getting the gpu shouldn't be too much of a problem :)
endthepainowplz t1_j4wkhpm wrote
Sounds great and more reasonable, still a good price too.
TbonerT OP t1_j4rr5cg wrote
You can certainly get a good PC for $1,300 but it won't perform as well. Apple runs Windows better than similarly-priced laptops.
endthepainowplz t1_j4rveiw wrote
Arm processors are great, but a lot of software isn’t built with that architecture in mind, so I don’t think apple is the best all around. Though they are becoming more intriguing every generation.
Youvebeeneloned t1_j4r3dhw wrote
Not likely... Maybe i5 or i7 but certainly not a i9, and certainly not in that form factor.
danielv123 t1_j4r73s1 wrote
I spent about 1.7k on a 7900x at launch with 64gb 6000mhz cl30-35-35-56 ram and a 1000w Corsair PSU, noctua cooler and rackmount case. It is a bit cheaper now, but you can't go top end for 1299 anymore.
My build is cheaper than 64gb ram from apple though.
2001zhaozhao t1_j4r8z6r wrote
But if we work down from your build-
- 16gb ram instead of 64: $225 less
- 650w psu instead of 1000w: $50 less
- normal case instead of rack mount: $50 less?
- dual tower cooler from a cheaper brand: $40 less
Now your build is suddenly around 1.3k rather than 1.7k. also I'm pretty sure you can get a 7950x for close to 7900x's launch price nowadays.
danielv123 t1_j4sla8k wrote
>16gb ram instead of 64: $225 less
Actually 400$ less if you go for cheap ram, but fast ram has a big performance impact for my workload. I did try some cheap sticks from a friend but got 40% extra performance with this set.
> 650w psu instead of 1000w: $50 less
Fair, but I got it for 100$ so I am happy with it. Cheapest 650w PSU I can find in local market is 75$.
Normal case could have been as much as 150$ less, but space also has a price. I now have 4 easily accessible machines stacked in one cabinet with cable management built in.
Cheaping out on the cooler was an option, but cheap coolers usually have awkward mounting hardware when changing platforms. Only reason I didn't ziptie on my old cooler was because it wouldn't fit in the case. Most cheap high performance tower coolers are also too tall and this machine runs 24/7, so I went with a good one.
Here is the full budget for my build:
https://i.imgur.com/ZqsAGbK.png
I also have some network cards, nvme risers etc that aren't factored in because I have borrowed them from other stuff.
People have different needs, and this machine is a great fit for mine.
2001zhaozhao t1_j4slzjw wrote
Yeah I'm not arguing with what you did, Im just saying that changing it to be similar to the mac mini would yield a similar price to the mac mini.
chickenlittle53 t1_j4si03q wrote
Most folks do not need 64GB of RAM and most claiming tend to not need to either. RAM has gotten a ton cheaper even DDR5 and most don't need more than 16GB for what they do and won't even use much more. Same for CPU. Can go longer as most people just game as their most intensive task. You don't tend to need 1000W either.
So basically, you can build much cheaper than $1700 and definitely hit a higher quality build. Especially when you're comparing it to apple which typically has just flat out dumb prices for basic spec upgrades. Windows is gonna be cheaper 99% of the time.
danielv123 t1_j4sirs1 wrote
Big difference between cheaper than mac and high end pc though. You can definitely beat a mac in performance for the same price but that isn't what was discussed.
chickenlittle53 t1_j4t6iva wrote
Guess it depends on what you mean by "high end" as people have different use cases for a PC and what one may consider "high end" won't do much for another's use case.
Second, of we're talking most people, you earnestly paid waay more for things that won't benefit them at all. There is simply no benefit to most people having 64GB of RAM period let alone DDR5 that still does not do much at their CL rate to really justify a vast difference in price for most. So paying top end for the same benefits overall is silly in most cases anyhow.
I bring that up to point out a few fallacies in your claim if you're talking about spending more money meaning "high end." I also find it odd that you don't categorize high performance with high end when those are hand and hand. Almost no one's definition of high end is going to include low performance and consider it "high end." That wouldn't even make sense.
You brought up PC which can be customized to meet exactly what you need and want and much cheaper therefore bringing a ton of value period. No one is saying Mac is horrible, but the moment you start bringing price into this and comparing apples to apples spec wise PC can wn out there due to the nature of being able forever upgrade and find plenty if sales in the process. Mac is much more closed off. If you're buying Mac in this case, it tends to be for niche reasons. Bathing wring with it, but just came across as if you were trying to bring price into this and bringing up specs as if you have to spend $1700 to get a very nice PC that is high end still. With the plethora of options out there thst simply isn't true.
FStubbs t1_j4s550a wrote
I'd like to see how powerful this thing is graphically. The M1s challenged some of the mid-tier GPUs IIRC.
wholewheatwithPB t1_j4qcno8 wrote
Things that were not needed: the second part of the sentence.
