• Shadywack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s not that it’s more efficient, it’s simply used less than in conventional PC architecture.

    It’s not that you’re wrong from a philosophical perspective with that, it’s that you’re factually incorrect. Memory addresses don’t suddenly shrink or expand depending on where they exist on the bus or the CPU. Being on the SoC doesn’t magically make RAM used less by the OS and applications, as the mach kernel, Darwin, and various MacOS layers still address the same amount of memory as they would on traditional PC architecture.

    Memory is memory, just like glass is glass, and glass will still scratch at a level 7 just like 8GB of RAM holds the same amount of information as…8GB of RAM.

    The article actually quantitatively tests this too by pointing out their memory usage with Chrome and different numbers of tabs open.

    Looks like you didn’t read the article.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      8 months ago

      You should familiarize yourself with the architecture before commenting. The GPU is broken into several cores of the SoC, along with the roles of the CPU. The UM is not part of the SoC. However, data is passed from what could be referred to as the CPU to what could be referred to as the GPU without interacting with UM.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m actually deeply familiar with the architecture, and how caches, memory, and UM’s work. I understand all of that. None of that changes the storage available. Having high memory bandwidth to load/unload memory addresses doesn’t fix the issue of the environment easily exceeding 8GB. I also understand the caching principles and how you actually want RAM utilization to be higher for faster responsiveness. 8GB is still 8GB, and a joke.

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            A weeklong battery life, efficient cores, rapid response time, and great software environment make it a great choice…at 16GB for my needs. I will not recommend 8GB to any user at all going forward. It’s marketing malarkey with no future proofing, degrading the viable longevity of the machine.

            There’s no conversation to continue. Glass is glass, and 8GB is 8GB, as well as being a joke.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              26
              ·
              8 months ago

              If it’s great for your needs, the base model isn’t for you. You can stream video with have 30 tabs open in Safari and only use 4.6GB of UM on an M1 Mac. I just verified for you.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  18
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  That’s on my M1 Mac Mini that I use as a server. I use an M2 with 16GB of UM for FCP, PS, and Logic Pro.