[deleted] t1_j4qja2p wrote
[deleted]
ricecanister t1_j4r3rli wrote
lol yeah... and isn't powerful and capable essentially the same thing?
wholewheatwithPB t1_j4rhs3d wrote
Apple PR team in here posting this shit and downvoting people who call it out
kingofwale t1_j4siota wrote
Is the memory still user upgradable?
roneyxcx t1_j4tde0y wrote
No, it's even mentioned when you try to pick memory.
>Note: Unified memory is not user accessible. If you think you’ll need additional memory, consider upgrading at the time of purchase.
dandroid126 t1_j5cgygb wrote
It's built in to the SoC right? If true, it's definitely not user upgradable, even if you have the ability to desolder and solder RAM.
roneyxcx t1_j5chtbl wrote
Yup, and people asking for upgradability in unified memory is like asking upgradability for graphics memory in Nvidia GTX 3080 or any other graphics card.
dandroid126 t1_j5ckhau wrote
Right, exactly. And if I remember correctly from my days as an engineering student, there is a huge benefit in speed to having the memory physically close to the CPU, as it is in the M series processors. The same reason L1, L2, and L3 cache exist. The tradeoff is that it isn't user upgradable.
MadOrange64 t1_j552gmy wrote
I'm getting the base M2 Mac Mini.
MacSquawk t1_j4rq15h wrote
For a home system the low ram usually won’t be noticed. For a work system you won’t know why your app keeps locking up or crashing or choking on the biggest files. When it’s new you won’t notice because you’ll chalk it up to bugs in apps not updated yet but a year in when it’s stable it will choke on you when you are constantly using most of its ram for the apps you use daily. It’s the ram and limited hard drives space. So you are looking at a minimum $500 up charge to have a work capable workhorse. Paying $500 more for a Mac over base price has been almost mandatory (if you let Apple do your upgrades) for decades. It’s their best grift outside of having very low cost production costs for the higher quality materials and production labor they use. Not upgrading ram and drive space on a Mac is really a waste of a computer because they are extremely capable systems when maxed out. Apple is counting on this to make the biggest profits from the cheapest to upgrade components.
marklondon66 t1_j4s3wjh wrote
What the hell are you talking about.
I use off the shelf base Macs for intensive 4k,6k,8k editing as is.
MacSquawk t1_j5a0wg6 wrote
Some Adobe products also used for things much simpler than video editing can choke on systems with low ram. So in your case there are physical chips on the board that make your application faster and the software takes advantage of it. In other industries the software is not optimized so it is heavily dependent on ram size and single core processor speeds. It’s nice you can make your little videos quickly but the same computer gets noticeably underwhelming on a one gigabyte graphics file over a network and not much faster on the internal drive. Not every Mac app is optimized for all the cores and Mac only features the hardware has. The same graphics program runs better on a PC because Adobe spends more resources optimizing it there so it runs more smoothly on slower systems. It’s the same trick Apple used on video apps to make them faster. What I was saying doesn’t apply to you so I wasn’t talking to you. I’m not complaining that my YouTube videos are slow on a stock machine. But it would be nice for a system that can edit 8k video also open and save a graphics file just as smoothly and not need to get one with max ram just to work on the big files. I use my intel Mac with more ram to open those when the M1 doesn’t cut it. I shouldn’t have to if apples minimum ram wasn’t still 8 gigabytes so they can upsell you on ram or planned obsolescence kicks in.
marklondon66 t1_j5av8p3 wrote
I also work with 85-220mb photo files. Since early 2022 on a base M1 in Lightroom & Photoshop.
I put together 400 page books (3 so far) in Affinity Publisher on it.
Looking forward to picking up an M2 Macbook shortly.
I get your point; of course I could build a mega PC that would probably be faster. But if I'm able to do what I need to do, earn my living and create art on Macs, I see no real need to change.
[deleted] t1_j4t8n6t wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4t8qfe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4xp523 wrote
[removed]
zippyzoodles t1_j54a6mz wrote
Too bad MacOS sucks.
[deleted] t1_j5h9ncy wrote
[removed]
kurf t1_j4tp88k wrote
Meh
willpowerpt t1_j4sp5fc wrote
Still can’t play games. Plus current PCs support up to 128gb of memory.
tepig099 t1_j4uk33l wrote
I think most Mac Users haven’t been gamers for a while.
[deleted] t1_j4qb14c wrote
[removed]
TbonerT OP t1_j4qbtxu wrote
Isn't that what r/Gadgets basically is? Did you complain about the Nova earrings, the Walkman, the Google TV remote, the Razer soundbar, the XGIMI lamp, the Samsung Galaxy Buds 2 Pro, the Intel, or the Galaxy S23 posts? Those are all in the hot 25 posts right now and basically ads.
wadewad t1_j4q8wul wrote
>supports up to 32GB of memory.
wow! dude!
/s